Question - What do you consider "useless items" on IT cars?

[Ron Earp]

Along the same vein as the other thread, what do you consider useless items on an IT car, that is, items that we do not need and do not offer any competitive advantage. I just thought I'd help collect some data for the other thread.

Please, don't digress into a discussion of agreeing or disagreeing with a particular item being made non-maditory, just put down what you think. Personally my car will have lots of these since it'll be titled and driven on the street, but doesn't mean I don't consider them useless for a race car in many instances.
--
*Washer bottles
*OEM wiring harnesses
*Windshield wipers/motors
*Any and all controls/switches/gauges for anything not kept working in the car for whatever reason.
*Glass in any doors
*Window mechanisms
*All emissions related equipment (covered I know)
*All lights except for brake lights

---


------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning Tow Beast
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
260Z ITS - Just call me fireball!

[jhooten]

Factory door panels

door glass and mechanism

dome light wiring

While I keep mine for the defroster/defogger, if you can bypass the heater core it should be removable.

Glove box door

Unleaded fuel filler restrictor

electric door locks

body side moldings

I'm sure I think of something else later.

[JeffYoung]

At the moment, my transmission.

[ShelbyRacer]

Everything between the steering wheel and the seat back brace...

Sorry Ron, I just had to...

Seriously-
OEM wiring
stock length shifters (man I almost spelled that without the "f")

AND

stock crank pullies for the rest of this year!


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

[Knestis]

To be fair, I'll add...

** Theft deterrent systems that all cars on my spec line seem to have come with

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

K

[Ron Earp]

So, does that about cover it? I don't see a single thing here that would turn IT into production nor do I think it would result in huge rules creep.

R

------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning Tow Beast
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
260Z ITS - Just call me fireball!

[Andy Bettencourt]

When you total up the list, make sure you eliminate stuff that is already removable under the rules.

* Body side moldings
* Emissions stuff
* Dome light wiring
* Door panels** (both removable with the installation of other items)

AB

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

[RacerBill]

I don't know if they are already covered in the rules (I am only a freshman rules geek), but in the process of preparing my car, I see a lot of little pieces of metal hanging about that were used to mount legally removable items (rear seat, floor consol, etc.) I would like to remove them just because I don't want to have to worry about getting my clothing (or skin) caught on them if I were bouncing around inside the car. No wise cracks about why I would be bouncing around inside...

[Knestis]

When not constrained by rules, we cut more than 20 pounds of unused brackets out of a MkII Golf shell to go rallying.

K

[Geo]

Andy,

How can someone legally remove the dome light wiring?



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

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Geo:
Andy,

How can someone legally remove the dome light wiring?


"Carpets, center consoles, floor mats, headliners, sunroof liner and frame, dome lights, grab handles, and thier insulating, attaching or operating machanisms may be removed."

Would the wires to the dome light not be considered part of its operating mechanism? Could you easily say that the wires do some INSULATING? Without the wires, the dome light can't operate...or are we taking the literal definition of mechanism on it's own?

mech·a·nism
Pronunciation: 'me-k&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
1 a : a piece of machinery b : a process or technique for achieving a result
2 : mechanical operation or action : WORKING 2
3 : a doctrine that holds natural processes (as of life) to be mechanically determined and capable of complete explanation by the laws of physics and chemistry
4 : the fundamental physical or chemical processes involved in or responsible for an action, reaction, or other natural phenomenon (as organic evolution)

I could be convinced otherwise but that is how I slice it and dice it!

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 22, 2005).]

[Geo]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
"Carpets, center consoles, floor mats, headliners, sunroof liner and frame, dome lights, grab handles, and thier insulating, attaching or operating machanisms may be removed."

Would the wires to the dome light not be considered part of its operating mechanism? Could you easily say that the wires do some INSULATING? Without the wires, the dome light can't operate...or are we taking the literal definition of mechanism on it's own?

That sounds a lot like the "a switch is an instrument argument." http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Wires are wires.

------------------
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 22, 2005).]

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Geo:
That sounds a lot like the "a switch is an instrument argument." http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Wires are wires.


A switch is an instrument George. Only GCR Nazi's say otherwize.
GRJ

[Ron Earp]

Don't drag this disucssion off to left field too.

Just write down things that you think are useless to have on IT cars and move on. If you think we need everything on the car that comes with the car then you clearly don't need to post here.

I'm just trying to help those that are wishing to write the CRB on the issue to formulate to hard and clear things to be removed or changed. I'm sure any new requests would always include the words "and associated wiring" since we've been down this road at least twice since I've been on the board, not long.

Ron

------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning Tow Beast
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
260Z ITS - Just call me fireball!

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited February 23, 2005).]

[Spinnetti]

Remember the origins of IT?
Some years ago, the same folks came up with a spec Corolla class where every thing was pretty much stock except springs, bars, shocks, tires, wheels, header/exhaust but you could gut the rest.

This is where I think IT should be. I wouln't allow coilovers, or equiv., or much of anything else, but you should be able to gut the car - all interior, brackets, accesories, heater whatever, however you need to down to a minimum weight.

It appears to me that the SCCA is more interested in protecting sacred cows than fun racing - I'm looking for the lightest most reliable and easiest to repair possible. The light weight takes stress off stock components you might otherwise need to upgrade, and the simplicy of maintenance of a gutted car can't be beat.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Spinnetti:
I wouln't allow coilovers, or equiv., or much of anything else, ..... It appears to me that the SCCA is more interested in protecting sacred cows than fun racing...

"Fun racing" is very subjective... Personally, I don't see what is so much "fun" about racing a car with a stock suspension... Given the choice of bolting on a set of nice racing coilovers, and chopping the crap out of a perfectly good car, I'll take the coilovers every time...

The class you describe sounds a lot like the NASCAR Mini-Stock class that used to run at the Everygreen Speedway in Monroe, WA 20-years ago... YUK!



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

[Spinnetti]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
"Fun racing" is very subjective... Personally, I don't see what is so much "fun" about racing a car with a stock suspension... Given the choice of bolting on a set of nice racing coilovers, and chopping the crap out of a perfectly good car, I'll take the coilovers every time...

The class you describe sounds a lot like the NASCAR Mini-Stock class that used to run at the Everygreen Speedway in Monroe, WA 20-years ago... YUK!


Funny. Actually I was more commenting on how the SCCA says the 'intent of the class' all the time, then doesn't allow easy cheap mods, but allows ecu mods and coilovers.

Don't get me wrong, I've done it all, and other than the fact that my car is now long in the tooth, I've always run up front. Its just that what gets allowed or not is crazy.
I can't move my battery for better safety and handling at practically 0 cost, but I can modify my ecu and run coilovers, both of which are very expensive..

Hmm.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by grjones1:

A switch is an instrument George. Only GCR Nazi's say otherwize.
GRJ

Until such time that you can actually read a GCR definition, or such time that you successfully petition the ITAC and CRB to change same definition, I suggest you stop calling us all "GCR Nazis" .

I find that statement to be totally inappropriate and distasteful.

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited February 27, 2005).]

[Geo]

Originally posted by Spinnetti:
Funny. Actually I was more commenting on how the SCCA says the 'intent of the class' all the time, then doesn't allow easy cheap mods, but allows ecu mods and coilovers.

I started to write a long response, but it just got to be too long. The statement of intent is certainly can be interpreted differently by different people. Remember that the intent is to restrict mods. What is inexpensive is also certainly open to different interpretation. To someone racing a Formula Atlantic, even a turn-key championship winning E36 is cheap.

Getting down to the specifics you mentioned, coilovers are way cheaper than having a butt-load of custom springs made with different rates and ride heights.

The ECU rule is problematic. I philosophically agree with Bill Miller (require bone stock ECUs), but pragmatically this is unenforceable. I've yet to see another way to word the ruling to restrict this that works despite some excellent efforts.

I personally don't see the safety issue with leaving the battery where it is, and can see potential safety issues with moving it. As for performance benefits, that's a non-issue.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. When we talk about intent we talk about a rather undefined concept that everyone has a different concept of. And that is one reason we have as many people as we do on the advisory committe.


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

[GKR_17]

The horn is pretty useless in an IT car, especially when many change out the steering wheel for one without buttons.

[Spinnetti]

Originally posted by Geo:
I personally don't see the safety issue with leaving the battery where it is, and can see potential safety issues with moving it.

George,

You didn't have your car catch on fire and have battery acid spewed all over when it got crushed on your car did you? - I did. All this blather about constantly replacing belts and nets, and helmets etc, but a 50lb acid missile off the front fender is not a safety hazard?

I have no animosity about it, and SCCA currently provides the closest to what I like about modifying cars and the racing environment, so thats why I'm here. Believe it or not, I also think due to the hard work of you all and many others that IT just keeps getting better (removal of headliner and passenger seats amongst some of the changes I like).

I may be in the minority, but I enjoy the machine probably more than the racing. I want it to be as fast as possible. I find it annoying however that my street rides are modified well beyond my race car, and so are most kids cars these days...

Anyhow, I know everybody wants the class to be what they want, and we all won't be happy, but my goals are simple:

> I want the FASTEST car possible as CHEAPLY as possible, easy to maintain and with the most competetive racing. To this end, I want:
- Remove all non-racing parts if you want - horn, windshield wiper bottle, any wiring you don't want, any interior you don't want etc (bodywork rules as is though).
- Keep the suspension mods/wheels/tires as is - you can have lots of fun where things are now (I wouldn't have allowed coil-overs, but either way I'll pay and play in that arena)
- Keep the engine mods as is (I wouldn't have allowed any ecu mods, but its not like I have any say)
- Allow relocation of battery (already said my piece here)
- Keep cage about the same, but let there be more tubes, including thorugh the firewall. I wouldn't change mine, but if people want more safety and rigidity for a weight penalty, by all means
- Use restrictors (not weight), and balance cars.
I think it sucks that SCCA just provides a place to race your one-eyed orphan with little adjustment. If the SCCA will class it, they should find a way that people can play on a level playing field. Many other orgaizations have found a way, and looking at what the roundy-round guys do should give some tips - somebody is too fast? allow manditory trading of ecus if somebody requests - no incentive to cheat then..

Thats about it. Nothing really radical, and since everybody is having their say, no harm in having mine. I have spent 12years in IT/A, so feel I have some relavance to the game.

I do think there are probably enough classes though. Its hard enough for regions to put on all these sessions as it is, but there has got to be a way to keep it fun for folks.

Those who say any change will lead to IT becomming practically FA or something (a lot of people here) - I can only say that time marches on and change is gonna happen. Also, this line of reasoning is a logical fallacy called 'Non Causa Pro Causa' see here for more: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/noncause.html

However it falls, as long as its still fun I'll keep coming back.

Cheers,

Dave.

[ddewhurst]

***Those who say any change will lead to IT becomming practically FA or something (a lot of people here) - I can only say that time marches on and change is gonna happen.***

Dave, not knocking your statement. Just using your statement because it's similar to ideas others have. If people think it's ok to constantly make changes & make their IT cars races cars then why is/was Spec Racer Ford, Spec Miata, the new SCCA club racer, Spec mazda (open wheel) & other tightly ruled classes so popular.

The most usless item in an IT race car is the hand held fire extingusher for driver safety. That people (Andy, Geo, Darin, protester Bob) is a F**KING joke. & K. don't start your $hit about two fire extingushers.

Have Fun http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif
David

[grjones1]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Until such time that you can actually read a GCR definition, or such time that you successfully petition the ITAC and CRB to change same definition, I suggest you stop calling us all "GCR Nazis" .

I find that statement to be totally inappropriate and distasteful.


Oh I can read Jake, and I can think. Try it.

The term in today's parlance simply refers to anyone who unjustly attempts to impose his will on another through bullying tactics. And I believe when people are refusing to recognize an expert, certified, and generally recognized definition of a term except in a curiously inaccurately scribbled definition in the GCR Glossary, they are bullying. If you feel the term was aimed at you, I suggest you do some soul-searching. And I must say I find its use far less inappropriate and distasteful than misquoting and misinterpreting another person's remarks for your own purposes - that's downright unethical.
Now I earnestly apologize for having to defend myself in an otherwize interesting discussion. Please carry on.
GRJ

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Spinnetti:
George,


Anyhow, I know everybody wants the class to be what they want, and we all won't be happy, but my goals are simple:

> I want the FASTEST car possible as CHEAPLY as possible, easy to maintain and with the most competetive racing. To this end, I want:

- Keep cage about the same, but let there be more tubes, including thorugh the firewall. I wouldn't change mine, but if people want more safety and rigidity for a weight penalty, by all means
- Use restrictors (not weight), and balance cars.
If the SCCA will class it, they should find a way that people can play on a level playing field. Many other orgaizations have found a way, and looking at what the roundy-round guys do should give some tips - somebody is too fast? allow manditory trading of ecus if somebody requests - no incentive to cheat then..


Those who say any change will lead to IT becomming practically FA or something (a lot of people here) - I can only say that time marches on and change is gonna happen. Also, this line of reasoning is a logical fallacy called 'Non Causa Pro Causa' see here for more: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/noncause.html

However it falls, as long as its still fun I'll keep coming back.

Cheers,

Dave.


Dave, while I agree in part, let me comment on some idssues with some of your ideas. I think that one thing that needs to be kept in mind when changing rules is the effect it will have on the existing population.

Will the proposed rules change affect the competitive balance? Will the rules change be fair across the board to all cars? (the current ECU rule is a classic example of a rules change that failed both of those litmus tests.)

That said, think about the roll cage idea. Some cars could benefit greatly from increased front structure stiffenting, so there may be an issue with unequal performance gains. More importantly, many cages would have been designed differently if the maker knew additional front structure would be allowed. Allowing it after the fact is unfair to the existing population. Also, how does the weight penalty figure in? What if some cars can make min weight with, others without? Finally, I think the idea does run counter to the "simple and cheap" concept ...Adding such bars is, to a lot of IT racers, beyond simple nor will it be cheap.

Using restrictors is, I think, beyond the capability (sorry guys) of the ITAC as the sheer number of models that need to be adjusted is just too great.

And I think the ECU trade concept falls short of practicality as well, again due to the sheer number of models that are out there racing.

Trust me, I have some real gripes and concerns with the way the club has done business in the past, as well as now, but I have yet to find a category in any other organization that seeks to do what IT does.


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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by lateapex911:

one thing that needs to be kept in mind when changing rules is the effect it will have on the existing population.


My problem with this is I can't think of any rule (change or otherwise) that will uniformly benefit all cars in a category (other than a spec class).
One could automatically dismiss any rule change on the grounds that it doesn't affect a certain car in the class as well as another (e.g,.can't remove the passenger glass because the Nissan glass is heavier than the VW's - won't apply evenly.) In fact you could say that about any rule already in the ITCS, e.g., the .25 head milling doesn't do a thing for me, Fiestas use flat heads, so cutting the head will not raise my compression the .5 everyone else is getting. And I'm not whining, I'nm just making a point. I know no one told me I had to race a Fiesta.
GRJ

[Spinnetti]

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Dave, not knocking your statement. Just using your statement because it's similar to ideas others have. If people think it's ok to constantly make changes & make their IT cars races cars then why is/was Spec Racer Ford, Spec Miata, the new SCCA club racer, Spec mazda (open wheel) & other tightly ruled classes so popular.

The most usless item in an IT race car is the hand held fire extingusher for driver safety. That people (Andy, Geo, Darin, protester Bob) is a F**KING joke. & K. don't start your $hit about two fire extingushers.
[/B]

Well, you are right. Stable rules are important. If they froze today, I could live with it, and the spec classes are a nice way to keep creep down, but I enjoy the greater creativity (IMO anyway) that different types of cars and different solutions provide (too much of an individualist I guess).

Anyway, I guess agreeing doesn't make an interesting read as some of these posts!

Not clear what the beef is on the fire ex. stuff is. I don't really care if I have one at all, but I did get a real fire system and pointed one at the dash, and another at the fuel cell for what its worth.

I find if sad-funny that the billy-bob racing crowd as put a lot more miles and and no doubt a lot more smiles down than we have, and with less cost to get on the track and argueably for a lot less hassle and cost.

[Spinnetti]

Originally posted by grjones1:

Originally posted by lateapex911:

one thing that needs to be kept in mind when changing rules is the effect it will have on the existing population.


My problem with this is I can't think of any rule (change or otherwise) that will uniformly benefit all cars in a category (other than a spec class).
One could automatically dismiss any rule change on the grounds that it doesn't affect a certain car in the class as well as another (e.g,.can't remove the passenger glass because the Nissan glass is heavier than the VW's - won't apply evenly.) In fact you could say that about any rule already in the ITCS, e.g., the .25 head milling doesn't do a thing for me, Fiestas use flat heads, so cutting the head will not raise my compression the .5 everyone else is getting. And I'm not whining, I'nm just making a point. I know no one told me I had to race a Fiesta.
GRJ



Totally true, but why should an adjusment be equal for everybody? Battery relocation won't help BMW, and ECU mods didn't help me, but the already dominant Hondas just got more dominant.

That just goes to my point that there should be comp adjustment in IT - otherwise, why bother to have all these discussions at all? Just run what you brung, and enjoy being last unless you are in the car of the moment.

How about using an indexing system like PAX that auto-x guys often use? its one way to equalize or handicap the real world without lots of physical adjustments?

[Ron Earp]

And yet another thread run amuck....

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Spinnetti:
George,

You didn't have your car catch on fire and have battery acid spewed all over when it got crushed on your car did you? - I did. All this blather about constantly replacing belts and nets, and helmets etc, but a 50lb acid missile off the front fender is not a safety hazard?

First, this is a moot point, because you are now allowed to replace your "dangerous" lead-acid battery with one of a "safer" type... READ your 2005 ITCS/GCR...

Second... HOW is it safer to have that 50lb missile mounted INSIDE the driver's compartment, where a good % of you would go to Shucks and buy a plastic boat-box and hold the battery down to the floor with a pair of 3/16" diameter bent steel rod and stamped out sheet-metal wing-nuts???

Follow the rules and use an allowed alternative battery and there is no longer an issue with "safety" of battery mounting... AND, we won't have a set of battery relocation rules to clog up the message boards with blather about how we "should have" worded them this way or that...

------------------
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 28, 2005).]

[Knestis]

In the missed-point department today...


Originally posted by Spinnetti:
... Those who say any change will lead to IT becomming practically FA or something (a lot of people here) - I can only say that time marches on and change is gonna happen. Also, this line of reasoning is a logical fallacy called 'Non Causa Pro Causa' see here for more: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/noncause.html


First, I nobody said that. Second, you are off-base on a couple of levels about that argument - were it made - being false non causa.

In an organizational culture like the SCCA, those "gateway" rules changes are not "causes" of the ultimate evolution of the catagory: They are necessary-but-not-sufficient preconditions. It will NOT follow naturally that IT cars will get Production-ized if the CRB makes any further allowances, but it IS safe to say that by leaving the current rules essentially where they are, it becomes impossible for that to happen.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif : ... K. don't start your $hit about two fire extingushers.</font>

My handheld extinguisher is for car safety, not driver safety. If someone wants to pop an onboard fire system for a carb, brake, or grass fire, they can go for it. My guess is that it won't help AND they'll get to clean Purple K out of every crevace after the corner workers take care of it.

It's unfortunate that some think their ideas are "opinion" and others' are "shit."

K

[Ron Earp]

On board fire systems definitely help - coming from one that had to use his last weekend at CMP for a good sized carb fire. Good thing to have and well worth the money. No way a handheld would do what it did under these circumstances and not having the on board would have resulted in a lot more damage than what we have.

Ron

------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning Tow Beast
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
260Z ITS - Just call me fireball!

[ddewhurst]

Kirk, it's because you always THINK you have the only valued opinion answers. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif I have finished 38 races & looked at lots of cars since I started in year 2000. Never viewed or heard of a carb, brake, or grass fire & IMHJ you are the only person who has such a narrow opinion that values two fire extingushers. Do you have two fuel pumps, two oil pumps, two water pumps, two this that & everything else? Must be a bit*h making weight.

Have Fun http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif
David

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Spinnetti:
Totally true, but why should an adjusment be equal for everybody? Battery relocation won't help BMW, and ECU mods didn't help me, but the already dominant Hondas just got more dominant.

That just goes to my point that there should be comp adjustment in IT - otherwise, why bother to have all these discussions at all? Just run what you brung, and enjoy being last unless you are in the car of the moment.

How about using an indexing system like PAX that auto-x guys often use? its one way to equalize or handicap the real world without lots of physical adjustments?

Spinneti,
You realize of course I was disputing Jake's take on the proposition. His remarks suggest that if a rule does not apply equally to all cars in a category, it cannot be considered, and my point is that no rules ever apply equally to all cars (of different makes)in a category. So his position would automatically disallow any rule change - a preposterous condition.

GRJ

[Knestis]

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
... I have finished 38 races & looked at lots of cars since I started in year 2000. Never viewed or heard of a carb, brake, or grass fire & IMHJ you are the only person who has such a narrow opinion that values two fire extingushers. ...

Wow - that's almost five whole years, son! http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

Remember me when you do see one of those merry little blazes.

Kirk (who thinks it's ironic that he's now having to defend having too MUCH fire safety to Mr. D.)

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited February 28, 2005).]

[Joe Harlan]

I guess I am the lucky one having been on fire 3 times in my history....used a firesystem every time.

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
First, this is a moot point, because you are now allowed to replace your "dangerous" lead-acid battery with one of a "safer" type... READ your 2005 ITCS/GCR...

Second... HOW is it safer to have that 50lb missile mounted INSIDE the driver's compartment, where a good % of you would go to Shucks and buy a plastic boat-box and hold the battery down to the floor with a pair of 3/16" diameter bent steel rod and stamped out sheet-metal wing-nuts???

Follow the rules and use an allowed alternative battery and there is no longer an issue with "safety" of battery mounting... AND, we won't have a set of battery relocation rules to clog up the message boards with blather about how we "should have" worded them this way or that...


Now of course, Darin, there is always the "cheaper" argument to unfold here. The new rule allows us to spend money (the least expensive "non-lead-acid" battery I've seen for my car costs a minimum of twice as much as a standard one)to be safer, but does not allow a less expensive method of moving the standard battery to the trunk, where although in some cases that would be considered part of the driver's compartment, it's a region that probably would protect the battery from dislodging better than under the hood (fewer "direct hits").
I respectfully submit that a little forethought in this instance would have given us the option of being safer less expensively.

GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 28, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 28, 2005).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by grjones1:
... but does not allow a less expensive method of moving the standard battery to the trunk, where although in some cases that would be considered part of the driver's compartment, it's a region that probably would protect the battery from dislodging better than under the hood (fewer "direct hits").
I respectfully submit that a little forethought in this instance would have given us the option of being safer less expensively.



1) How many SCCA cars in IT have "trunks"???
2) How is having acid mounted anywhere behind the driver safer than having it in front?
3) Since when do IT drivers know more about safety than Automotive Industry engineers? I believe they've done more crash testing than you have...
4) Show me how it's "cheaper" to move a battery than it is to buy a proper one in the first place... Think carefully, because if you say anything resembling using a cheap Shucks battery box, you are proving my point... and I do know how much the "good" battery boxes cost, so with one of those, you will again prove my point...

The more we let you mess with things, the more likely there is to be problems/safety issues...

Any cost issue associated with putting in a Gel-Cel battery vs. "safely" moving the battery somewhere else doesn't hold water in this arguement...

Nice try though...


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

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
I guess I am the lucky one having been on fire 3 times in my history....used a firesystem every time.



Think I got all of you beat. No races, one attempt, and one fire - damn glad to have the system too!!!

Races 0 , Fire 1

R


------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning Tow Beast
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
260Z ITS - Just call me fireball!

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
1) How many SCCA cars in IT have "trunks"???
2) How is having acid mounted anywhere behind the driver safer than having it in front?
3) Since when do IT drivers know more about safety than Automotive Industry engineers? I believe they've done more crash testing than you have...
4) Show me how it's "cheaper" to move a battery than it is to buy a proper one in the first place... Think carefully, because if you say anything resembling using a cheap Shucks battery box, you are proving my point... and I do know how much the "good" battery boxes cost, so with one of those, you will again prove my point...

The more we let you mess with things, the more likely there is to be problems/safety issues...

Any cost issue associated with putting in a Gel-Cel battery vs. "safely" moving the battery somewhere else doesn't hold water in this arguement...

Nice try though...



1)All IT cars have "trunks, it's just that some are open to the passenger compartment. (However with their floors usually lower than, and out of direct line with, the driver - a position that is in a relatively distant and protected area from the driver.)

2)and 3) Are you telling me BMW with their series and the new Mini, and even British Leyland in 1965 with the MGB, and others did not consult their engineers or failed do do crash tests when they placed their batteries in the trunks?!!

4)If you can "trust" us to put in fuel cells, you can trust us to construct a viable battery box (that's also why we have tech inspectors).
As far as cost, I really don't know either not having been allowed to use a box, I haven't looked into pricing one. But I bet I can relocate the battery and cover it securely and safely for less than the $200+ the Optimas cost. And I really don't understand why I shouldn't have had the choice. Darin, you know I respect your opinion, but you are beginning to sound a little condescending.

GRJ

[Geo]

Originally posted by rlearp:
Think I got all of you beat. No races, one attempt, and one fire - damn glad to have the system too!!!

Races 0 , Fire 1

R





British sports cars..... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/rolleyes.gif http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif (I'm just needling you Ron).


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

[lateapex911]

1)All IT cars have "trunks, it's just that some are open to the passenger compartment. (However with their floors usually lower than, and out of direct line with, the driver - a position that is in a relatively distant and protected area from the driver.)


key word, "relatively", but we're splitting hairs here..




As far as cost, I really don't know either not having been allowed to use a box, I haven't looked into pricing one. But I bet I can relocate the battery and cover it securely and safely for less than the $200+ the Optimas cost. And I really don't understand why I shouldn't have had the choice. Darin, you know I respect your opinion, but you are beginning to sound a little condescending.

GRJ




Well, as you admit to not knowing, here is a little math. Optima battery the last time I got ne was about $130 or so. Equivilent not POS battery, (why would you put a POS in a race car? bad place to save $)...is about $60 or $70. So, the difference is $65. By the time you get done buying a good box, longer cable, brackets, hardware, and so on, much if not all of that $65 has been spent.

Add to that hours saved dicking around on a boring project when more productive things (like reading a Smith "_____ to win" book, or studying something racing related, could be accomplished. Time is money.

And, no advantage given to cars with front mounted batteries so no change of competive balance, either real or theoretical.

I think it was a good call and the right call.



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

[JeffYoung]

George, it was actually the Japanese car (the 260z) the caught fire. Looked like a kamikaze plunging down from the azure Pacific skies.

You should see what Ron did to the Jensen this week after the fire experience. THREE pulls for the cut off switch (one center, one each side), TWO pulls for the fire bottle and a hand held on the roll bar.

It may not run, but it will certainly kill fire very efficiently.

[lateapex911]

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited February 28, 2005).]

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Kirk, it's because you always THINK you have the only valued opinion answers. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif I have finished 38 races & looked at lots of cars since I started in year 2000. Never viewed or heard of a carb, brake, or grass fire & IMHJ you are the only person who has such a narrow opinion that values two fire extingushers. Have Fun http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif
David

In my humble judgement Mr D, you are wrong as I too value the options and redundency having both a handheld fire extinguisher and a system afford.

There are MANY instances where one is not the right solution, or even instances where BOTH are needed.

I myself have had the need to extinguish a grass fire under my disabled car, at a test day when help was many minutes away. My options with a system? Let it get big enough to be in the engine compartment or the interior, or push my car on soft ground over the flames. Or, use my handheld and snuff it out long before it became an issue. At the time I felt rather smug having it....

Guess I was just silly.....



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

[ddewhurst]

***Kirk (who thinks it's ironic that he's now having to defend having too MUCH fire safety to Mr. D.)***

No need to defend your always correct position. Just stop typing. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif

***Wow - that's almost five whole years, son! http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif***

That is what many would call sarcasm.

Two points here sonny boy. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif

A. I feel zero need to relate my entire racing involved life to you or anyone else about how involved I have been with race cars or who owned & drove said race cars. It all started in 1968.
Actually IIRC it realy started in more like 1946 in a sand box. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif

B. When you have been retired for 5 years come on back & lets talk about age sonny boy.

Have Fun http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif
David

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by grjones1:
Spinneti,
You realize of course I was disputing Jake's take on the proposition. His remarks suggest that if a rule does not apply equally to all cars in a category, it cannot be considered, and my point is that no rules ever apply equally to all cars (of different makes)in a category. So his position would automatically disallow any rule change - a preposterous condition.

GRJ



Well, let me suggest that there are instances that indeed fit the criteria...and bring the thread back to it's origins at the same time.

No reasonable man would argue that the loss of washer bottles would affect the competitive balance a wit. It would be preposterous! http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif

I hereby support rules creep and will stand aside if those who wish washer bottles to be struck from the car feel strongly about it...



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

[ddewhurst]

Jake, your not even fun to debate with because you use zero sarcasm. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif My presentation skills suck when typed & when face to face. I can live with that. But when I type something about what I think is the most "usless item" in IT. & boy Kirk starts his rambling for the umpteenth time about his hand held & his fire system it gets REAL OLD.

Don't Have Fun http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/frown.gif
David

[grjones1]

Originally posted by rlearp:


If you guys would get rid of all that old wiring and instruments rattling around and shorting out on the superfluous cage tubing you've installed, you'd have fewer fires.

http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif GRJ

[Geo]

Originally posted by JeffYoung:
George, it was actually the Japanese car (the 260z) the caught fire. Looked like a kamikaze plunging down from the azure Pacific skies.

Banzai!!! http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif


Originally posted by JeffYoung:
You should see what Ron did to the Jensen this week after the fire experience. THREE pulls for the cut off switch (one center, one each side), TWO pulls for the fire bottle and a hand held on the roll bar.

It may not run, but it will certainly kill fire very efficiently.

Hmmm.... Perhaps he should bring his own firetruck to every event. Old British sports cars don't you know.... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif


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

[Knestis]

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
I type something about what I think is the most "usless item" in IT. & boy Kirk starts his rambling for the umpteenth time about his hand held & his fire system it gets REAL OLD.

For the record - first mention of fire extinguishers in this strand:


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">...The most usless item in an IT race car is the hand held fire extingusher for driver safety. That people (Andy, Geo, Darin, protester Bob) is a F**KING joke. & K. don't start your $hit about two fire extingushers.</font>

But, hey - I'm over it.

BTW, David - you type a lot younger than you seem to be, if you beat me to the sandbox race track by 20 years.

Seriously - let's bury the hatchet on this issue. I promise to never make my multi-extinguisher pitch here, and we still need to have that beer...

K

[Knestis]

Originally posted by grjones1:
If you guys would get rid of all that old wiring and instruments rattling around and shorting out on the superfluous cage tubing you've installed, you'd have fewer fires.


Touche. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

K

[grjones1]

No reasonable man would argue that the loss of washer bottles would affect the competitive balance a wit. It would be preposterous! http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif
[/B]

Nor would doing away with passenger door glass, unused gauges and instruments, old wiring, etc. And that ain't preposterous.

GRJ http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

[Joe Harlan]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Seriously - let's bury the hatchet on this issue. I promise to never make my multi-extinguisher pitch here, and we still need to have that beer...</font>

Hehe Kirk if you wait 15mins David won't even remember who you are..... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

[Knestis]

...and if I have two beers, I won't remember who HE is. I've become a lightweight having left PIR worker campout bashes long behind.

K

[Spinnetti]

Wow..

Re-reading all the posts, I remember why I dropped out of the SCCA for a few years. It stopped being fun..

I think the original post has merit, and like it or not there has been a TON of rules creep since I started racing. Why stop now? A lot of it has been on dubious safety crap. I've had to modify my cage twice, spend a small fortune on belts, window net, helmets, fire system refills etc, etc, then come ecu mods (I really oppose that one), Threaded 'spacers' , Coilovers, blah, blah blah...

Why not gut the junk so we can have faster race cars? It doesn't have to be production class to do that. The engine and suspension rules have already gone far enough.. Leave the exterior body alone too, and whats left is gutting the junk and playing with the cage...

I've been left out by the rules pretty much every time - no point in worrying about getting 'left behind' anymore...

[ddewhurst]

Kirk, buried.......... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif in Joe's back. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/tongue.gif

Have Fun http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif
David