Poll on rules changes

[evanwebb]

Hi! I'd like to get some opinions (should be easy on this board), and if there is enough interest I'll start writing the comp board. Also, if you give an opinion please let me know if I can use your name in the letter to the comp board. Everybody please tell me what you think! I'd like to get 100+ responses on this... I'm willing to be a pain in the comp boards butt if we have widespread agreeement on any of this...

1) Should we ditch the ECU rule that allows replacement of the computer, and go back to the old rule (or something similar, make suggestions)?

2) Should battery relocation and/or replacement with a different type be allowed?

3) Sould we be able to remove the heater core/hoses, windshield washer bottle, and passenger door glass & gut the passenger door same as the driver door (including NASCAR bars? (Any or all of these...)

4) Should we allow repair, modification and/or replacement of the stock wiring harness as long as the new harness does not perform any other (prohibited) function?

5) Any other suggestions for current irritations that exist in the rules (be sensible, please).

[Catch22]

1. No. The rule has been made, and some of us have spent hundreds of dollars on modifications and dyno pulls. If we have to undo things, we'll have to spend hundreds more to get the car running well again. It really isn't as easy as plugging in some sort of super chip and getting 10 free horsepower. At least it wasn't on my car.

2. No. I just don't see the need here.

3. Yes to all. These things are just silly. It costs nothing to take them out and they serve no purpose. Being able to remove this stuff will also allow some folks (like Kirk) to get their fat-assed cars down closer to their minimum weight.

4. My first thought was yes, but then I started thinking that SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE would figure out how to use this to gain an advantage, which is not the intent of the thought.
So my answer is "It depends upon the wording.'

5. None. I'm actually pretty darned happy.
I'd like a new ITA Integra though, if anybody has an extra $20K burning a hole in their pockets.

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

[Turfer]

1. I am divided. I've already made a fairly substantial investment in this area but at the same time, we keep coming up with ideas for modifications. I would like to see the rules backtrack to "only a chip may be replaced or the prom flashed" or something like that.

We need to stop looking at how to fit stand alone ECU's into the current housing.

2. I don't really care on this one but I lean towards yes.

3. Yes

4. Yes, if carefully worded. Which might be impossible.

5. This will never change but I don't think final drives should have ever been made free.

Rick Delamare
#340963

[This message has been edited by Turfer (edited February 03, 2005).]

[Joe Harlan]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">(1) Should we ditch the ECU rule that allows replacement of the computer, and go back to the old rule (or something similar, make suggestions)?</font>

Yes make all mods to the factory unit.


2) Should battery relocation and/or replacement with a different type be allowed?

Yes having the battery in a crash zone is stupid.


3) Sould we be able to remove the heater core/hoses, windshield washer bottle, and passenger door glass & gut the passenger door same as the driver door (including NASCAR bars? (Any or all of these...)
Kinda I would like to see minor crap like water bottles be allowed to remove or replace with none OE unit. I think the heater cores are fine and should be left alone. Yes Remove pass windows and gut pass door

4) Should we allow repair, modification and/or replacement of the stock wiring harness as long as the new harness does not perform any other (prohibited) function?

Repair is already allowed and fine just the way it is.

5) Any other suggestions for current irritations that exist in the rules (be sensible, please).
Narrow up and close most of the loopholes. Make sure future rules are clear and well thought out.


[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited February 03, 2005).]

[Bryan Watts]

1) I say keep the current rule. As emissions controls become stricter, the stock computer becomes a serious limiting factor. Newer cars will be more and more tamper proof.

[RacerBill]

1) Kinda mixed on this - driving a car that has very minimal computer.

2) Absolutely - make it safer!

3) Leave the heater stuff, washer bottle (but allow replacement of bottle) but get rid of the glass.

4) Fine as written

5) a) Align the roll cage rules with other classes so all are in the same format.

B) clean up the legalize jargon ie 17.1.4.d.8.6 - 'two total holes'. What the h... is a 'total hole'? Who speaks like that? If you mean 'a total of two holes', then say it like that!

Thanks.

------------------
Bill Stevens
BnS Racing
83 ITA Shelby Dodge Charger

[RacerBill]

1) Kinda mixed on this - driving a car that has very minimal computer.

2) Absolutely - make it safer!

3) Leave the heater stuff, washer bottle (but allow replacement of bottle) but get rid of the glass.

4) Fine as written

5) a) Align the roll cage rules with other classes so all are in the same format.

B) clean up the legalize jargon ie 17.1.4.d.8.6 - 'two total holes'. What the h... is a 'total hole'? Who speaks like that? If you mean 'a total of two holes', then say it like that!

Thanks.

------------------
Bill Stevens
BnS Racing
83 ITA Shelby Dodge Charger

[Geo]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Yes having the battery in a crash zone is stupid.

Just a point to ponder for a moment Joe...

The trunk is a crash zone as well. Furthermore it would place the battery in a position to become a cockpit projectile.

Your thoughts?....


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

[racer-025]

1. no
2. no
3. yes
4. yes

[java]

1. Yes, this will get out of hand. This will lead to car's being adjusted during the race by a 'data acc device', and as said 'spend lot's of money' to be up front.

2. Yes, to a safer location. More impacts to front.

3. Heater core No, Washer bottle don't care, Passenger door glass Yes - Safety.

4. Doesn't require change.

5. Before publishing rules allow to be reviewed for wording problems and 'holes' by maybe a seperate review board.

[This message has been edited by java (edited February 03, 2005).]

[wbp]

1. No, too deep already. (bad idea to start)
2. No, short wires safer than long wires.
3. No, no real need and defrosters are needed at times
4. No, maybe repairs only
5. No, need rules stability.

"Allowed" quickly becomes manditory. If everyone else moves battery, you feel you must.
I began racing Production when rules looked very much like today's IT rules. Look what happened to them (what an expensive mess!). Expense ran me out of Production. Don't let it happen to IT. Production still exists for those who love modifiying cars and who are well financed.

[apr67]

1) ECU. The cat's out of the bag. I would change the rule to just allow any ECU that will plug into the stock unmodified harness. This will allow some people a cheaper route (DIYFI, which is looking pretty good). Closing the rule down would be nice, but the club doesn't have the stones to do it IMHO.

2)Battery. Tuff call. I would leave it alone. If I were for any change it would be something like:
Stock can remain as it is, or the battery can be moved anywhere but the passenger compartment and may be stock size or (spec a size that fits in the normal plastic battery box available from summit) and must be in a battery box.

3) Why? Prehaps allow removal of washer bottle, but I see no gain from gutting passenger door other than losing weight. You can already do NASCAR style bars that side of the car, they just can't extend into the door, and they don't need to since we don't carry passengers. Heater core? You can already by pass it.

4) We already allow repair of the factory harness.

[Matt Rowe]

1) Yes, changes to stock boards only for programming.

2) Undecided. If it's impact areas we are worried about why not make the requirement be to locate within the area protected by the cage? With proper mounting it would be no less a projectile threat than ballast, accusump, etc..

3) Heater core and W/W bottle, I'd keep mine anyway. Door glass, I can see removing, but gutting the door is unneccessary.

4) Yes, if worded properly.


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

[1stGenBoy]

Just a couple of thoughts here.
1. When you write to the CRB about these items they, will pass them on to the IT advisorary committee for comment before considering any changes.
2. Having names on the letters along with member numbers and phone numbers if posssible carrys much more weight than "I have a hundred people who agree with this and want it changed"
3. Remember the timeline for rule changes.
Things that are brought up now for possible changes will not happen until Jan 06 at the earliest. Rules and cars that were moved that were published recently in the March 05 Fastrack were actually submitted to the BOD in Aug 04 for them to vote on at the Dec 04 BOD meeting.
A letter written today would be reviewed by the IT committee at our the next meeting in late Feb. Several things can happen then. We can review the letter and comment on it ( thank you for your imput,rules are Ok as written,etc),We can table it for more info (yes we actually do research and contact the letter writer if needed),We can pass it along to the CRB for approval at their next meeting.The CRB can then pass it along to the BOD for a vote(which would be at the Aug or Dec BOD meeting),Send it back to us for more review or info, Not approve the request,table it for review at a later date by them.
4.Every letter sent to SCCA regarding IT gets assigned a number by SCCA and is forwarded to the IT committee for review.Be specific in your letter and maybe even include a possible wording for the rule change. Every little bit helps.
5. Remember we are all volunteers on the committee. We do the best we can and devote a lot of time and effort into making IT the best it can be.

Bob Clark
#76 ITB Cen-Div
SCCA IT Advisorary Committee

[ddewhurst]

1. No

2. No

3. No

4. No

5. No

Expense runs people out of Production. Don't let it happen to IT. Production still exists for those who love modifiying cars and who are well financed.

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

[Joe Harlan]

....

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

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Production still exists for those who love modifiying cars and who are well financed.



Not to hijack this topic, but why is it anytime someone mentions a rule change, someone else tells them to leave and run production? We have people worried about attracting new racers, what about not telling a significant number of current drivers to leave? Rampant rule changes would make a mess of IT but being completely inflexible and showing people the door isn't any better for the long term health of the class.



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

[mustanghammer]

1) No, this cat is out of the bag and there is no way to put it back

2) Yes to both. This is a safety issue that is used successfully by other classes

3) Yes - make it optional. The only benefit is if this saves you weight and or removes unnecessary completixty

4) No

5) Remove head lights - safety issue




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

[RSTPerformance]

Originally posted by evanwebb:
1) Should we ditch the ECU rule that allows replacement of the computer, and go back to the old rule (or something similar, make suggestions)?

2) Should battery relocation and/or replacement with a different type be allowed?

3) Sould we be able to remove the heater core/hoses, windshield washer bottle, and passenger door glass & gut the passenger door same as the driver door (including NASCAR bars? (Any or all of these...)

4) Should we allow repair, modification and/or replacement of the stock wiring harness as long as the new harness does not perform any other (prohibited) function?

5) Any other suggestions for current irritations that exist in the rules (be sensible, please).

1.) It never should have changed but it's probably to late to go back.

2.) Bad Idea.... car companies do thousands of tests for safety they wouldn't be where they are if it wasn't a safe spot. I agree loger wires = unsafe. Keep the battery cables short and stock. I could however care less about equal wieght and size.

3.) I would be in favor of a rule stating that you could be allowed to remove anything you want in IT. However you should not be allowed to add or modify anything unless the rules say you can. Removing cost nothing and since this is a grassroots beginer class than things that are cheap/free should be allowed. (I wouldn't remove the heater core in NE.)

4.) Stock wiring harness is meaningless. modify if you need to do repairs otherwise leave it alone. I think this should be free I see no competition advantage by allowing you to change it.

5.)Do not keep getting IT closer to Production. SCCA should allow IT cars to put on slicks and run in Production.... this would be several more entries at regionals and a better stepping stone for IT drivers to take a step up to nationals. (DO NOT EVER ALLOW IT TO GO NATIONAL!)

Stephen

[DavidM]

1) Yes. Only allow replacement of the stock ECU chip with a remapped one. I do think there should be some sort of grandfathering for people that have already invested in the whole Motec thing. Maybe give them 2 years or some time period to get rid of it. The current rule seems to be a large source of increasing cost and I think everyone wants IT to keep costs down. I'll be interested to see if SCCA has the attachments to fix a mistake.

2) I would say no because this increases cost and moves the car away from its stock configuration. Most of our cars (except for the mid engine guys) are nose heavy. That's just the way it is.

3) Yes to all. These are race cars. Crap like that has no business on a race car. I think anything that serves no useful purpose should be allowed to be removed. It makes the car simpler and easier to work on. That doesn't mean you have to remove it and, as mentioned, people may elect to keep things like heater cores in the north. I don't think everyone else should be limited to what they can remove, though. The notion that IT *race cars* should maintain their streetability doesn't make sense. If you drive your race car to the track, cool. I think it's good that you can race. I don't think everyone else should be limited by this notion.

4) Not sure. People seem to have differing opinions on what the current rule allows. I think somebody should be allowed to do whatever they need to do to the wiring harness to keep it in good shape. That includes repairing pieces of the existing harness however they see fit or replacing the harness with a custom built one. If the current rule allows this, then keep it. If not, make a new one.

5) I like the suggestion to get rid of head lights. This kind of falls under #3. I think you should have to replace the headlight with a piece of sheet metal or something else to fill the hole so that it can't be used for cooling or other purposes.

[racer-025]

Originally posted by DavidM:
5) I like the suggestion to get rid of head lights.

you mean like this?
http://www.geocities.com/mcnuttracing/blackcrx.jpg

[evanwebb]

Hey everyone, please post your actual name, and member number so I can include that info on both the yays and nays to the comp bd.

Hey Bob Clark, I don't know if you saw my comment in the March Fastrack thread on here, but I am very happy with the new positive direction IT is going, I think the ITAC and I think the comp bd have been doing a great job recently. That's why I'm bothering to take this poll and try to take forward issues that have wide agreement here, in the "old" SCCA it would have been pointless. Keep it up guys! :-)

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
1. No

2. No

3. No

4. No

5. No

Expense runs people out of Production. Don't let it happen to IT. Production still exists for those who love modifiying cars and who are well financed.

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




David,

Guess you missed that analysis I did where it showed that Prod cars are cheaper than IT cars. Coulda had Weisberg's RX7 for ~60% of what a top E36 goes for.

But, as Joe says, it's a poll

1) Yes (Keeping a bad rule becaue people spent money is not a very good reason)

2) Yes

3) Yes

4) Yes

5) allow removal of headlights

6) run any wheel up to the max listed on the spec line


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

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

David,

Guess you missed that analysis I did where it showed that Prod cars are cheaper than IT cars. Coulda had Weisberg's RX7 for ~60% of what a top E36 goes for.


HA! A VERY well built ITS RX-7 goes for $12K...Weisberg's car was for sale for $20K. Learn me the math on that. Try an Apples to Apples comparison.

As far as the poll goes:

I place much more value in individual letters with peoples own thoughts. A funny thing actually happens when you have to write something yourself...you actually think about it.

1. Yes - I would like to see the Genie stuffed back in the bottle. Give people a couple years...effective Jan 2007

2. No
3. No
4. No

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 03, 2005).]

[Knestis]

Let's honor Evan's point and please try to just reply to the question, rather than turning this into another philosophical conversation.

1. Leave the ECU rule the way it is. There are logical reasons to get more restrictive and equally good rationale for opening it up. No.

2. This - in and of itself - is not a big issue but I can't help but wonder why we do this and then not take additional steps that make just as much sense, when viewed at a micro level. At the end, no.

3. If it's allowed that heater cores be disabled, requiring them to be there is dumb. Washer bottle - who cares. ALLOW the removal of passenger door glass, irrespective of door bar design. There's no logic to gutting the door to put tubes in there because it's stronger leaving them straight. Don't require it. So, yes, yes, yes, and no.

4. The current repair rule suffices. No.

5. Nope. I'm cool.

K

[pfcs]

absolutely Andy-like how do you keep the snow out of your car if don't have a window. Sure, I can leave one in the door, but if I can move several pounds down in the chassis, I'd want to. KISS! If it works, don't fix it. If you want to obsess over something, obsess over how you can prep your car to these sensible rules in a way that maximizes the package-think about it-really. I'd bet there's a lot of stuff you haven't done, or haven't imagined you could do. Ignition is free-how high is your coil mounted?
edit-I give up! how did I bash Andy by agreeing with him?
------------------
phil hunt

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

[lateapex911]

1- No- the genie has long since outgrown the bottle, and getting him back in will reak him or the bottle or both. It SUCKS, but thats the way it is.

2- No- No really good reason to. Cars were all classed with the 40lbs in it's stock location, and thye should remain as such. Some cars will benefit much more than others when they shift 40lbs around. besides...I prefer my battery to do it's exploding up front, thankyou.

3- No to Passenger window glass et al. No reason to. Again, thousands of us will HAVE to do it just to keep up with the Jones, then figure out a way to keep the car dry in the rain. No gain here.

3A- No to Heater core. Again...it serves no harm, is beneficial to those in the rainy climates, and can be blocked easily if so desired.

4- No- wiring is fine as is.

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited February 03, 2005).]

[erlrich]

1. Not sure what the "old rule" was - if that means going back to a completely stock ECU, then no, if it means restricting modifications to re-programming or "chipping" the original ECU, then yes.

2. Lukewarm yes.

3. Yes to all - you can block off the hoses to the heater core now, and if you choose to do so then the core just becomes so much ballast.

4. No - what Joe said.

5. I for one would like to see an open wheel size rule; just give a min and max wheel diameter, say between 13" and 17", and keep the widths as they are for the different classes. As aftermarket wheel sizes continue to increase, it won't be too terribly long before we start having the same problem with 15" wheels that guys have been experiencing with 13" and 14". Even now when you go shopping for wheels you'll see three or four times the selection of wheels in 16" & 17" than you do in 15".

Earl

[TypeSH]

1) Any ECU to stock harness.

2) Yes

3) Yes, all.

4) Yes

[Ron Earp]

1) Should we ditch the ECU rule? Yes, especially if we can do something with wiring harnesses for old cars.

2) No.

3) Yes, kick all that stuff to the curb.

4) Yes, especially in light of the open ECU rule.

------------------
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?

[ShelbyRacer]

Wow, I feel like this is deja vu all over again...

1. Any ECU that goes thru the stock connector
OR, BETTER YET
You must retain the stock ECU. Up to TWO chips may be desoldered for the purposes of reprogramming. The ECU must "ping" stock when polled by any aftermarket or factory scan tool (this would make it very expen$ive the cheat and hide it).

2. Isn't that against class philosophy? (no offense to the current ITAC) http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

3. Believe it or not, I have no opinion on this one.

4. I think we all know where I stand on that one...

Matt Green 306988

Oh, and I find it interesting that yet again, Phil Hunt pops in to bash someone and adds NOTHING to the conversation (and as usual, the post isn't even relevant). Even more interesting though is the fact that I "responded" to it... :P I just have too much time on my hands. I guess I need to get back to the other SCCA nerds now...

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

[Bill Miller]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">HA! A VERY well built ITS RX-7 goes for $12K...Weisberg's car was for sale for $20K. Learn me the math on that. Try an Apples to Apples comparison.</font>

Andy,

So, I can buy Nick's car for $12k? I'm not going to get into it. Go back and look at the cars I found. Sure, you can find examples that go the other way. However, I've seen used SpeedSource ITS RX7's for double the figure you've quoted. Also, where'd you find that E36 RX7 for $12k? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

[/hijack]

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

[shwah]

1 - Yes. Bad idea to start with. Just because a mistake was made doesn't mean it should not be fixed. The old rule was right, but hard to police, and no matter how explosive the topic we all know we have cheaters that love the rules that cannot be policed. I guess that limits us to stock hardware, replace/program chips only.

2. No. It's fine the way it is.

3. No. I don't see the big deal for all the people that want to lose the water bottle and heater core, but I think they are fine. I don't buy the safety argument for the passenger door glass. The window is down in the door, with a door panel covering it.

4. No. Repair is allowed. That is sufficient.

5. Just continue the current trend of identifying and correcting past mistakes.

Chris Schaafsma
Chicago Region

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by evanwebb:

2) Should battery relocation and/or replacement with a different type be allowed?


Just a note that I didn't notice anyone mentioning... you ARE currently allowed to replace your battery with an "alternate type", such as a gel-cel, etc... i.e.: SAFER type... Read your 2005 ITCS...

------------------
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 04, 2005).]

[Super Swift]

Chris Schaafsma
The old ECU rule was not just hard to police it was impossible to police. When the tech inspectors at the ARRC kicked out protests on the issue it became an un-police-able area. The only reason to change the current ECU rule is to outlaw Motec. While I am not a big fan of it I don’t think it needs to be eliminated just because I will never have it.

As for the other rules… I fear change.

I have been told by several people that RR Shocks should come back because they last longer and are more durable than our current rules so in the end cheaper. So maybe Moton’s should come back.

[bldn10]

1) Should we ditch the ECU rule that allows replacement of the computer, and go back to the old rule (or something similar, make suggestions)?

Just delete the words "or replace" to effect the original intent of the rules change.

2) Should battery relocation and/or replacement with a different type be allowed?

I don't have any great yearning to do this so, no.

3) Sould we be able to remove the heater core/hoses, windshield washer bottle, and passenger door glass & gut the passenger door same as the driver door (including NASCAR bars? (Any or all of these...)

yes

4) Should we allow repair, modification and/or replacement of the stock wiring harness as long as the new harness does not perform any other (prohibited) function?

repair if replacement not available


130586



------------------
Bill Denton
87/89 ITS RX-7
02 Audi TT225QC
95 Tahoe
Memphis

[RSTPerformance]

1)No, didn't they change the ECU rule that allows replacement of the computer because it was to hard to govern? If you change the rule back it wasted a lot of peoples money, and secondly tell me what we have now that would allow us to be able to govern it VS then when the rule was changed.

2)Battery relocation NO, replacement with a different SIZE yes. I hate trying to fit the dam HUGE Audi battery in around the dam wiring harness... ALSO FYI on the argument of longe unsafe wires... Many of us already have those wires (and some have very long ones) as we had to install a Kill Switch.

3) We should be alowed to gut what is REQUIRED in Production so the car can be more multipurpose. Either that or change the production rule to not require the removal of the similar parts.

4) Yes, Have you ever tried rewiring a car after an electrical fire??? It sucks...

5) Make ALL IT cars eligable to run Production (for fun, as they obviosly would not have the potential to win). Make it so you would not need to change the car at all to run in Production. This would help people in the bridge to production/national racing, and it most likely will increase car counts in production classes making it a more desireable class than it is now...


Raymond Blethen (SCCA #270386, 20 year member)

[MMiskoe]

1. No - leave it alone, too hard to back track on something like that, plus it is not badly written as it is.

2. Allow different batteries in stock location. Different types of batteries elimintates the crap of "how do I get an OEM battery for my 1963 Wombat?"

3. Windsheild washers yes, door gutting no. Washer bottles are typically in the way of working on motors, door interiors on the passengers side are just ballast, allowing moving them would be rules creep.

4. No. Current rule is OK as is.

5. Allowance to add jack points to allow safe/easy jacking up of a car. Allow 2 locations total, each w/ a maximum of 64" square inches of material used, but no dimension longer than 10" in length, perimeter of reinforced area no more than 32" long, maximum mtl thickness of 3/16". Or something to this effect.

Matt

[lateapex911]

Ahhhh...the jacking point..I had forgoten about that.

Yup! THAT would be useful. Adds no performance, but makes the cars last longer.

I would prefer we weld an extension of the rollcage structure that passes through the floor to jack on, or and extension that has a pad that is inside the floor, but is not attached to the floor. (the old paper pass test)

In any case it should be written in such a way as to prohibit any "9th & 10th" points of attachment.

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited February 07, 2005).]

[Bryan Watts]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
or and extension that has a pad that is inside the floor, but is not attached to the floor. (the old paper pass test)

This seems perfectly legal as the rules are written now.

Or am I totally missing something?

[This message has been edited by Bryan Watts (edited February 07, 2005).]

[chuck baader]

1. OK as writtem.

2. Relocation no, alternate already OK.

3. Yes, to all.

4. NO!

5. Thinking!?!

BTW, I saw a very interesting jacking point on a prod car. A straight bar with a pad extending into the driver's door cavity accessable when the door is open. I think current rules would allow this. Don't know what he had on the other side.
Chuck Baader, 265512

------------------
Chuck Baader
#36 ITA E30 BMW
Alabama Region Divisional Registrar

[lateapex911]

Good points!

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

[zooracer]

matt batson
member # 335603

1. Well the board already screwed the pooch on this one, so I think it's too late as most guys have spent a lot of money on it. (I cant believe this is allowed...)

2. No on relocation. Yes to a battery that is "close" to original size. I dont know, within 70 % of the original size? I just dont want people to be able to use the tiny little EXPENSIVE batteries.

3. Yes on all. If it costs nothing, then why not? Some people have a hard time making weight anyways...

4. I cannot see a performance advantage here, so if it enables guys with older, obsolete cars to more easily and INEXPENSIVELY fix the harness...

5. The board should look into classifying more modern cars in competitive classes. Maybe we need some young guys on the board...

[Geo]

Originally posted by zooracer:
5. The board should look into classifying more modern cars in competitive classes. Maybe we need some young guys on the board...

What "modern" cars would you like to see classified that are not?


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

[zooracer]

more modern cars in competitive classes.
If young guys cant go into IT with modern cars and race competitively...
matt

[Geo]

Originally posted by zooracer:
more modern cars in competitive classes.
If young guys cant go into IT with modern cars and race competitively...
matt

I repeat...

What "modern" cars would you like to see classified?

And what competitive classes are you referring to?


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

[Joe Harlan]

...

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

[Geo]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
I repeat can't we have one stinken thread that doesn't have to wonder off into a million other things. This is a poll feel free to answer here and discuss in other threads.

Thanks

Joe, what is wrong with asking for a little clarification? Extremely vague answers to a poll are worthless. Or perhaps such answers should be categorized as worthless and go on?
And don't tell me that I know what he's talking about. My interpretation may be different from his and/or from yours.


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

[zooracer]

yeah, I had seen many requests to keep this thread clean of pointless arguements. I guess I knew it would be too much for some people...
Anyways, I will happily answer the question on the "March fasttrack is up" section...
matt

[Geo]

Originally posted by zooracer:
yeah, I had seen many requests to keep this thread clean of pointless arguements. I guess I knew it would be too much for some people...

Matt, I fail to see how asking for clarification is arguing.


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

[Joe Harlan]

...

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

[Geo]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Why is it that only you struggle with it Geo. A poll is for collecting answers. If want to collect clarifications start a thread please.

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

Perhaps I'm just dumber than the rest of the world Joe. I can tell you this, the answer I got (on the other thread) was very different from what I expected and I'm sure it was different from what others would have as well. And what good are answers if they are not sufficiently defined that you have to use your imagination?

As for starting a thread to clarify answers from another thread... Well, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


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

[Joe Harlan]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Well, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.</font>

Why am I not shocked by this. I will edit out all my off topic posts to keep this thread on track.

[grjones1]

[quote]

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) Yes
5) This is going to raise some hackles, but getting rid of external bumpers (not integrated plastic ones) would 1) cut down on intentional banging, 2) reduce weight cheaply and improve handling, and 3) make the cars look neater (attractive to the younger set).

G. Robert Jones
WDC Region
National 42-175-061
ITC Fiesta



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 19, 2005).]

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by grjones1:
[quote]

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) Yes
5) This is going to raise some hackles, but getting rid of external bumpers (not integrated plastic ones) would 1) cut down on intentional banging, 2) reduce weight cheaply and improve handling, and 3) make the cars look neater (attractive to the younger set).

G. Robert Jones
WDC Region
National 42-175-061
ITC Fiesta

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 19, 2005).]

Here's the problem with number 5. (Well, ONE of the problems! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif )

Cars were classed with bumpers. Lets say, that you own a car with integrated bumpers. It's not a class leader. The class leading car (and we're talking nationwide, here) has the type of bumpers you propose being removed (am I to assume the Fiesta is a good example?). Are you suggesting that an already dominaint car have more weight removed...from the ends of the car??? making it even faster?? Not seeing your logic here...

Simply, changing rules that affect some cars but not others post classification just isn't fair.

Any rules change to the category must affect all cars equally...

(The oft mentioned ECU rule is a GREAT example of a TERRIBLE rules change, and partly because of it's non symetrical effect)

Attracting the "younger set"???
Puuuleeeze...I really doubt that the average 20 something will be wooed by an old Rabbit sans it's bumpers. A Honda with wings maybe...but not an old bumperless Rabbit!



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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Here's the problem with number 5. (Well, ONE of the problems! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif )

Cars were classed with bumpers. Are you suggesting that an already dominaint car have more weight removed...from the ends of the car??? making it even faster?? Not seeing your logic here...

Simply, changing rules that affect some cars but not others post classification just isn't fair.

[/i]

Attracting the "younger set"???
Puuuleeeze...I really doubt that the average 20 something will be wooed by an old Rabbit sans it's bumpers. A Honda with wings maybe...but not an old bumperless Rabbit!


Jake,
Are you suggesting that the Fiesta is a dominant car in ITC? Wow, I had no idea.

The integrated bumper cars are the ones presently given the unfair advantage. Their bumpers are aerodynamically superior and they weigh a great deal less than the anchors hung on the ends of the older cars. But no one was concerned with that when the new cars were classified.

Oh I don't know. Take off the bumpers and my Fiesta looks like a number of new econoboxes.

But I'll concede the integral bumper exclusion (eventhough I doubt most people with them would bother because of the aerodynamics.
GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 19, 2005).]

[lateapex911]

I think you either missed the point or deny it...

First, my example of your Fiesta was to illustrate the type of bumper, nit it's class domination, or lack of same...

Second, changing a rule such as that destroys the competitive balance. It can be argued that, one, the balance might be improved in some ways, and two, that the original classification was spot on.

Both have some merit, but in the end, post classification rules changes that are non even handed is philosophically wrong...

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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
I think you either missed the point or deny it...
Both have some merit, but in the end, post classification rules changes that are non even handed is philosophically wrong...

You are right. I don't think I'm following exactly what you are saying other than it's not fair to make a rule unintended for all cars in class. And that's why I conceded the point on excluding integral bumper cars from recommendation.
GRJ

[grjones1]

Originally posted by grjones1:

Originally posted by lateapex911:
I think you either missed the point or deny it...
Both have some merit, but in the end, post classification rules changes that are non even handed is philosophically wrong...

You are right. I don't think I'm following exactly what you are saying other than it's not fair to make a rule noit mutually beneficial to all cars in the class. And that's why I conceded the point on excluding integral bumper cars from recommendation.

Now Jake read what you have written and think back on some of your old remarks and ask yourself if you are not super-concerned with protecting the new cars from changes in the rules that might keep the old cars competitive, but you could care less if the new cars far outstrip the old cars with their advantages. And yes I admit with this post I am partially attempting to guard my turf - what's left of it.

GRJ

I think we're hijacking a poll here. Let's take it somewhere else if you wish to continue.





[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 19, 2005).]

[Matt Rowe]

How is having half the cars without bumpers and half the cars with going to cut down on intentional bumping. If you have an integral bumper you're going to be jut as, or more, likely to ram the rabbit in front of you that is unprotected.


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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
How is having half the cars without bumpers and half the cars with going to cut down on intentional bumping. If you have an integral bumper you're going to be jut as, or more, likely to ram the rabbit in front of you that is unprotected.


Well, Matt, I guess it would only cut down on half of the intentional bumping. Still cuts down on the bumping. And I think the integral bumper people are usually less willing to nudge because their plastic bumpers with foam cushioning withstand less punishment than our steel and aluminum I-beams.

GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 19, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 19, 2005).]

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by grjones1:


The integrated bumper cars are the ones presently given the unfair advantage. Their bumpers are aerodynamically superior and they weigh a great deal less than the anchors hung on the ends of the older cars. But no one was concerned with that when the new cars were classified.




GRJ,

Again, you state your opinion as if it were fact. Got some hard data to support that claim? I can tell you that the bumpers on my old AW11 MR2 weighed more than the ones on my Rabbit, and I'd guess they weigh more than a set of Fiesta bumpers (the MR2 bumpers that is).



Simply, changing rules that affect some cars but not others post classification just isn't fair.

Any rules change to the category must affect all cars equally...

(The oft mentioned ECU rule is a GREAT example of a TERRIBLE rules change, and partly because of it's non symetrical effect)

Boy Jake, did you hit the nail on the head w that one. That's the gripe I've had w/ the ECU rule since day one. And, to a somewhat lesser extent, what I think is wrong w/ not letting everyone run wheels up to, and including 15" (or larger, if the car came w/ 16" or greater).



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

[ed325its]

ECU rule - Yes it does need to get returned to some sense of reasonableness, and to using only stock ECU's and programming. The rule was originally changed to allow chip replacement because it was difficult to police. However, the newer ECU's can simply be reprogrammed, so how does one write a rule to control and police that activity. I am afraid the rule needs to be at either end of the spectrum (a) stock only or (B) unrestricted. I am against the latter simply because of the cost.

Passenger door rule - Yes, the same rules should apply for the passenger door as apply for the driver's door. Some of these cars see double duty in DE's and Rally. Both of which allow or requirer an occupant in the passenger seat. This change would provide no advantage in Road Racing.

------------------
Ed Tisdale
#22 ITS '95 325is
Racing BMW's since 1984

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:



OK, Bill, you are correct, after owning a few cars with metal bumpers and a few without, I from everyday maintenance and repair estimated that the plastic bumpers were lighter than the steel and aluminum bumpers. Now tell me how much do the Rabbit bumpers weigh and how much do the MR2 bumpers weigh? So that we are not dealing with speculation.

GRJ
I would also add that the MR2 bumper composes part of the "body work." So perhaps we are comparing apples to oranges?



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 20, 2005).]

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by ed325its:
I am afraid the rule needs to be at either end of the spectrum (a) stock only or (B) unrestricted. I am against the latter simply because of the cost.


I have offered this before. Write the as such:
---------------------------
The stock ECU must be used (including board, housing, and connector). Up to two chips may be desoldered for the purposes of programming, and may be socketed (regular or ZIF sockets). Any replacement chips must have the same number of pins as stock. The ECU must be able to be read by any commercially available scan tool using the stock ECU configuration and ID.
---------------------------

This allows reprogramming, without making the rule overly cumbersome to read and enforce. Hook up any scan tool, set the stock ID for that car, and check. If it don't respond, it's out. If there's a reason to look further (as in it's identified in the protest), pull the unit and check (probably a $50-75 bond).

What can you guys find wrong with this one? (that's an honest question- I really would like to know for my own improvement).

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

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by grjones1:
OK, Bill, you are correct, after owning a few cars with metal bumpers and a few without, I from everyday maintenance and repair estimated that the plastic bumpers were lighter than the steel and aluminum bumpers. Now tell me how much do the Rabbit bumpers weigh and how much do the MR2 bumpers weigh?


Who cares?? It's totally irrelevant! Sorry, but I gotta call BS on this...the category has dozens and dozens of cars, and they all have different bumper configurations, weights, and distances from the CG. You can't even fantasize about such a change that would be SO unbalanced!

On the same grounds, I have issues with the battery relocation idea, and to a lesser degree, the window glass idea. The battery location idea is a material difference that won't affect all cars equally, so No to that, and the window idea is as well, but to a much lesser degree.

It is interesting that if we got all the rules changes proposed here, from bumpers to window glass to swithches to batteries, what would we have?


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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by lateapex911:

It is interesting that if we got all the rules changes proposed here, from bumpers to window glass to swithches to batteries, what would we have?


With all respect, Jake, and I mean that; however, there is great fear expressed here of any changes because of their possible impact on the category with absolutely no such fear expressed when the NB was introduced.

I don't want to go back to that old discusssion, but I would appreciate some consistency in attitude.

People, other than a few who post here regularly, have some good ideas. Please don't dismiss them out-of-hand because they are not suggested by a few members who I may fear have their own agendas and that is don't do anything that might require some rethinking.

And, changes suggested here as far as I can see do not push us towrds Production as I thnk is your implication, because none of the changes cost a great deal of money, which is what actually killed Production, as you and I know.

Sincerely,
GRJ

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by grjones1:
OK, Bill, you are correct, after owning a few cars with metal bumpers and a few without, I from everyday maintenance and repair estimated that the plastic bumpers were lighter than the steel and aluminum bumpers. Now tell me how much do the Rabbit bumpers weigh and how much do the MR2 bumpers weigh? So that we are not dealing with speculation.

GRJ
I would also add that the MR2 bumper composes part of the "body work." So perhaps we are comparing apples to oranges?

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 20, 2005).]


GRJ,

You were the one that started comparing integral bumpers w/ 'conventional' bumpers. Now you say that it's apples to oranges. But no matter, it's typical of how you change your tune when you're shown to be wrong.

As far as the actual weights of the Rabbit and MR2 bumpers, I don't have them. However, the MR2 bumper (not the cover) was steel, and comparable in size to the Rabbit bumper, which is aluminum. You figure out which weighs more.

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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

GRJ,

You were the one that started comparing integral bumpers w/ 'conventional' bumpers. Now you say that it's apples to oranges. But no matter, it's typical of how you change your tune when you're shown to be wrong.

As far as the actual weights of the Rabbit and MR2 bumpers, I don't have them. However, the MR2 bumper (not the cover) was steel, and comparable in size to the Rabbit bumper, which is aluminum. You figure out which weighs more.


Bill.
You can still twist an argument with the best of them, but the "apples to oranges" thing has to do with integral bumpers being "part of the body work." I'm not going to argue this any farther -if the rule would ever be considered, a way of making it fair to the integral bumper people might make it difficult and Lord knows, we don't want to make anything difficult.

Until you give me the exact weights of the MR2 bumper and the Rabbit bumper, you haven't proven any thing wrong.

And BTW, Bill, some of the Rabbit bumpers were steel - now you of all people should know that.
GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 20, 2005).]

[wrankin]

I'll be the first to admit that I'm the novice here, but it seems to be that the no bumpers vs. integrated bumbers consideration would be more at home in the production classes rather than IT.

Now this post may never get read because it sits at the bottom of a long line of bumper-talk ;-) but one rule change that I would like considered would be to allow chassis (and chassis only) from models not allowed in a specific class to be utilized in that class as long as that chassis is identical to one already allowing in that class.

Examples of this would be the VW Golf/GTI or the RX-7 FC NA/Turbo-II. The models are different (and classed different) but the chassis is common between the two models and should be allowed to be interchanged. Common assemblies between the two models are already allowed to be used (body panels, steering racks, etc) but not the chassis assembly itself.

Allowing this would provide a larger availability of platforms (for both models) for future cars.

Just a thought - anyone know of additional examples of this?

Thanks,

-bill


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

[lateapex911]

You may be a rookie here, but your bumper comment hits the nail on the head.

I suspect (but it is a guess) that the reason for the chassis rule is the difficulty in ascertaining (without a little more legwork that the (at the time) stand alone CRB was willing to do) if there were subtle but important differences between the chassis of different models.

Your point is good in that it would open a population of existing chassis up for use that is not available now.

IF the reason is the research involved, I wonder if the current organizational structure (the Advisory commitees) would be more open to such a rule? Perhaps as a line item allowance?

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

[Geo]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Your point is good in that it would open a population of existing chassis up for use that is not available now.

IF the reason is the research involved, I wonder if the current organizational structure (the Advisory commitees) would be more open to such a rule? Perhaps as a line item allowance?


It makes sense in the micro. In the macro it's another story entirely. There are over 300 classification lines in the ITCS and IMHO it's asking too much of the techs, the ITAC, the CRB, and others to be experts about all chassis classified (and many more that may not be but people want to use them).

Another example is the Nissan B13 Sentra. The shell is the same whether it's an SE-R or a base model. But would I expect the CRB, ITAC, and all techs to know this, or more importantly that some seemingly similar shell is almost the same, but there is an important difference?

I have a good example of this. The lower models of BMW E36 (like specifically the 325i) does not have the suspension mounting reinforcements of the M3. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples in those 300+ classification lines, some of which are over 30 years old. It could become a true nightmare.


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

[Spinnetti]

Originally posted by evanwebb:
Hi! I'd like to get some opinions (should be easy on this board), and if there is enough interest I'll start writing the comp board. Also, if you give an opinion please let me know if I can use your name in the letter to the comp board. Everybody please tell me what you think! I'd like to get 100+ responses on this... I'm willing to be a pain in the comp boards butt if we have widespread agreeement on any of this...

1) Should we ditch the ECU rule that allows replacement of the computer, and go back to the old rule (or something similar, make suggestions)?

2) Should battery relocation and/or replacement with a different type be allowed?

3) Sould we be able to remove the heater core/hoses, windshield washer bottle, and passenger door glass & gut the passenger door same as the driver door (including NASCAR bars? (Any or all of these...)

4) Should we allow repair, modification and/or replacement of the stock wiring harness as long as the new harness does not perform any other (prohibited) function?

5) Any other suggestions for current irritations that exist in the rules (be sensible, please).

Yes to 1-4, though 1 is already a done deal, so no point in beating that horse.. the other suff? Absolutely. I want a CHEAP RACE CAR, not just a dumbed down street car. Let us remove the junk - it costs next to nothing, and makes are cars faster, and easier to maintain which is the whole point for me.

I sure wish they would allow the battery relocation - in one wreck, my car went up in smoke as the front mounted battery was crushed, dead shorting and spraying acid everywhere. Needless to say, that was a total loss.

[Chuck Davis]

My friend, you're kidding yourself about IT rule change requests. The Comp Board is comprised of who knows what. The standard answer from this group is "creep" or making comparisons with other classes of cars. The only success any of us will have in making requested changes is to provide a uniform front with enough signatures on a partition so it can't be blown off by the Board. And getting competitors in this group to unite is very very difficult. When you look at the summary of entrys around the country, IT tops the list. Shouldn't we get the most attention? If "creep" means the cost of car prep think about what it cost to enter an event, to get there, and a set of tires.
I wish you well. Good luck.



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