Rules Creep..

[lateapex911]

I read the term "rules creep" in many posts here, and it always seems to have negative conotations...

But...is it really THAT bad???

The automotive world, and racing has changed a LOT since the 80s, and so has the ametuer club racer.

How many of us would drive our car to the track, and to work if the rules mandated that the dual nature of the car was retained? I doubt that even 5% would. The rest of us would have cars that COULD be driven to work, but would have them on stands in the garage, just as we do now.

That's just one example of the evolution of the class...and lots of rules "crept" to change the dual purpose car into a more track dedicated car.

Recently Kirk Knestis wrote here on IT.com that he planned to write in a request to allow changes regarding the central lock system. A rule that could be considered "rules creep" but is actually a reasonable concept for todays cars.

I read certain posts that say they want IT to adapt and be vital in the "new world", but in the same paragraph warn against allowing rules creep.

So..I think rules creep is a part of the landscape...a necessary evil, if you will. Some rule changes are required, others are "good ideas" and some are bad ideas...even though the powers that be think they are required.

So...what are examples of how "rules creep" has ruined..or damaged..IT racing???

Bill?
;)

[Ron Earp]

I look forward to some replies on this post. As a new(er) person to the board and SCCA racing I see this term a lot, "rules creep", and it'll be nice to see what people consider examples of this phenomenon and its effects.

[Knestis]

Since Jake kind of called me out on this :) ...

I am NOT honestly as anti-creep as it might seem. Instead, I just make sure that my first instinct is to be reluctant about any change or new allowance, the thought being that an overly conservative approach is more likely to prevent unanticipated outcomes. If nothing gets changed, the chance of a surprise is zero.

That said, I DO drive my race car to the track most of the time and will continue to retain that option next year. I save a lot of dough by not owning a truck and trailer and it doesn't cut into my fun in the least to poke the stuff I need in the back of the car, and motor off to VIR, CMP, Lowes, or Rockingham - all of which are within appropriate oh-crap-I-need-to-hire-Luke-the-tow-guy distance. This is a decision that's right for me and I wouldn't presume to impose a demand (for example) that cars retain road-legal emissions and inspection status just because I do.

THAT said, there is - so far as I can figure out - NOTHING in the removal of front passenger seats, headliners, or any of the other stuff that's been changed since the inception of IT, that makes the racing any better. It makes the cars a little faster, arguably a little safer (although in concept only so far as I can tell), takes a little more time and money, and makes us FEEL a little racier. I'd argue that part of the motivation for most of the requested changes are driven by the last factor more than we are willing to admit.

Do hard bushings make a car handle better? Sure. If everyone had to use stock ones, would we all go a little slower? Yup. Would the status quo be upset? No. Would some people wail about how unsafe their car is with those terrible rubber bushings? You bet. Would Showroom stock and Touring cars, required to use them, kill off lots of our club-mates? No way. Would we all save some dough? You bet! Would we have EVER had to have angst-ridden conversations, protests, suspensions, etc. when someone pushed the envelope, first with uniball joints, then with modified suspension arms and/or pick-up points to make them easier and better? NO. Is there someone out there reading this thinking that I'm out of my mind for even picturing what IT might look like if we had to use stock bushings? OF COURSE THERE IS. That's one of those people who think "racing cars" have certain things on them, including solid bushings...

I've used stock ones for two years, by the way but am taking another incremental step myself, and upgrading the front A-arms with bits from http://247-parts.com

Now - do any of the marginal changes that we might think of as rules creep actually HURT IT? Probably not. But the incremental slinking toward Productionism makes me and some other folks very nervous. The ECU allowance goes too far, I think but most of the rest of the changes have been pretty benign.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

I consider rules creep to be a bad thing. Having said that, the rules have to evolve so for this duscussion, I will seperate the two. Creep and Evolution.

Rules creep IMHO is a change for the sake of change. No safety benefit, no clarification of intent, no adaptation to current technological conditions. In addition, usually something that makes something easier or more convenient with no tangible benefit.

The thing about change is that it always brings unintended consiquenses - and THAT is what you have to consider and weigh before making a change.

AB

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 11 2005, 06:51 PM
Since Jake kind of called me out on this :) ...

I am NOT honestly as anti-creep as it might seem. Instead, I just make sure that my first instinct is to be reluctant about any change or new allowance, the thought being that an overly conservative approach is more likely to prevent unanticipated outcomes. If nothing gets changed, the chance of a surprise is zero.

That said, I DO drive my race car to the track most of the time and will continue to retain that option next year. I save a lot of dough by not owning a truck and trailer and it doesn't cut into my fun in the least to poke the stuff I need in the back of the car, and motor off to VIR, CMP, Lowes, or Rockingham - all of which are within appropriate oh-crap-I-need-to-hire-Luke-the-tow-guy distance. This is a decision that's right for me and I wouldn't presume to impose a demand (for example) that cars retain road-legal emissions and inspection status just because I do.

THAT said, there is - so far as I can figure out - NOTHING in the removal of front passenger seats, headliners, or any of the other stuff that's been changed since the inception of IT, that makes the racing any better. It makes the cars a little faster, arguably a little safer (although in concept only so far as I can tell), takes a little more time and money, and makes us FEEL a little racier. I'd argue that part of the motivation for most of the requested changes are driven by the last factor more than we are willing to admit.

Do hard bushings make a car handle better? Sure. If everyone had to use stock ones, would we all go a little slower? Yup. Would the status quo be upset? No. Would some people wail about how unsafe their car is with those terrible rubber bushings? You bet. Would Showroom stock and Touring cars, required to use them, kill off lots of our club-mates? No way. Would we all save some dough? You bet! Would we have EVER had to have angst-ridden conversations, protests, suspensions, etc. when someone pushed the envelope, first with uniball joints, then with modified suspension arms and/or pick-up points to make them easier and better? NO. Is there someone out there reading this thinking that I'm out of my mind for even picturing what IT might look like if we had to use stock bushings? OF COURSE THERE IS. That's one of those people who think "racing cars" have certain things on them, including solid bushings...

I've used stock ones for two years, by the way but am taking another incremental step myself, and upgrading the front A-arms with bits from http://247-parts.com

Now - do any of the marginal changes that we might think of as rules creep actually HURT IT? Probably not. But the incremental slinking toward Productionism makes me and some other folks very nervous. The ECU allowance goes too far, I think but most of the rest of the changes have been pretty benign.

K

67895


Not gonna wade too deep here. But one class should not start to creep into the next class as part of the process. The I have always said is resticting a car would be more IT in nature than opening the rules try to balance things up. A great example is the current group of tweeners that got moved down with weight rather than given something outside the scope to make them faster.

[lateapex911]

I hope you don't think I "called you out" in a mean sprited way Kirk... I am aware of your general philosophies, and I thought your recent comment about your intent to request a change was a great example of how the rule book must, as Andy calls it, evolve.

Good example in the bushings reference. I imagine that it MAY have come about from the inability to require "stock" bushings be kept in "stock" condition on cars that were getting to be 20 years old...and the 'convenience need' arose that as 'stock ' ones would be difficult or impossible to obtain, then maybe freeing up the requirement across the board was the better option. Of course, the consequence is that now the bar has been raised across the board...everybody needs them to be at the front...theoretically, at least. I imagine the headliner and interior trim rule came about that way too, and we see the washer bottle comment constantly...about how dumb it is that we still have to run it. (And I can hear you all saying, "Yeah,, but THAT one is obvious!..LOL)

Kirk also pointed out, in another thread, that IF there were to be an ITR class, that somebody would think that allowing wings would be a good idea. Is that crossing the line? And if it were allowed for the new class, (I am sure some of the cars have them as stock items), would the other classes clamour for them? Is that a good example of rules creep?

I guess my main thought or concept here is that I hear a lot of "the rulebook should be rewritten" but also, "Rules creep is bad"....and "IT needs to change for the future". Sometimes I read that in the same post!

If you were king, what would you rewrite? What would you eliminate or retrun to the genie bottle? And how would it keep bad creep under control, but allow for evolution? Essentially, how do we balance the past and present, but allow for the future? ( If a new class were added, these kinds of big picture questions come to mind.)

(I knew the ECU rule would come up!)

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Dec 11 2005, 07:48 PM

(I knew the ECU rule would come up!)

67903

Haha...but I didn't do it.. B)

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Dec 12 2005, 02:48 AM
(I knew the ECU rule would come up!)

67903


...Just for a laugh,......The first time I heard "Rules Creep" I thought that it referred to some Creepy Guy that made up the Rules. :rolleyes:

....And now you do not want to talk about people from our local college: East Carolina University :blink:

.... Sorry, I couldn't help it

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Dec 11 2005, 07:48 PM
Kirk also pointed out, in another thread, that IF there were to be an ITR class, that somebody would think that allowing wings would be a good idea. Is that crossing the line? And if it were allowed for the new class, (I am sure some of the cars have them as stock items), would the other classes clamour for them? Is that a good example of rules creep?

I guess my main thought or concept here is that I hear a lot of "the rulebook should be rewritten" but also, "Rules creep is bad"....and "IT needs to change for the future". Sometimes I read that in the same post!

If you were king, what would you rewrite? What would you eliminate or retrun to the genie bottle? And how would it keep bad creep under control, but allow for evolution? Essentially, how do we balance the past and present, but allow for the future? ( If a new class were added, these kinds of big picture questions come to mind.)

(I knew the ECU rule would come up!)

67903


Jake,

Any trim part that came on the car stock, including wings, should be allowed. However, if we're talking about the alumium thing placed on every F&F street racer :lol: then that's a horse of a different color. Now as for allowing 17x8 in rims in ITR. I doubt that's rule creep same as 16's are allowed in ITA/S. ECU's are out of the bottle, and I'd rather they stay out otherwise we'd end up with cars that go into limp mode when we remove the rear wheel speed sensor, or how do you deal with a throttle by wire car without changing the tamper proof ecu?

James

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 11 2005, 09:18 PM
I consider rules creep to be a bad thing. Having said that, the rules have to evolve so for this duscussion, I will seperate the two. Creep and Evolution.

Don't anyone freak about the example but different policy positions within an issue often times get defined by semantics. The difference between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" depends ENTIRELY upon which side of the conflict one is on, but arguments use all kinds of weighted language to make distinctions that they each side thinks should be blindingly obvious to any and all.

AT the end of the day, it might be that semantic differentiations between "creep" and "evolution" depends completely on whether we are discussing a change one wants, for whatever reason, or a change one does NOT want. What is creep to me might be evolution to someone else - particularly if I drive an old Fiesta and you drive a New Beetle, for example.

IT rules change proposals get rationalized in all kinds of ways, many of which are simply spin on "I think my car will go faster and look cooler" or "It will make me more competitive." In my central locking proposal, I mentioned safety as a rationale - it's really hard to be sure that the doors and hatch stay unlocked - but the primary motivator for me is that it is just a royal PITA rat's-freakin'-nest of crap to have to deal with, building and maintaining the car.

K

[bldn10]

The ECU rule itself is another excellent example of rules creep - we start out w/ bone stock, open it up a bit, open a lot more, and now people are arguing for stand-alone engine management systems. Any change that simply makes cars faster across the board and is not w/ the intent and effect of making them safer, cheaper, or more reliable w/i existing class philosophy is a step backward IMO. It is in our nature to want to go faster, I understand that, so it is a necessary function for the Club to keep those instincts in check. We don't like it but it is best for the class in the long run. There are always faster and more expensive classes for those who have the need and the wherewithall. Just because a driver "outgrows" a class does not mean that the class has to grow w/ him/her. But I do agree w/ Andy that rules may have to evolve to reflect availability of parts, etc.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by bldn10@Dec 12 2005, 08:27 AM
The ECU rule itself is another excellent example of rules creep - we start out w/ bone stock, open it up a bit, open a lot more, and now people are arguing for stand-alone engine management systems. Any change that simply makes cars faster across the board and is not w/ the intent and effect of making them safer, cheaper, or more reliable w/i existing class philosophy is a step backward IMO. It is in our nature to want to go faster, I understand that, so it is a necessary function for the Club to keep those instincts in check. We don't like it but it is best for the class in the long run. There are always faster and more expensive classes for those who have the need and the wherewithall. Just because a driver "outgrows" a class does not mean that the class has to grow w/ him/her. But I do agree w/ Andy that rules may have to evolve to reflect availability of parts, etc.

67968


I agree 100% and beyond that we should be working on the structure of club racing all together. For those that desire to go faster there needs to be a place to go. Production and GT have never been interested in having these cars up grade to join them until they needed IT cars to save their classes. Maybe looking at a radial set of classes with prep levels that are slighty above IT will be the future of club racing. Whoe knows but anything that gets close to the stupidity of Full prep Prod will eventually eat it's self up in cost and revolving door rules. I would be all for putting the genie back in some of the go fast stuff that is hurting the numbers.

[Bill Miller]

Well, since Jake called me out on this one as well, I'll add to the discussion. Kirk probably has more policy making and implementation knowledge than the rest of us (certainly me), and I think he's nailed it down pretty well.

I don't really have an operational definition of rules creep, but I'll try and put one together. Others have made some very good comments. Here are some of what I think are the key components of rules creep:

* things that are done under the guise of an altruistic reason (e.g. safety), but really have a performance gain as their desired result. This covers a multitude of sins, including, but not limited to, people in a decision-making role setting policy so as to benefit themselves or their associates.

* things that are done out of expidency (sp?) (e.g. ECU rule, it's more expedient to make them open, than to expend to effort to enforce the rule)

* things that are done w/o looking at the way they will impact other aspects.

* implementing policy w/o any regard to the original intent or mission statement of the category

* strained and tortured interpretation of language so as to implement a desired performance enhancement (e.g. spherical bearings being considered bushings).

Far from a complete list, but those are some of the things that I think constitute rules creep. That being said, please don't think that I'm implying that changes in the rules are in and of themselves, bad, because I don't. Rules need to change and evolve to effectively respond to the changing state of technology, as well as what the members want.

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by bldn10@Dec 12 2005, 08:27 AM
The ECU rule itself is another excellent example of rules creep - we start out w/ bone stock, open it up a bit, open a lot more, and now people are arguing for stand-alone engine management systems. Any change that simply makes cars faster across the board and is not w/ the intent and effect of making them safer, cheaper, or more reliable w/i existing class philosophy is a step backward IMO. It is in our nature to want to go faster, I understand that, so it is a necessary function for the Club to keep those instincts in check. We don't like it but it is best for the class in the long run. There are always faster and more expensive classes for those who have the need and the wherewithall. Just because a driver "outgrows" a class does not mean that the class has to grow w/ him/her. But I do agree w/ Andy that rules may have to evolve to reflect availability of parts, etc.

67968


Bill didn't I read that you had a heck of a time setting up your Rx7? All due to a defective stock ECM, that's a known problem child? I'm of the opinion that IT needed the open ECM rules, and while making it be installed in the stock container to the stock wire harness is more expensive than an open system, are an excellant compromise. For an example as to satisfy the removal of wheel speed sensors, per the GCR's, for disabling traction control puts the stock ECM in permenant limp mode, now who thinks that's a good idea in a race car? Sounds the same as removing the auto locking feature/remote locks to me :P

James

[bldn10]

James, I have had ECUs go out in the past w/ previous cars but spares are readily available so it was never much of an issue. I have run bone stock ECUs on occasion. When they first opened up the rule I bought a chip that was supposed to give me X additional HP, etc. but it did not do a thing. I have had zero ECU or other electrical issues w/ my SpeedSource-built current car. It has no rev limiter but I don't think the ECU is otherwise modified. The big mistake (and I suspect it was a mistake) IMO was the words "or replace" in the current rule. I doubt the CRB had any idea people would actually stuff Motecs in the stock box. I think what was intended, and what I would favor, is unlimited mods inside the box - but only to the stock motherboard. Chips, flashes, whatever - but you retain the essence of the stock ECU. I assume that would alleviate the issues you mention. Part of the problem, and someone has already touched on this, is that when the SCCA changes a rule to address an issue - they end up creating a whole batch of new ones. Then you address those. And so on and so on. Creeeeeeeeeeeeeeep.

[mustanghammer]

For the best example of rules creep - study the evolution/creep of A Sedan rules. For example:

OEM GM F-Body rear axles turn out to be weak sisters and are failure prone. Solution - give everybody 9" Ford rear ends! And don't stop there, let them have full floating, cambered 9" Ford Rear Ends!! And if that is leagal, then let Ford guys use 8.8 housings with 9 inch differentials and 9" Ford Axle flanges or floaters installed. Creep, Jog, RUNNNNNNN

The A Sedan lesson is that at no time did the rule makers consider smaller carbs, less agressive intake manifolds, reduced cam lift, rev limiters, narrower wheels, restricted gear ratios...etc.

What would I change about IT?

Nothing. Yes I think there are allot of things that I have to have on my IT car that make no sense - like a heater core, factory wiring etc. But I fear that the effort to do away with those items could be subverted by the best and worst intentions of the rules makers.

So, there are things that frustrate me and make me shake my head that I do not want messed with.

[pfcs49]

I'm with you, Scott. The great thing about IT has been it's simplicityand
affordability combined with great racing-even thought that wasn't promised.
IT provides the biggest bang for the buck. The original concept was to allow very limited modifications that provided large increases in performance, especially in the chassis dept. Early on (83-88 or so) there was a raging argument between the conservatives and the liberals/strict constructionists and the enlightened ones. The enlightened ones prevailed but it was a difficult time! Strict constructionists wanted a lawyers class like showroom stock, and literal reading of rules even when it flew in the face of common sense. If the rule said you could substitute any swaybar you chose, then the conservatives said that if your car came without one, you weren't allowed one. They protested a Volvo at Summit for removing his frt bump stops even though at legal ride height the car would be riding on them. Over time, these disputes got resolved in favor of the enlightened ones and IT entered its Camelot years. In recent times, people have become more contentious and
polarized in a nasty way (similar to the current political scene in every way!)
I wish there was more concensus and cooperation and tolerance in IT and in national politics. If we don't all realize that we stand for one anothers greatness, we won't stand at all. Writing this, I'm aware of just how important and significant IT racing, the IT community, and IT related activities have been in my life. It has taught me many good lessons about all kinds of things civic and mechanical. Lets hope it can remain healthy and vital.
Phil

[Tom A]

I would be up for a little rules creep that said something to the effect of "Any item/equipment that has no business on a race car may be removed, provided the car meets class weight limits and ballast restrictions"

If your car makes weight, and you don't have more than the allowed ballast, nobody should care that you removed the rear window wiper motor and the turn-signal stalk.

Tom

[Knestis]

But I guess I don't understand why.

ANY place where the line is drawn is arbitrary, right? Why stop with removing stuff that "has no place being on a race car" as you may have defined it?

Parking lights and turn signals - go or stay?

Door glass, regardless of door bars - go or stay?

Other side glass?

Windshields in real racing cars are polycarbonate.

Tiny little steps to a TransAm car. If there has to be a line, why bother taking the first step? So our cars look a little more like real racing cars? Removing stuff costs time, which = money.

K

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 14 2005, 10:31 PM
But I guess I don't understand why.

ANY place where the line is drawn is arbitrary, right? Why stop with removing stuff that "has no place being on a race car" as you may have defined it?

Parking lights and turn signals - go or stay?

Door glass, regardless of door bars - go or stay?

Other side glass?

Windshields in real racing cars are polycarbonate.

Tiny little steps to a TransAm car. If there has to be a line, why bother taking the first step? So our cars look a little more like real racing cars? Removing stuff costs time, which = money.

K

68328



Haha---If we are talking what some would consider the only real race car then fenders roof windshields ect. are all not needed on a race car....Pretty soon its a tube car with no body B)

[Tom A]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 14 2005, 09:31 PM
Parking lights and turn signals - go or stay?

Door glass, regardless of door bars - go or stay?

Other side glass?

Windshields in real racing cars are polycarbonate.

Tiny little steps to a TransAm car. If there has to be a line, why bother taking the first step? So our cars look a little more like real racing cars?

I am generally talking about the "That which is not specifically permitted, is forbidden" stuff, that gives no competitive advantage, but some of the mandated stuff is a little silly, particularly now that the "dual purpose" intent has been dropped. I don't care how much my car looks like a race car, but I find it silly that I could be protested and lose because I don't have a heater. If I make weight, what is the competitive advantage I have by not having a heater core, or the aforementioned turn signal stalk?


Removing stuff costs time, which = money.
So don't remove anything. You don't have to install $10,000 worth of Motec engine management inside your hollowed-out stock ECU box, but that is allowed.

I have a car that isn't competitive in ITB, but battle for last place in ITE when I race with SCCA (which shockingly isn't very often).

Tom

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Tom A@Dec 14 2005, 11:43 PM
I am generally talking about the "That which is not specifically permitted, is forbidden" stuff, that gives no competitive advantage, but some of the mandated stuff is a little silly, particularly now that the "dual purpose" intent has been dropped. I don't care how much my car looks like a race car, but I find it silly that I could be protested and lose because I don't have a heater. If I make weight, what is the competitive advantage I have by not having a heater core, or the aforementioned turn signal stalk?

So don't remove anything. You don't have to install $10,000 worth of Motec engine management inside your hollowed-out stock ECU box, but that is allowed.

I have a car that isn't competitive in ITB, but battle for last place in ITE when I race with SCCA (which shockingly isn't very often).

Tom

68330

So Tom , Your talking to a guy that thinks removing the Motec rule would be way better than allowing more stuff to be pulled off the car. Why is your car not competitive in ITB?

[ddewhurst]

***I would be up for a little rules creep that said something to the effect of "Any item/equipment that has no business on a race car may be removed, provided the car meets class weight limits and ballast restrictions"

If your car makes weight, and you don't have more than the allowed ballast, nobody should care that you removed the rear window wiper motor and the turn-signal stalk.***

Tom, it sounds like your evolve to race in a different class.


***Haha---If we are talking what some would consider the only real race car then fenders roof windshields ect. are all not needed on a race car....Pretty soon its a tube car with no body***

Dam Joe, I bet no fenders & bumpers would straighten out the fender bending fest in E Production & T2.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Tom A@Dec 14 2005, 11:12 PM
I would be up for a little rules creep that said something to the effect of "Any item/equipment that has no business on a race car may be removed, provided the car meets class weight limits and ballast restrictions"

If your car makes weight, and you don't have more than the allowed ballast, nobody should care that you removed the rear window wiper motor and the turn-signal stalk.

Tom

68326


I hear this one a lot. It would create mayhem. Kirk is spot on - you then have to define what you can or can't do. You have something in that I think can be removed...and there is inequity.

With regard to 'who cares as long as you meet minimum", that creates class killers. Some cars have a tough time making weight. No problem for them, they now get to run where they should be...but what about all the car that require ballast now? They start throwing away this and that - and then start 'hiding' ballast in perfect spots. 50 lb mufflers in the right rear, lead in the lower cage tubes / frame rails...somebody then creates a car that meets minimum that out brakes, out handles and never seems to go away...

Besides, you say you find it silly that you could be protested for not having a heater in your car - I find it equally as silly that you wouldn't have one in - because the rules require it. These are simple things that people get lazy about - and that sure as sh*t is no excuse to not have a legal race car.

AB

[tom_sprecher]

Time for me to rant and I'm cutting loose. I'm with Tom A. Rules, we don't need no sting-king' rules. As long as you make weight, I don't care. If adding or removing something to make the care faster, safer, cheaper, easier to repair and maintain or to just give you a leg up is OK by me. Some simple drive train rules would be enough, and I don't care if it sounds like Production. The two groups should be re-adjusted and merged to eliminate a group and give the others longer sessions on the track anyway.

There is no real equality in IT now so who said anything has to be fair in racing or life for that matter? Since "entrants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car" why in the hell can't I try to make it so? In my opinion that's half the fun. You use your brain instead of your ass. I don't know, but maybe God gave me a butt that's not as sensitive as the next guy as far as to what the car is doing under me. Instead, I ending up with a brain that can conceptualize a better way of doing something to the car to make me competitive. Should I be penalized for my handicap? That wouldn't be fair, would it?

Currently the class killers already exist, I know, as I plan to run a 1st gen Rx-7. You don't hear me bitching about the CRX in ITA. Fortunately, here in the South we know a thing or two about racing tin tops and we instead of rules creap we did a rules leap and adopted IT7. Was I happy to hear about the spec tire rule? No. That limits the tire pile diving I can do now. What made racing this class cheaper for one guy made it more expensive for me.

And who got into this sport thinking it was going to be cheap? When someone mentions racing and cheap in the same conversation it cracks me up. If you want cheap racing buy a video game. If you want a dual nature car go race SS or T. I'm racing to compete and win. That usually means everyone else looses, right. If you don't like loosing do what I did or do something else on the weekends. Like that video game I suggested.

Wow, that was fun, but I gotta go...

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by tom_sprecher@Dec 15 2005, 09:36 AM
Time for me to rant and I'm cutting loose. I'm with Tom A. Rules, we don't need no sting-king' rules. As long as you make weight, I don't care. If adding or removing something to make the care faster, safer, cheaper, easier to repair and maintain or to just give you a leg up is OK by me. Some simple drive train rules would be enough, and I don't care if it sounds like Production. The two groups should be re-adjusted and merged to eliminate a group and give the others longer sessions on the track anyway.

There is no real equality in IT now so who said anything has to be fair in racing or life for that matter? Since "entrants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car" why in the hell can't I try to make it so? In my opinion that's half the fun. You use your brain instead of your ass. I don't know, but maybe God gave me a butt that's not as sensitive as the next guy as far as to what the car is doing under me. Instead, I ending up with a brain that can conceptualize a better way of doing something to the car to make me competitive. Should I be penalized for my handicap? That wouldn't be fair, would it?

Currently the class killers already exist, I know, as I plan to run a 1st gen Rx-7. You don't hear me bitching about the CRX in ITA. Fortunately, here in the South we know a thing or two about racing tin tops and we instead of rules creap we did a rules leap and adopted IT7. Was I happy to hear about the spec tire rule? No. That limits the tire pile diving I can do now. What made racing this class cheaper for one guy made it more expensive for me.

And who got into this sport thinking it was going to be cheap? When someone mentions racing and cheap in the same conversation it cracks me up. If you want cheap racing buy a video game. If you want a dual nature car go race SS or T. I'm racing to compete and win. That usually means everyone else looses, right. If you don't like loosing do what I did or do something else on the weekends. Like that video game I suggested.

Wow, that was fun, but I gotta go...

68348



haha...Tom good one....Ill go ya one more....If you want SP then race SP we have a class just for you no rules everything is wide open.

[tom_sprecher]

That's funny because about this time last year when I started looking into getting a car I seriously considered SPO. But I wanted to keep it cheap. ;)

[Tom A]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan+Dec 15 2005, 07:03 AM-->
So Tom , Your talking to a guy that thinks removing the Motec rule would be way better than allowing more stuff to be pulled off the car. Why is your car not competitive in ITB?

68341
[/b]Without starting that discussion again, it is a Rabbit GTI.


Originally posted by ddewhurst@Dec 15 2005, 07:09 AM
Tom, it sounds like your evolve to race in a different class.
I do race a different class. The car is set up for NASA GTI cup (http://home.infostations.net/GTICup/), which is a similar level of prep as IT, but with a lower weight and slightly hotter cam. Even with these advantages, our class track records are still slower than the better ITB lap times any given weekend.

<!--QuoteBegin-Andy Bettencourt@Dec 15 2005, 07:11 AM
I hear this one a lot. It would create mayhem. Kirk is spot on - you then have to define what you can or can&#39;t do. You have something in that I think can be removed...and there is inequity.

With regard to &#39;who cares as long as you meet minimum", that creates class killers. Some cars have a tough time making weight. No problem for them, they now get to run where they should be...but what about all the car that require ballast now? They start throwing away this and that - and then start &#39;hiding&#39; ballast in perfect spots. 50 lb mufflers in the right rear, lead in the lower cage tubes / frame rails...somebody then creates a car that meets minimum that out brakes, out handles and never seems to go away...
We have class killers now, (CRX in ITA, BMW 2002 and Volvos in ITB, etc)I don&#39;t see how that is any different. Hiding ballast is clearly cheating for competitive advantage, the rules are clear on where/how ballast can be carried. What baffles me is the attitude some people have that not having a turn signal stalk is "cheating" as much as having an illegal engine.


Besides, you say you find it silly that you could be protested for not having a heater in your car - I find it equally as silly that you wouldn&#39;t have one in - because the rules require it. These are simple things that people get lazy about - and that sure as sh*t is no excuse to not have a legal race car.

68343
I do have a legal race car, for the classes I race. I haven&#39;t removed anything from the car (except sound deadening crap from the interior). When I bought the car, it had no heater, no turn signal or wiper stalks (but has a wiper switch on the dash, which works) no heater/vent control panel, no glove box, no parking brake handle, no rear wiper, and one of the rear side marker reflectors is missing and the hole covered.

I picked up a heater core and a stock cam from a junk yard, but all the other piddly sh*t that offers no competitive advantage but is against the rules, and frankly is too much effort and expense to add to race in (what in my region anyway) is a dead class.

Instead, when I race with SCCA, I will enter ITE where my car is fully legal, and my POS ~95 HP rabbit can do battle with Porsche 911s & 928s, Mistubishi Evos, BMW M3s, a 350Z, and a bunch of other cars that run 15-20 seconds per lap faster than me. I really don&#39;t give a sh*t, either way, I have the same chance of winning in either group, and I am not talking about the car.

For those of you who think I am advocating no rules at all, you are entirely missing the point.

Tom

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by tom_sprecher@Dec 15 2005, 10:02 AM
That&#39;s funny because about this time last year when I started looking into getting a car I seriously considered SPO. But I wanted to keep it cheap. ;)

68354


Now that&#39;s funny......I can see the look on Darin and Andy and Jakes faces right at the moment they read that part.....YOu win the crack me up award of the day. :smilie_pokal:

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Tom A@Dec 15 2005, 10:11 AM
Without starting that discussion again, it is a Rabbit GTI.

I do race a different class. The car is set up for NASA GTI cup (http://home.infostations.net/GTICup/), which is a similar level of prep as IT, but with a lower weight and slightly hotter cam. Even with these advantages, our class track records are still slower than the better ITB lap times any given weekend.

We have class killers now, (CRX in ITA, BMW 2002 and Volvos in ITB, etc)I don&#39;t see how that is any different. Hiding ballast is clearly cheating for competitive advantage, the rules are clear on where/how ballast can be carried. What baffles me is the attitude some people have that not having a turn signal stalk is "cheating" as much as having an illegal engine.

I do have a legal race car, for the classes I race. I haven&#39;t removed anything from the car (except sound deadening crap from the interior). When I bought the car, it had no heater, no turn signal or wiper stalks (but has a wiper switch on the dash, which works) no heater/vent control panel, no glove box, no parking brake handle, no rear wiper, and one of the rear side marker reflectors is missing and the hole covered.

I picked up a heater core and a stock cam from a junk yard, but all the other piddly sh*t that offers no competitive advantage but is against the rules, and frankly is too much effort and expense to add to race in (what in my region anyway) is a dead class.

Instead, when I race with SCCA, I will enter ITE where my car is fully legal, and my POS ~95 HP rabbit can do battle with Porsche 911s & 928s, Mistubishi Evos, BMW M3s, a 350Z, and a bunch of other cars that run 15-20 seconds per lap faster than me. I really don&#39;t give a sh*t, either way, I have the same chance of winning in either group, and I am not talking about the car.

For those of you who think I am advocating no rules at all, you are entirely missing the point.

Tom

68356
Well Tom i think a better approach may be to present a real argument as to why the GTI is not competitive in ITB rather than I want to take a bunch of stuff out and be completely different than an established set of rules. Or race ITE and NASA and leave this set of rules alone. ;)

[Tom A]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 15 2005, 09:21 AM
Well Tom i think a better approach may be to present a real argument as to why the GTI is not competitive in ITB rather than I want to take a bunch of stuff out and be completely different than an established set of rules. Or race ITE and NASA and leave this set of rules alone. ;)

68360
You are completely missing the point. I am not trying to make my car more competitive, I really don&#39;t care. Some cars are going to be faster in any given class, and given the number of cars eligable to compete in IT, SCCA has done a very good job with classing.

What I am saying is, if it makes weight, my car, or your car, or Andy&#39;s car is no more or less competitive because it doesn&#39;t have a turn signal stalk, yet if you beat me in a car that is otherwise legal but missing the stalk, some people would brand you a cheater.

What I am saying is the "established set of rules" in some instances makes no sense, particularly now that the "dual use" intent has been dropped.

My car is probably 30 pounds lighter by not having all that crap in it, but still makes weight for ITB. It is really too bad it isn&#39;t ITB legal, if I could race ITB my participation would increase the SFR ITB field by 25% :023:

Tom

[DavidM]

This to me is starting to sound like a lot of other discussions I&#39;ve read on here. There was a good one a while back where I think the 5 (or maybe it was 6) holy sacrements of an IT car were proposed. It was something like engine, suspension, brakes, transmission, and maybe body or wheels/tires (I don&#39;t remember). The premise was to have a good set of rules to govern these areas because they are what makes a car fast. Extraneous stuff like wiper stalks, heater cores, washer bottles, etc., who cares? Take it off if you don&#39;t want it or leave it on. It&#39;s up to you. It ain&#39;t gonna make your car faster one way or the other. [ Please don&#39;t try to argue that the few grams or pounds you save by removing stuff makes a difference after all the discussions that classifying the weight of a car within 50 to 100 pounds make no difference. ]

I personally want my car as simple as I can make it. To me, the less crap I have on it the better. That&#39;s less crap to get in the way when I&#39;m working on things or trying to debug a problem. Since the wiper stalk seems to be the item du jour I&#39;ll use it as an example. I&#39;m 6&#39;5" and working in the interior of the car is a bitch. I had to do some work on the brake pedal because the little pad the brake light switch hits broke. So I&#39;m trying to squeeze my 6&#39;5" frame under the dash to fix this thing. I can&#39;t tell you how many times I ran into the damn wiper/turn signal stalk. I&#39;m surprised I didn&#39;t break it and someday I may. I&#39;ve also thought I had a problem with the stock tach (which is what I&#39;m currently using). I had to take off both the wiper and turn signal stalk to get the instrument cluster out. I&#39;m just using this as an example and you can think it&#39;s a lame example or not, but I&#39;d much rather just take the damn stalks off. Same with any other crap that isn&#39;t needed.

My $.02 anyways.

David

[Knestis]

So, how do you respond to people who extend the same aguments - safety, economy, simplicity, need to make the cars more attractive in a changing market - to something like camshafts? There&#39;s no cheaper way to make more horsepower and EVERYONE wants more ponies. Or carbon hoods? I could have purchased one for the Golf for less dough (and a hell of a lot less trouble) than finding a new stock one.

See - it doesn&#39;t matter if we stop the creep now (where some people are happy with the product), where Tom A. suggests, or where David wants it. It&#39;s ALWAYS going to be short of SOMEONE&#39;S vision of "what IT should be." You ask, "Who&#39;s Kirk to tell me what the rules should be?" Who are YOU to tell someone else that they can&#39;t have their pet change adopted, too?

Given that - and the huge potential of unanticipated consequences of any additional allowances - the sensible thing is to just leave well enough alone.

K

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 15 2005, 02:50 PM
So, how do you respond to people who extend the same aguments - safety, economy, simplicity, need to make the cars more attractive in a changing market - to something like camshafts? There&#39;s no cheaper way to make more horsepower and EVERYONE wants more ponies. Or carbon hoods? I could have purchased one for the Golf for less dough (and a hell of a lot less trouble) than finding a new stock one.

See - it doesn&#39;t matter if we stop the creep now (where some people are happy with the product), where Tom A. suggests, or where David wants it. It&#39;s ALWAYS going to be short of SOMEONE&#39;S vision of "what IT should be." You ask, "Who&#39;s Kirk to tell me what the rules should be?" Who are YOU to tell someone else that they can&#39;t have their pet change adopted, too?

Given that - and the huge potential of unanticipated consequences of any additional allowances - the sensible thing is to just leave well enough alone.

K

68392
Try this one Kirk. From the Calclub website about the ITR question.


The important 3 steps of success:

1) Go out and buy a car, any car, no matter how wild and unique it is. All wheel drive, a huge wing, and a supercharger are always good pointers for that.

2) AFTER you have bought your car, do your homework and find out that is really fits in none of the numerous race classes, despite the fact that there&#39;s a place for 99% of all cars made.

3) Finally, ask your racing organization to create a class built around YOUR car.

Let&#39;s see how much support that finds . . .


But hey . . . here&#39;s another way:

1) Do your homework first. Check with your racing organization what classes they have.
2) Find out which of them fits your taste and budget.
3) Buy a car that fits in your chosen class, is competetive, and affordable
4) Go racing and have fun

Small changes have to happen just cause technology changes. But to re-create the rules set cause you don&#39;t want the TS stalk in your car is just not part of the class. I for one can say that there are still ITS cars out here that can still be driven to the gas station 4 blocks from the track. Thats not a bad thing. As soon as our rules take that away(cause as soon as it is allowed then it must be done to keep up) these guys need a tow vehicle and a support truck ect. If you want to do all that stuff the prod class has room for you.

SS--->IT----Prod----GT or SPE or ITE or ICSSC or NASA or vintage ect. ect. As much as I wish we could we just can&#39;t be all things to all people with one set of rules.

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 15 2005, 09:50 PM
So, how do you respond to people who extend the same aguments - safety, economy, simplicity, need to make the cars more attractive in a changing market - to something like camshafts? There&#39;s no cheaper way to make more horsepower and EVERYONE wants more ponies. Or carbon hoods? I could have purchased one for the Golf for less dough (and a hell of a lot less trouble) than finding a new stock one.

See - it doesn&#39;t matter if we stop the creep now (where some people are happy with the product), where Tom A. suggests, or where David wants it. It&#39;s ALWAYS going to be short of SOMEONE&#39;S vision of "what IT should be." You ask, "Who&#39;s Kirk to tell me what the rules should be?" Who are YOU to tell someone else that they can&#39;t have their pet change adopted, too?

Given that - and the huge potential of unanticipated consequences of any additional allowances - the sensible thing is to just leave well enough alone.

K

68392



Those may be valid points Kirk, but the washer bottle and wiper stalk take about 5 min each to remove. No cost, no time, also no performance advantage gained or lost....as I see it this rule applies to the guy who drives his car to the track and him only. Just make the wording similar to the windshield clips rule ....MAY be added. Just say washerbottles or stalks....MAY be removed- if you want to great if not keep it......done.

Rob

[Knestis]

To you, the test is "does it take 5 minutes and cost nothing." Someone paying a tuner to build and support a full-boat ITS BMW might apply a different standard like, "Does it cost me more than $500?" He thinks your standard is as dumb as you think MINE is.

If your perspective should be respected, shouldn&#39;t his?

Will you be pissed when some OTHER guy, who thinks the $500 guy is a cheapskate, applies a $1000 threshold of pain? Hell - to someone like the NASA guys who just unloaded a brand new Porsche GT3 Cup car off of a 747, a grand is chump change.

K

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 15 2005, 10:34 PM
To you, the test is "does it take 5 minutes and cost nothing." Someone paying a tuner to build and support a full-boat ITS BMW might apply a different standard like, "Does it cost me more than $500?" He thinks your standard is as dumb as you think MINE is.

If your perspective should be respected, shouldn&#39;t his?

Will you be pissed when some OTHER guy, who thinks the $500 guy is a cheapskate, applies a $1000 threshold of pain? Hell - to someone like the NASA guys who just unloaded a brand new Porsche GT3 Cup car off of a 747, a grand is chump change.

K

68399


With all do respect...."HUH?"

I understand totally the arguement "let sleeping dogs lie" aka...change nothing in the rules in regards to these "trivial" items. However, if you put in verbiage like "....may be removed..." how is that problematic. I see it as free will. If a guy wants windshield clips so be it. If I don&#39;t want a washer bottle so be it. I see no performance advantage/disadvantage to either of these. If we don&#39;t want to celebrate and embrace free will then why not run a spec class? IT is a class based on variety and ingenuity which is why it is so damn addicting, however the cars are evolving as is the industry and society.....so must the rule book.

Another example....I run a functioning heater in my car. I have it set to hi heat, defrost and max fan on a toggle switch, thinking it could help in the rain. If heater cores "....may be removed..." I wouldn&#39;t do it. Some other guy might. Free will nes pas? Performance advantage/disadvantage depends on your side of the fence. He thinks- less weight, won&#39;t leak or blow. I think- can see in the rain. Would my feeling change if mine let go and was 400 to replace....you bettcha. Would his change if I beat him in the rain while his windshield was fogged....you bettcha.


Rob

[Fastfred92]

Face it guys, we already have rules creep.... Take a look at a 90&#39;s IT rule book, bunch of stuff has changed! Control the creep seemed logical until the motec in the box thing blew up. I would ditch all the wiper stalks, heater cores and fricking wiper blades before allowing 5-10k engine management systems in, but thats just me. I know all the rules nerds will say it illegal to do this or that but I, for one, will gladly tuck my tail and go home before I would protest somebodys wiper stalk. As I have said before, if we want to make this a better club eliminate the wennie protest ( protesters )

[Tom A]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 15 2005, 01:50 PM
So, how do you respond to people who extend the same aguments - safety, economy, simplicity, need to make the cars more attractive in a changing market - to something like camshafts? There&#39;s no cheaper way to make more horsepower and EVERYONE wants more ponies. Or carbon hoods? I could have purchased one for the Golf for less dough (and a hell of a lot less trouble) than finding a new stock one.

68392
It is different in that nothing I am talking about would improve the performance of the car. You start monkeying with camshafts, you need to rebalance all the cars, in every class, and that is not what anyone is talking about. I am talking about (and Rob and David) are making it optional to remove things that have nothing to do with performance, but are artifacts of the old "dual use" intent of IT, and serve no purpose in a car that isn&#39;t street driven..

Nobody here is suggesting making the removal of this stuff mandatory, and without changing the minimum weights, this will have zero effect on performance of any given car.

Andy says to avoid mayhem, "you then have to define what you can or can&#39;t do." Ok, then make a list of parts that can be removed, without penalty. Here is a start:

G: OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT
Reflecting the change in the Statement Of Intent of the Improved
Touring Category away from "Dual Purpose" cars, the following
equipment may be removed, at the competitors discresion:
Turn Signal/wiper stalks, Windshiled/headlight washer bottles
Rear wipersand mechanism, parking brake lever, horns, the nifty
little light that comes on when you open the trunk......

Etc.

Tom

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Tom A@Dec 15 2005, 05:18 PM
It is different in that nothing I am talking about would improve the performance of the car. You start monkeying with camshafts, you need to rebalance all the cars, in every class, and that is not what anyone is talking about. I am talking about (and Rob and David) are making it optional to remove things that have nothing to do with performance, but are artifacts of the old "dual use" intent of IT, and serve no purpose in a car that isn&#39;t street driven..

Nobody here is suggesting making the removal of this stuff mandatory, and without changing the minimum weights, this will have zero effect on performance of any given car.

Andy says to avoid mayhem, "you then have to define what you can or can&#39;t do." Ok, then make a list of parts that can be removed, without penalty. Here is a start:

G: OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT
Reflecting the change in the Statement Of Intent of the Improved
Touring Category away from "Dual Purpose" cars, the following
equipment may be removed, at the competitors discresion:
Turn Signal/wiper stalks, Windshiled/headlight washer bottles
Rear wipersand mechanism, parking brake lever, horns, the nifty
little light that comes on when you open the trunk......

Etc.

Tom

68404


Tom, YOu are missing the point. You take that 30lbs of crap out of your car and it then becomes a necessity for everyone else to do it. You now get to put the 30lbs back in the car in the form of ballast. Now I will take 30lbs on the floor rather than 30lbs in the dash anyday. Allowing what seams like a small thing can be a huge advantage to some....The ECU rule should show you the unintended issues that come up. I am sure that was a "if we let them chip&#39;em it will be the same as rejeting a carb" deal. Problem I have never seen a 5,000 dollar carb rejet. ;)

[Knestis]

I&#39;m sorry if I&#39;m taking a bigger view and not having much success explaining it but I&#39;ll be just as clear as possible here:

The simple fact that you want to remove your washer bottles or whatever - that you think it is a "good thing" - is PROOF that you believe that it will indeed give you SOME kind of advantage. If you thought it would make you slower, you wouldn&#39;t do it - ergo, you think it makes you faster.

If I told any given IT entrant, "You need to do (whatever) to your car for the 2007 season," he or she would absolutely, positively assess whether or not it provided a relative advantage. If it did not, they would oppose it. If it did - cool! "Heck, yeah - I&#39;ll do that."

I removed my passenger outside rear view mirror. It took about 15 minutes (remote cables, you know), and cost four pieces of black tape to cover up the hole. I KNOW that it did not result in a measurable, repeatable increase in performance but equally, I did it knowing that less mass is good, that it was a couple of pounds mounted above the CG, and it was poking out in the wind. I took it off because I thought it would, however infinitesimally, make ... the ... car ... faster.

K

[Knestis]

...and while I&#39;m at it, PLEASE - let&#39;s not use GTI Cup as any kind of example in conversations about rules creep.

I don&#39;t remember if Tom A. was involved in the conversation I was in (I think it was on the Vortex? NASA Forums?), but the changes instituted for the NorCal rules are a primo example of the worst kind of creep.

"Hey - let&#39;s have different local rules, and add some real zoomy parts to make the cars faster and more fun to drive!" If everyone adds a G cam and header, what do they get? A few hundred bucks poorer and everyone goes 10hp faster. Everyone is still in the same relative position on the grid (except for those who didn&#39;t spend the money who are further behind) and what was now a not-so-well-subscribed national class becomes a splinter class with rules that don&#39;t align.

For how many cars? How much faster are they? Is it a heck of a lot more fun to drive one? What&#39;s on the wish list for next year?

Bull. Someone decided that "it would be cool" to have "free will" to buy a cam, header, and whatever else. It was not a strategic move for the good of the class in the long run and there WILL be more changes, when someone else decides something else would be cool...

K

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 15 2005, 06:03 PM
...and while I&#39;m at it, PLEASE - let&#39;s not use GTI Cup as any kind of example in conversations about rules creep.

I don&#39;t remember if Tom A. was involved in the conversation I was in (I think it was on the Vortex? NASA Forums?), but the changes instituted for the NorCal rules are a primo example of the worst kind of creep.

"Hey - let&#39;s have different local rules, and add some real zoomy parts to make the cars faster and more fun to drive!" If everyone adds a G cam and header, what do they get? A few hundred bucks poorer and everyone goes 10hp faster. Everyone is still in the same relative position on the grid (except for those who didn&#39;t spend the money who are further behind) and what was now a not-so-well-subscribed national class becomes a splinter class with rules that don&#39;t align.

For how many cars? How much faster are they? Is it a heck of a lot more fun to drive one? What&#39;s on the wish list for next year?

Bull. Someone decided that "it would be cool" to have "free will" to buy a cam, header, and whatever else. It was not a strategic move for the good of the class in the long run and there WILL be more changes, when someone else decides something else would be cool...

K

68409


Ah you mean like the ICSCC club rabbit model.....35 to 40 cars every race. Now 2 cars and you couldn&#39;t give on away after the rules made it cost money to compete.

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 16 2005, 01:03 AM

Bull. Someone decided that "it would be cool" to have "free will" to buy a cam, header, and whatever else. It was not a strategic move for the good of the class in the long run and there WILL be more changes, when someone else decides something else would be cool...

K

68409


WOW,
Kirk you are a real purist!! :D And I do respect that!
But, I do think that you can clearly identify the difference between cam and header and a washer bottle in terms of performance potential. If eleminating the washer bottle is not a strategic move for the good of the class then what does the motec mumbo-jumbo do for the class?
If I wrinkle up my car then I have to add washer bottle to the parts list.....? Come on, how many guys are doing this? A purist would say this is creep, anyone else would say elimnating a rule designed to "haze" is class preservation. Eleminating the washerbottle or TS stalk does not make us production.....nor does it weigh 30lbs to now "strap to the floor thus giving me a performance advantage". Let&#39;s call a spade a spade. Were all smart and gentlemen...but let&#39;s be realistic.

Again, what you see as an advantage I may see as a disadvantage- see my heatercore reference.

Now I&#39;ll play Devils advocate..... I&#39;ll go to the dealer and put a bottle in my car. Then at the start of the season I&#39;ll spend the money and protest for lack of bottle in my competitors cars. I&#39;ll clearly win. Does this make me a rules purist, a competitor striving for equality? Or does it make me an a$$h*le?

OK, gotta go, my commodore 64 is too close to my Kerosene heater, which is in front of my rotary dial phone which is ringing......

Evolution is not always bad!!!!!

Rob

[Joe Harlan]

You know it is simple, If you want to take stuff of yer car go do it in a class where they allow it. There is a rule follow it. If you don&#39;t like it find a class where you fit. I think the Z3 1.9 is classed in prod and I know the rabbit is several times. It is just stupid to beat this to death and act like it&#39;s a bunch of old fogey&#39;s keeping you from the brass ring. I am not old I do believe in the concept of this class and I think it is being wrecked everytime we take one more little no harm step toward purpose built race cars.

[Tom A]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 15 2005, 05:03 PM
...and while I&#39;m at it, PLEASE - let&#39;s not use GTI Cup as any kind of example in conversations about rules creep.

I don&#39;t remember if Tom A. was involved in the conversation I was in (I think it was on the Vortex? NASA Forums?), but the changes instituted for the NorCal rules are a primo example of the worst kind of creep.

68409
I wasn&#39;t involved in that discussion, and I only mentioned GTI Cup in reference to how my car is prepped. The decision to use suplimental rules in Norcal happened before I bought my car, but it seems to have worked really well. From a class that was dead, we had 6 regular competitors (7 in one race) this season, up from 5 regulars last year, and 2 in 2003. There are 2 more cars being built for the class for next season. For comparison, There were 3 regular ITB competitors last season.

As far as I can tell, we are the only guys running GTI cup in the country, so I don&#39;t see how us having our own rules makes any difference, as long as all of us agree to any proposed changes, which we have, including the changes for next year.

That being said, GTI Cup has nothing to do with this discussion, if you would like to go into things further, feel free to contact me offline.

Tom

[tom_sprecher]

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the SCCA Welterweight Tintop Rules Bout. In one corner we have the defending champ, who wants the rules to remain the same in order to avoid having to deal with them. Having fought the argument that removing turn signal stalks, washer bottles, heater cores and wiring harnesses can and will result in adding modified cams, programmable ECU’s and probably high compression pistons with fully ported heads, he tends to be a hot headed and a heavy hitter grasping at wild conclusions to make a point. Watch out, as he has had his way for a while and does not want to see that change.

Across the ring in the far corner is the challenger eager to fight for a change. His one mission is to allow the option to remove a number of non essential stock items which can be counted on the fingers in one of those gloves. This street brawler wants the chance to make a mark for himself and make it easier and cheaper for everyone who follows in his footsteps. He has a slight advantage over the champ tonight since he is not fighting with his head up his ass.

Christ, has this turned into a good fight, or what? I have to side with the “allow the option to get rid of the street legal remnants” contender. This is due to the fact that I have a hard time understanding some of the logic from the other corner used in this argument. For instance, take the following statement in particular.

“The simple fact that you want to remove your washer bottles or whatever - that you think it is a "good thing" - is PROOF that you believe that it will indeed give you SOME kind of advantage. If you thought it would make you slower, you wouldn&#39;t do it - ergo, you think it makes you faster.”

Wow! That’s a freaking stretch that maybe my children could make, but not me. Try ideas like it’s in the way, or it’s not used, or needed, or I don’t have one now and don’t want to spend a small fortune in time and money to find a 25 year old (insert either washer bottle, wiring harness, turn signal stalk, side markers, wipers, head liner, carpet, radio, etc.) That is logic I can follow, but I want to remove it so it makes me faster? Dude, give me a hit of what you’re smoking.

Does anybody besides me think there can be some kind of SIMPLE, LOGICAL compromise can be had that somehow will prevent the sky from falling or, God forbid, the leap from allowing the removal of items like turn signal stalks to the addition of things like hot cams. Who thinks like that anyway?

I will even volunteer to take on the task of submitting the request to change the rules. Please be warned that I don’t know squat about it, but unlike some folks on this forum, fear of the unknown was never one of my traits. Actually, quite the opposite is the case. Post suggestions of items that we should be permitted to remove and I’ll put something together.

I wonder if when the powers that be were contemplating the removal of the passenger seat if any of the claims of impending doom and destruction made here where made back then.

[Marcus Miller]

:023:

I can see the dangers of changing rulesets that Kirk alluded to from my first series, Pro7. AZ is different from TX, is different from Socal, is different form Norcal, all of which don&#39;t match the only national ruleset published.
That sucks.

That being said, with a ntional IT rule set, I see removing some of the BS items a good idea. I laugh looking at my ITA car and my Pro7.
ITA car has full harness, dash pieces, etc. The Pro7 is stripped., It nearly fits in as an EP car...

When it happens, the Pro7 will be cheaper to repair, was cheaper to build, easier to work on,etc. All pluses.


Marcus

edit: wow my tpying sucks.

[Knestis]

Originally posted by tom_sprecher@Dec 15 2005, 10:35 PM
... Wow! That’s a freaking stretch that maybe my children could make, but not me. Try ideas like it’s in the way, or it’s not used, or needed, or I don’t have one now and don’t want to spend a small fortune in time and money to find a 25 year old (insert either washer bottle, wiring harness, turn signal stalk, side markers, wipers, head liner, carpet, radio, etc.) That is logic I can follow, but I want to remove it so it makes me faster? Dude, give me a hit of what you’re smoking. ...

Ah - excellent. There&#39;s a glimmer here. You&#39;re getting closer.

Anything that makes working on the car easier frees up time to do other things that make it go faster. Right or wrong?

Money you don&#39;t have to spend replacing OE wiring harnesses can get spent making it go faster. Right or wrong?

Time = money and money = speed. Time = speed. A stretch?

You are a racer. Your goal is to go faster. You choose to do things that you think will further that goal. Heck - racers do things that at some level they rationally KNOW won&#39;t make them faster, but they HOPE will. Why is that such a stretch?

Would you elect to do something if you thought it made you less competitive? Think about how you think.

K

[tom_sprecher]

I&#39;m not getting closer, you&#39;re getting farther away. You&#39;re missing the point of allowing the removal of previously mentioned items. Let me try to explain my situation and maybe you’ll understand the point. But before that, I’ll answer your questions.


Anything that makes working on the car easier frees up time to do other things that make it go faster. Right or wrong?

Wrong. Working on the car currently takes way too much time as it is. I need to spend freed up time with my wife and kids, friends, work, other interests, etc. I want to race, but I want a life too.


Money you don&#39;t have to spend replacing OE wiring harnesses can get spent making it go faster. Right or wrong?

Wrong. Money I don&#39;t have to spend replacing OE wiring harnesses can be spend on my wife and kids, friends, work, other interests, etc. I want to race, but I want a life too.

If you notice there is a pattern here. I happen to have a life outside of racing that is very demanding when it comes to time and money. Any savings of either time or money from one interest is almost immediately applied to the others.


Time = money and money = speed. Time = speed. A stretch?

Wrong again, except for the stretch part. Its time = money and time + money = speed. I know a lot of racers with a $hitload of time on their hands, but it ain&#39;t making them any faster. I&#39;ve also know racers with a lot of money and speed was not in the equation.

My goal is to go through life and enjoy all the interests I can while using the least amount of any my resources. It is a blessing and a curse being multi-dimensional that way, but I try to make the best of it and so far it’s been a hell of a ride. With regard to resources the most precious commodity I have is time. Money I have, but it won&#39;t buy me any more time than what&#39;s left.

And no, I would not elect to do something if I thought it made me less competitive. How you derived that out of any of my statements is some more of that logic I find difficult to follow. If you take the time to explain it, I&#39;ll try to find the time to understand.

[Tom A]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 15 2005, 08:32 PM
Anything that makes working on the car easier frees up time to do other things that make it go faster. Right or wrong?
Wrong. Anything that makes working on the car easier, allows me to do other things, like spending time with my family.


Money you don&#39;t have to spend replacing OE wiring harnesses can get spent making it go faster. Right or wrong?
Wrong. Money not spent on replacing an OE harness (that is much more complex than necessary for my needs, and powers things I don&#39;t need or care about) is money that stays in the bank, or is spent on other things, which may or may not have anything to do with the race car.


Time = money and money = speed. Time = speed. A stretch?A stretch. Money=speed I tend to agree with, but not the others. My time is free.


You are a racer. Your goal is to go faster. You choose to do things that you think will further that goal. Heck - racers do things that at some level they rationally KNOW won&#39;t make them faster, but they HOPE will. Why is that such a stretch?Racers also do things that have nothing to do with how fast they are, but may make the car more reliable, or look better, or safer, or easier to work on.


Would you elect to do something if you thought it made you less competitive? Think about how you think.Yes. I run on Toyo tires, rather than Hoosiers when I race with SCCA.

Tom

[tom_sprecher]

Daaaamn! Two responses within two minites of each other from opposie sides of the country both saying the same thing. It makes sense as every Tom I&#39;ve every know was cool.

K, now do you get the point?

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by tom_sprecher@Dec 15 2005, 10:44 PM
Daaaamn! Two responses within two minites of each other from opposie sides of the country both saying the same thing. It makes sense as every Tom I&#39;ve every know was cool.

K, now do you get the point?

68430



:lol: The ultimate irony is that Kirk is the person who proposed the elimination of remote/auto door locks. Just because someone damages something stock, like a washer bottle now obligates them to find a replacement, priceless. I&#39;m thinking back to another So-Cal newbie who can&#39;t find a fuel filler door for his Toyo, should he be banned because he can&#39;t find one?? I know of someone who&#39;s JUNKing their Z3 because of a burned wire harness, nothing else is wrong with it and it&#39;s a road car. Imagine trying to find one to replace for a race car, maybe it&#39;d cost more than buying some other race car :blink: What&#39;s wrong with some aftermarket replacement, but then does it match the stock one, and is there a published standard for the stock one ala the piston debate? Just some food for thought :P

James

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by tom_sprecher@Dec 15 2005, 11:44 PM
K, now do you get the point?

68430
I don&#39;t think it&#39;s Kirk that&#39;s got a problem getting the point...

Wow! Two guys on this board agree on something! And within two minutes of each other! You two oughtta get together and pat each other on the back, drink beer, or something...we&#39;re so proud of you!!

Yeah, I pretty much think you&#39;re being an ass to Kirk.

Hey, guess what: there&#39;s two other guys all the way across the country that agree on something else: Joe Harlan, Kirk Knestis, and me. Oh, wait, that&#39;s three! Do we out vote you? I sincerely hope that doesn&#39;t make you feel irrelevant...

If you want to race a class where you can make any changes you want, go do it (Production comes to mind), but don&#39;t expect support for your illogical arguments to make IT a run-what-you-brung catch-all (see ITE rules thread for that). In fact, if you want the rules changed, I encourage you to submit your request, and I&#39;ll watch Fastrack expectantly for the "not within the philosophy of the class" bitch-slap from the CRB.

See "rules creep" thread if you want to argue incessantly about it. Oh, wait: this is the rules creep thread. Hah! - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Tom A@Dec 15 2005, 06:18 PM
It is different in that nothing I am talking about would improve the performance of the car. You start monkeying with camshafts, you need to rebalance all the cars, in every class, and that is not what anyone is talking about. I am talking about (and Rob and David) are making it optional to remove things that have nothing to do with performance, but are artifacts of the old "dual use" intent of IT, and serve no purpose in a car that isn&#39;t street driven..

Nobody here is suggesting making the removal of this stuff mandatory, and without changing the minimum weights, this will have zero effect on performance of any given car.

Andy says to avoid mayhem, "you then have to define what you can or can&#39;t do." Ok, then make a list of parts that can be removed, without penalty. Here is a start:

G: OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT
Reflecting the change in the Statement Of Intent of the Improved
Touring Category away from "Dual Purpose" cars, the following
equipment may be removed, at the competitors discresion:
Turn Signal/wiper stalks, Windshiled/headlight washer bottles
Rear wipersand mechanism, parking brake lever, horns, the nifty
little light that comes on when you open the trunk......

Etc.

Tom

68404


I hear you. The issue I have is the "etc." part. You must list everything that is ok to remove or else someone will trample all over the rule taking everything out.

BTW: parking brakes levers and trunk dome lights are already legal to be removed, and specifically say so in the GCR.

AB

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 16 2005, 03:03 AM
You know it is simple, If you want to take stuff of yer car go do it in a class where they allow it. There is a rule follow it. If you don&#39;t like it find a class where you fit. I think the Z3 1.9 is classed in prod and I know the rabbit is several times. It is just stupid to beat this to death and act like it&#39;s a bunch of old fogey&#39;s keeping you from the brass ring. I am not old I do believe in the concept of this class and I think it is being wrecked everytime we take one more little no harm step toward purpose built race cars.

68417


Joe I agree with you totally (and Kirk and my friend Greg).....with one caveat......no motec.

If Motec doesn&#39;t head this class toward production then what does? A washerbottle?

Removing useless parts--okay I&#39;ll play into it.......but MOTEC ---give me a break.

Fact of the matter is MOTEC, based on your arguements is not within the "original intent" of the (20 yr old) rulebook.

If you think I can gain 30lbs of floorboard ballast by removing a washerbottle and turn signal stalk I will mail you mine so you can weigh them :D .

See my post above about heater cores....what you see as an advantage I may see as a disadvantage.

What is the HUGE beef with putting ".....may be removed...." in the rules?

And by the way.....

Telling us "new guys" to live within your rules or go somewhere else is exactly the problem with IT. Have you read the posts about other regions #&#39;s?

This reminds me of when I was in Dental schhol...Some instructors only wanted you to place amalgam (silver) fillings in patients.....others said resin based composite (white) is better. Both had VERY valid points, and would passsionately argue their point. If I went with the tried and true, blue-blooded, resist change approach and placed only amalgam in my practice I&#39;d be in trouble.....CT has a bill in front of the House to ban the use of amalgam in Dentistry in CT- setting a National precedent for this type of legislation......

Progress and evolution is unstoppable....it may not be what you want to hear, but it&#39;s true.

If we as a group cannot agree to evolve we will face extinction (like dinosaurs!). We must pick where and how we evolve......it is my contention that MOTEC is more of a step in the wrong direction according to the "original intent" of the rulebook then washerbottle elimination.

Rob

ps....should we eliminate open exhaust for fear of our cars sounding too racy? :D

[RacerBill]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 16 2005, 12:32 AM
Ah - excellent. There&#39;s a glimmer here. You&#39;re getting closer.

Anything that makes working on the car easier frees up time to do other things that make it go faster. Right or wrong?

Money you don&#39;t have to spend replacing OE wiring harnesses can get spent making it go faster. Right or wrong?

Time = money and money = speed. Time = speed. A stretch?

You are a racer. Your goal is to go faster. You choose to do things that you think will further that goal. Heck - racers do things that at some level they rationally KNOW won&#39;t make them faster, but they HOPE will. Why is that such a stretch?

Would you elect to do something if you thought it made you less competitive? Think about how you think.

K

68425


K - I think you are generalizing here. Just like &#39;spending money on the car will make it go faster&#39; Only if you spend it on the right stuff!

Saved time could also be spent with the other part of the race team. Keeping the family happy rates just above racing in our house.

Not having to pay for that OEM wiring harness might also be the difference between a &#39;No Tell Motel&#39; and a clean, comfortable place where the team can relax.

In either case, it gives us more choices.

I agreee that a lot of us would make the cars faster, more reliable, etc. but not all.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Doc Bro@Dec 16 2005, 08:13 AM

What is the HUGE beef with putting ".....may be removed...." in the rules?



Nothing - but you have to list the allowable items...and I will say it again, turn stalks and washer bottles may seem simple to you, but there are hundreds of un-race-related items that other people think mean nothing.

I understand the issue with some of the anti-change mentality, but you have to look at the big picture first. Why is it so hard to have a washer bottle in your car? It&#39;s easier to not have it, I understand - but where does it end.

If you want to put some specifics together for review, so be it - but it CAN&#39;T be open-ended...you need to define what is allowable. See my earlier post...we can bitch about what we want removed but some of us don&#39;t even know you already can.

AB

[Greg Amy]

Hey, Rob, it&#39;s not that I disagree with your (collective "your") logic; on the face of it, it makes sense. It&#39;s also not that I&#39;m an old fogey trying to keep the class as it was in 1984 or stop "progress." What you&#39;re (collective) missing is the big picture of the matter, and the unintended consequences of what you&#39;re asking, and this is what Kirk is trying to say.

Let&#39;s take that MoTec as an example. Does anyone believe that the intent of the ECU rule was to allow MoTec? Of course not. However, by opening up that rule we effectively opened up a Pandora&#39;s Box that de facto allowed MoTec into Improved Touring. Intended? Nope. Foreseen? Nope. Allowed? Yep.

So what would be the unintended consequences of allowing all that extra stuff to be removed? That&#39;s the point: we don&#39;t know. Don&#39;t you think someone (me) would try to parlay that into a competitive advantage? You bet your ass I would! You want to remove your washer bottle so that you won&#39;t have to buy a replacement and will be able to spend more time with your wife and kids? Good for you! While you&#39;re at the soccor field, I&#39;m going to be in my garage designing and fabricating a brand-new cold air box that I&#39;ve been wanting to build except for the #%^$% washer bottle that&#39;s in the way of that nice cool stream of air coming around the headlamps. You want to be able to remove your old unused wiring harness so that you can go on vacation with the money you saved? Bee-ewty! While you&#39;re at Magic Kingdom riding the Pirates of the Caribbean, I&#39;m at Matt&#39;s shop welding in some additional rollcage tubes that are snug up against my flexible rocker panel, which I can&#39;t do now because of that $%$& wiring harness!

You want to remove XX pounds of stuff you don&#39;t need for racing? Perfect; that&#39;s XX pounds of stuff I can put in a more-strategic location (and trust me, it ain&#39;t gonna be held in with a bolt in the passenger footwell area.) Sure, it&#39;s just some almost-weightless items that have no "significant" impact on performance. But, it does have an effect: things weigh something and are almost invariably located in the worse places. It&#39;s only an ounce, but a lot of ounces equals pounds.

Even better, all that stuff that I remove (remember, we&#39;re doing this reportedly because this stuff is rare) is gonna be placed on eBay, giving me that much more cashola to spend on serious performance items.

Then there&#39;s the rules creep argument. You&#39;re asking for an inch; why be so concerned; it&#39;s only an inch! Then the next guy wants an inch (hey, it&#39;s only an inch!) and then the next guy, and then the nexy guy, and then suddenly you look back and you&#39;re 10 feet from where you started. You may think it&#39;s only an inch, but that "inch argument" has been used for 20 years to basically transform the class from its original intent. In fact, I believe I may be able to effectively argue that the IT of today closely resembles the Production of 20 or so years ago; is Production where we want to be in 20 years? If so, why do it incrementally; we can go there now. Maybe overly dramatic, but I think you understand...?

So while on the face of it this seems like a silly argument, there&#39;s a lot more to it than simply removing the washer bottle and tossing it in the can... - GA

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 16 2005, 02:52 PM
. Why is it so hard to have a washer bottle in your car? It&#39;s easier to not have it, I understand - but where does it end.

AB

68452



Very simple...with new cars the washer bottle has become tucked in and integrated into the vehicle in such a way that if you "injure" the car you will ruin the bottle...thus making it somewhat of a consumable and less of a durable product. That being said to satisfy the criteria of the rules you must add (insult to injury) a bottle to the list of parts that need replacing. Why?

Sorry Kirk, the money spent on the bottle will not go to racier parts....it may go to the LRP food stand or the package store for "coping" with a balled up race car.....replacing the bottle after an incident is "hazing" and a waste of our talent, intellect and resources.

Besides if I whoop someone on the track I can guarantee I&#39;d do the same with OR without my washerbottle or TS stalk!!! :happy204:

I&#39;ll start the list:

washerbotttle
turn signal stalk
cruise control stalk

Rob

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Dec 16 2005, 03:01 PM
Hey, Rob, it&#39;s not that I disagree with your (collective "your") logic; on the face of it, it makes sense. It&#39;s also not that I&#39;m an old fogey trying to keep the class as it was in 1984 or stop "progress." What you&#39;re (collective) missing is the big picture of the matter, and the unintended consequences of what you&#39;re asking, and this is what Kirk is trying to say.

Let&#39;s take that MoTec as an example. Does anyone believe that the intent of the ECU rule was to allow MoTec? Of course not. However, by opening up that rule we effectively opened up a Pandora&#39;s Box that de facto allowed MoTec into Improved Touring. Intended? Nope. Foreseen? Nope. Allowed? Yep.

So what would be the unintended consequences of allowing all that extra stuff to be removed? That&#39;s the point: we don&#39;t know. Don&#39;t you think someone (me) would try to parlay that into a competitive advantage? You bet your ass I would! You want to remove your washer bottle so that you won&#39;t have to buy a replacement and will be able to spend more time with your wife and kids? Good for you! While you&#39;re at the soccor field, I&#39;m going to be in my garage designing and fabricating a brand-new cold air box that I&#39;ve been wanting to build except for the #%^$% washer bottle that&#39;s in the way of that nice cool stream of air coming around the headlamps. You want to be able to remove your old unused wiring harness so that you can go on vacation with the money you saved? Bee-ewty! While you&#39;re at Magic Kingdom riding the Pirates of the Caribbean, I&#39;m at Matt&#39;s shop welding in some additional rollcage tubes that are snug up against my flexible rocker panel, which I can&#39;t do now because of that $%$& wiring harness!

You want to remove XX pounds of stuff you don&#39;t need for racing? Perfect; that&#39;s XX pounds of stuff I can put in a more-strategic location (and trust me, it ain&#39;t gonna be held in with a bolt in the passenger footwell area.) Sure, it&#39;s just some almost-weightless items that have no "significant" impact on performance. But, it does have an effect: things weigh something and are almost invariably located in the worse places. It&#39;s only an ounce, but a lot of ounces equals pounds.

Even better, all that stuff that I remove (remember, we&#39;re doing this reportedly because this stuff is rare) is gonna be placed on eBay, giving me that much more cashola to spend on serious performance items.

Then there&#39;s the rules creep argument. You&#39;re asking for an inch; why be so concerned; it&#39;s only an inch! Then the next guy wants an inch (hey, it&#39;s only an inch!) and then the next guy, and then the nexy guy, and then suddenly you look back and you&#39;re 10 feet from where you started. You may think it&#39;s only an inch, but that "inch argument" has been used for 20 years to basically transform the class from its original intent. In fact, I believe I may be able to effectively argue that the IT of today closely resembles the Production of 20 or so years ago; is Production where we want to be in 20 years? If so, why do it incrementally; we can go there now. Maybe overly dramatic, but I think you understand...?

So while on the face of it this seems like a silly argument, there&#39;s a lot more to it than simply removing the washer bottle and tossing it in the can... - GA

68455



Finally....A well thought out and written response.....I love it Greg!!! And your point makes perfect sense. I totally agree. BUT, why are we having this discussion then? We should be arguing to put things back then...no? Let&#39;s do away with MOTEC! It would have no affect on the majority. I feel sometimes like we&#39;re guarding a bank that&#39;s already been robbed!!!

See my point is if someone goes to the ITAC or CRB and says my car is classed wrongly and say it&#39;s a 95% car (no MOTEC) the CRB or ITAC will say "Yes we see your data, we see your modifications....however you don&#39;t have MOTEC". We&#39;ve all seen this senario on this BB. What is the likely hood of the ITAC or CRB given the same senario saying " yes but you still have your washerbottle, you haven&#39;t explored the performance advantages gained by its removal"....highly unlikely!

There is such a huge push to bring equality to IT (which I stongly support and applaud the ITAC&#39;s efforts for) why not work also on putting some of the genies back that came out as unforseen consequences of rules creep (MOTEC). On the one hand the group is saying "NO CHANGE" and on the other hand "RESTRUCTURE IT TO BRING EQUALITY". Sounds like the fable of the man who blows hot and cold. (I&#39;ll explain it if necessary) :D


Rob

[Andy Bettencourt]

Understand that the current make-up of the ITAC is not the same group that have written some of the rules that we are taking issue with.

I would love to stuff the progammable fuel management (PFM) genie back in the bottle. It would cost (more than you think) some people some serious money. Maybe we need to put it out for member comment.

AB

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Doc Bro@Dec 16 2005, 10:14 AM
Very simple...with new cars the washer bottle has become tucked in and integrated into the vehicle in such a way that if you "injure" the car you will ruin the bottle...thus making it somewhat of a consumable and less of a durable product. That being said to satisfy the criteria of the rules you must add (insult to injury) a bottle to the list of parts that need replacing. Why?

Sorry Kirk, the money spent on the bottle will not go to racier parts....it may go to the LRP food stand or the package store for "coping" with a balled up race car.....replacing the bottle after an incident is "hazing" and a waste of our talent, intellect and resources.

68461


Okay, so a washer bottle is guaranteed to be injured when a new car crashes. You know my battery tray is pretty much guaranteed to break in a front end collision. So i guess that can be replaced. And while we are at we might as well allow the battery to relocate. See in 30 seconds we just lost another few inches all based on the same argument and this one someone will even play the safety card on to justify.


Next, yes the MOTEC situation sucks. It&#39;s wrong it should have never happened it flies in the face of everything we say IT should be about. I think we can all agree to that right? So can everyone stop using it as an excuse to make more changes. If anything it&#39;s evidence of how minor well intentioned rule changes can be a disaster, not a justification for why some little thing shoudl be changed because it doesn&#39;t make a performance difference.

Don&#39;t be so sure Kirk won&#39;t spend that washer bottle money on something to make his car go faster. I don&#39;t know him personally but I know a lot of racers that give up a lot of things in there life to get to the track and make there car as fast as legally possible. Trying to argue how you think somone is going to spend there money is a lost cause. You can&#39;t prove it either way and there is always someone with more money to spend anyway.


Originally posted by Doc Bro@Dec 16 2005, 10:14 AM
I&#39;ll start the list:

washerbotttle
turn signal stalk
cruise control stalk

68461


Okay, let&#39;s to add to your list:

Battery tray and the inevitable battery relocation
Unneeded wires in the harness (fire hazard)
lexan windows (for Safety right? easier and cheaper than a new windshield)
Rear hatch, hood, fenders (fiberglass is cheaper than finding a used part)


And that&#39;s just a short list of things I would like to do with MY car. It all sounds well and good but nothing mentioned is something I NEED in order to race the car. Now take the new list and have every driver/car builder add what they would like to do. You know what happens, you end up with cars several hundred pounds lighter that resemble GT cars. Now you&#39;re thinking something along the lines of "but obviously part xxx crosses the line and provides an advantage." Unfortunately there is nothing obvious about where that line should be. As Kirk says it&#39;s arbitray so why draw the line at a point other than where it is currently drawn.

The idea that people here are trying to hold back "progress" is a little ridiculous in this context. The automotive industry hasn&#39;t made any real progress on washer bottles or turn signal stalks in 20 years. Trying to remove them now isn&#39;t progress it&#39;s uneccesary change. As has been stated several times, the type of things many people want are already available in production. Why should we change one class to move it closer to another? That&#39;s does more to harm the membership by widening the gap between SS/Touring and IT.

[bldn10]

"Understand that the current make-up of the ITAC is not the same group that have written some of the rules that we are taking issue with."

Andy, and isn&#39;t it true that some of those changes were not instigated by the ITAC or even run past it? I don&#39;t want to sound like a conspiracy nut and that&#39;s not what I&#39;m saying but I sometimes wonder if there aren&#39;t 2 separate tracks to rules changes. The one we prefer is member - class advisory comm. - CRB but sometimes changes show up out of the blue in Fastrack - where did they come from? Isn&#39;t that the case w/ the recent passenger door rule change?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by bldn10@Dec 16 2005, 10:06 AM
"Understand that the current make-up of the ITAC is not the same group that have written some of the rules that we are taking issue with."

Andy, and isn&#39;t it true that some of those changes were not instigated by the ITAC or even run past it? I don&#39;t want to sound like a conspiracy nut and that&#39;s not what I&#39;m saying but I sometimes wonder if there aren&#39;t 2 separate tracks to rules changes. The one we prefer is member - class advisory comm. - CRB but sometimes changes show up out of the blue in Fastrack - where did they come from? Isn&#39;t that the case w/ the recent passenger door rule change?

68471


I can&#39;t speak to everything but the safety related stuff isn&#39;t really our domain. It can come from the CRB - or us - should we bring it to them.

AB

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 16 2005, 03:40 PM
Understand that the current make-up of the ITAC is not the same group that have written some of the rules that we are taking issue with.

I would love to stuff the progammable fuel management (PFM) genie back in the bottle. It would cost (more than you think) some people some serious money. Maybe we need to put it out for member comment.

AB

68466


Andy,
I totally understand the open can of worms you guys have in front of you.

The group is really totally polarized on these issues because at the very heart of the issue is "are we a group that resists change or are we a group that understands and embraces it?" I don&#39;t have this answer. I support my answer and my friend Greg&#39;s...and I could argue vehemently for both. As I see it though we are not dealing with a static equation. Automobiles, society, laws, etc. are ever changing....so must we...it is immutable. How is it possible to control these things? The very premise of racing is ever changing and dynamic!!

So if we are to be "Renaissance men" then let&#39;s do away with the things that are not within the "spirit of the original intent" ie Motec. If we cannot do that then why split hairs on a lousy washer bottle? We&#39;re already so far down that [evolution]road anyway.....(Devil&#39;s advocate).

Rob

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by bldn10@Dec 16 2005, 11:06 AM
"Understand that the current make-up of the ITAC is not the same group that have written some of the rules that we are taking issue with."

Andy, and isn&#39;t it true that some of those changes were not instigated by the ITAC or even run past it? I don&#39;t want to sound like a conspiracy nut and that&#39;s not what I&#39;m saying but I sometimes wonder if there aren&#39;t 2 separate tracks to rules changes. The one we prefer is member - class advisory comm. - CRB but sometimes changes show up out of the blue in Fastrack - where did they come from? Isn&#39;t that the case w/ the recent passenger door rule change?

68471


The same could be said of the window net change. Where did that come from and if the nets are still good past two years why the need to change the rule?

But Bill has a great point about the ITAC only being in an advisory role. They really can&#39;t change anything, only make recommendations and rely on the CRB to make the right calls and hope the CRB doesn&#39;t propose something on their own that isn&#39;t a good fit for IT. I honestly think the ITAC (and the other AC&#39;s) should have more direct control over the classes with the CRB acting as oversight and focusing on longer range issues. For example, let the ITAC decide on MOTEC&#39;s and washer bottles and where the new VW whatever gets classed. Meanwhile the CRB can focuses on where Touring cars should go once there 10 years are up or if we need another class for modified AWD and Turbo cars and providing a sanity check for major class changes like the releveling of the IT field that has been proposed.

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 16 2005, 03:40 PM
I would love to stuff the progammable fuel management (PFM) genie back in the bottle. It would cost (more than you think) some people some serious money. Maybe we need to put it out for member comment.

AB

68466



So is that a reason to not stuff it back in? See if we go there people will argue to leave it alone, and bring up good reasons to do so. Many people use MOTEC as the gold standard example of an abusive unforseen consequence of rules creep. So I say let&#39;s just get it out there now. Let&#39;s start that dialogue as MOTEC is the BIGGEST culprit when addressing rules creep.

I say you can&#39;t resist change within IT and still argue for MOTEC!

There, I said it!

Rob

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Doc Bro@Dec 16 2005, 09:16 AM
So if we are to be "Renaissance men" then let&#39;s do away with the things that are not within the "spirit of the original intent" ie Motec. If we cannot do that then why split hairs on a lousy washer bottle? We&#39;re already so far down that [evolution]road anyway.....(Devil&#39;s advocate).

Rob

68473


So because your kid is playiing matches and burns a hole in the carpet you should hand him a gas can to finish the house.

Rob,
Putting the genie back as far as the Motec goes should be done will take the will of the group to get it done. Claiming investment as my friend Andy has done is a false argument on why not to do it. It goes back to this those that have them may keep them by moving on the a class that accepts them with open arms. Those that want to stay IT may do so by coming back to the IT rule set. I know it sounds pretty black and white and it is. Write rules and people follow them(break them if you like) If it is a bad rule then get enough folks together to change them There are some rules that should never be changed if they change the complete philosophy of a stable and popular class.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Rob,

I see it the exact opposite. Semi-free PFM is here. How is got here was unintended. Use that example of why we should be VERY careful with ANY change - for the sake of change. There is NO REASON we need to allow the removal of washer bottles except to make things easy - and like Grag pointed out - what about the one or two cars where it free&#39;s up a space for a unique intake design that makes more power? Whatever.

You can&#39;t use that as an arguement. We are talking about FUTURE changes, not using a past one as the context to allow new ones.

My stance is simple:

- Be very careful what you ask for - it could happen
- Think about all the ramifications of a change
- Propose all &#39;reversals&#39; and see what the members say

AB

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar+Dec 16 2005, 01:15 AM-->
:lol: The ultimate irony is that Kirk is the person who proposed the elimination of remote/auto door lock... [/b]

Ooh - got me there. :)

I did that TOTALLY and PUBLICLY confessing to selfish reasons for doing so. To my recollection, that is the one and only time I&#39;ve played typical SCCA entrant and made a rule change request based on my own little perspective.

Toms (apparently identical twins separated at birth) - I absolutely DO get your point. It&#39;s not a hard one. The fact that I would make the central lock delete request should be evidence of the fact that I understand precisely where you are coming from. I agree with you that no one, little rule change or allowance is a bad thing, in and of itself.

You want to make the issue JUST about washer bottles - I concede. Touche. You win. Allowing the removal of washer bottles won&#39;t kill IT, just like allowing removal of central locking won&#39;t. I&#39;d like to think that I wouldn&#39;t have requested the change if I believed that it WOULD.

You, however, do not get my point - but I&#39;m OK with that. It won&#39;t be the first time someone didn&#39;t understand a complex concept I was trying to explain and certainly won&#39;t be the last. I deal with that dynamic for a living. I&#39;m just trying to raise the conversation to the level of the topic at hand - rules creep - rather than looking at just one tiny issue. I won&#39;t repeat it again, partially because Greg did a good job with his Pirates of the Carribean example but also because it&#39;s kind of a waste of bandwidth at this point.

For the record, I agree that the ECU rule is a freakin&#39; mess, too.

Finally, regarding this...

<!--QuoteBegin-One of the Toms@ somewhere up yonder
...he has had his way for a while and does not want to see that change.

With respect, you haven&#39;t been in this community anything like long enough to know of what you speak on this front. I find myself in the position of playing conservative on this issue to preserve some things that *I think* are important to the category but there are some "long time readers" who are busting a gut at your writing me off as simply an IT Luddite.

K

[DavidM]

I think the IT rules as they are now govern the go fast aspects of a car very well (except for that ECU thing). I chose to race IT because I liked the fairly limited level of prep allowed. I have no desire to race prod. Telling me to race prod because I&#39;d like to remove the turn signal and windshield wiper stalks is ridiculous. My windshield wiper bottle serves as my radiator overflow so I&#39;ll be keeping that. :023:

This is really a pretty minor issue to me. I&#39;d like to remove this crap, but no big deal if I can&#39;t. It&#39;s there so I&#39;ll just leave it. Now, if I break one of those damn stalks while fumbling around inside the car I sure as hell ain&#39;t gonna replace it. If I get good enough to actually beat somebody and they protest me because I don&#39;t have a wiper stalk so be it. They&#39;ll know I beat them, which is what counts. It&#39;s not like we&#39;re winning money or getting paid to do this.

As to the bigger issue of rules creep, I agree with using caution when implementing change. There&#39;s a big difference between being cautious about change and resisting change, though. Just because you can&#39;t anticipate every little aspect of a change doesn&#39;t mean something evil will happen. I think you do the best you can of looking at all the aspects and then move forward. If something unintended happens then you deal with it. Elimination of change is stagnation. I get the impression the current ITAC has this philosophy and they seem to be doing a good job of balancing things.

Now I have to go see if I can find a new factory wiring harness to replace the splice special, PoS one currently in the car. :D

David

[tom_sprecher]

Sorry I have not responded to some of these posts but I have been busy with work and my family. Before I start please be aware that any use of pronouns is aimed at the collective.

First, I want to say that went I wrote the "boxing match" intro I did not intend to single out any one individual. Instead it was supposed to be an analogy of the two sides of this argument. If anyone or their good friend was offended I apologize as that was not my intent. When I want to offend someone I come right out and write something like, “Greg, I don’t know if you are partially illiterate, but if you took the time to read and understand what everyone else is writing, and wrote posts that contain substance and material pertinent to the subject at hand instead of belittling comments about like minds or how a husband and father spends time with his family, more people, including myself, might take you more seriously.” That’s how I would offend someone if I chose to do so.

Second, with respect to the logic, I still can’t see how the elimination of unnecessary street legal items can result in the addition of hot cams and performance engine mods. Or how if I want to change anything on my car the only motivation I must have is to make it faster and give me an unfair advantage. I painted the car soon after I bought it. If there are those out there that presume to know me so well please enlighten me as to how I came to the conclusion that by going from silver to red/yellow/black subconsciously I felt I would go faster. That was the basis for my response on some of the comments of Kirk’s posts. I understand what he is saying but due to the generalities used can not agree.

I can see the Motec incident, which due to the number of references to it, apparently is the basis of many of your concerns. I understand and agree with that argument do not want to see IT turn into a “run what you brung” class. You gotta leave those SP boys something. On the other hand, unlike some on this forum, I can’t see the option to remove vestigial street legal items causing that to happen. Maybe I do not have as vivid of an imagination as some, but if I did I would not be discussing my ideas here.

And last I would like to see what the numbers for a vote on a list of items to be removed. Maybe a simple poll or check list type of thing. Several members seem to have a short list they agree on that is then blown out of proportion by the “zero tolerance” crowd. If there is some consensus it should be presented to the ITAC through the proper channels. The request may be “bitch-slapped”, but not me, and not in writing. I am in business for myself and regularly travel up and down the East coast and occasionally out West and if there is going to be any bitch slapping I prefer to do it face to face when necessary.

[ryotko]

I completely agree that it can&#39;t be open ended. So make a list of things that can be removed. Start with 5 items, tell the membership that it&#39;s on a trial basis (hint - don&#39;t sell the stuff yet) and reassess in a year or 2. I guarantee washer bottles, turn signal stalks, rear wiper assemblies or central locking systems will not upset the balance of IT. If it does, refer back to the trial basis clause. This completely negates "the sky is falling" threat.

Really who cares if the fast end of the field gets a little faster? They&#39;re going to be faster than those of us who have budget constrains anyway. And I&#39;m fine with that. Those who have the means and talent to run at the front would most likely love the opportunity to fab a cold air box in the place of their washer bottle. I on the other hand would prefer to not spend half a day getting one from a junk yard. Either way, given the diversity of cars and talent in IT a cold air box isn&#39;t going to change who won a given race. Again if it does, refer back to the trial basis clause.

As for Motec. Everyone seems to agree that isn&#39;t bad for the class. So fix it. For very Motec owner that might leave IT if they had to remove it how many have already left because of it. There&#39;s 2 sides to this argument.

There&#39;s always talk about attracting new members and how to get more folks involved in IT. Well I think the best way is to make it easier and yes, less costly. There&#39;s no way to limit how much someone spends on a car but there are ways to make the initial cost of entry less for those at the other end of the spectrum. Will it add to IT numbers? Who knows but how can lowering the cost to get in hurt?

-Bob
Who thinks it funny that when I first found this site 3 or 4 years ago washer bottles were the center of a great debate and they still are.

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by ryotko@Dec 16 2005, 04:08 PM
There&#39;s always talk about attracting new members and how to get more folks involved in IT. Well I think the best way is to make it easier and yes, less costly. There&#39;s no way to limit how much someone spends on a car but there are ways to make the initial cost of entry less for those at the other end of the spectrum. Will it add to IT numbers? Who knows but how can lowering the cost to get in hurt?
68507


I&#39;m curious how you think removing a washer bottle and a turn signal stalk would lower the cost to get into racing. First, almost everyone will tell you if cost is a concern than buy a used racecar. Second even if you are building one how many people start with a bare frame and start buying parts to add from there? The majority take a used up street car and start removing items. So typically it&#39;s break even, until you put a price on the time required to remove.

Oh, one last thought. Has anyone seen the new ads for some car that uses heated washer fluid? I bet that system weighs more your average 20 year old washer bottle. I hope the ITAC factors that difference into the car classifications if the washer bottle rule does get changed. :D

But we definitely agree on one thing, the washer bottle debate will probably outlive all of us. Even the crusty, stuck in the mud purists.

[Doc Bro]

No one has mentioned Greg&#39;s point that the IT of late is the Prod of old. It would be my contention that if that is true and they have evolved at the same rate then the gap between them should have remained the same. Thus indicating that rules creep effects all classes equally and universally and trying to vehemently guard against as such is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic- the inevitable is coming.

If my premise is true that the two have evolved equally and the gap has remained fairly constant then we should stop belly aching over MOTEC and embrace it. It&#39;s the normal evolution. Get rid of bottles and stalks too.

On the counterpoint....If my premise is wrong and IT is closing the gap on prod and the two are not on the same pace then we should get rid of MOTEC once and for all as it is clearly one of the chief culprits. In this senario we keep the cars as close to dual purpose and "original intent" as possible.

Neither one of these senarios is bad don&#39;t misunderstand my point. I&#39;m in favor of either. I just want the two to fit more harmoniously together. 5-10K engine management and a washer bottle.....HUH? No engine mangement and a stock bottle, stock stalks.....AHHH...tranquility!! :D :D

Rob

[ryotko]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Dec 16 2005, 04:53 PM
I&#39;m curious how you think removing a washer bottle and a turn signal stalk would lower the cost to get into racing. First, almost everyone will tell you if cost is a concern than buy a used racecar. Second even if you are building one how many people start with a bare frame and start buying parts to add from there? The majority take a used up street car and start removing items. So typically it&#39;s break even, until you put a price on the time required to remove.

Oh, one last thought. Has anyone seen the new ads for some car that uses heated washer fluid? I bet that system weighs more your average 20 year old washer bottle. I hope the ITAC factors that difference into the car classifications if the washer bottle rule does get changed. :D

But we definitely agree on one thing, the washer bottle debate will probably outlive all of us. Even the crusty, stuck in the mud purists.

68512


It&#39;s interesting that this is the only point that you chose to quote.

First I said easier and less costly. You can&#39;t escape the fact that replacing a lost, broken or missing washer bottle costs something. I agree that if the cost of a washer bottle alone keeps you out of racing then you may want to look into a different activity but there&#39;s another aspect to it - time.

Personally I did buy a completed car. Beyond that it&#39;s an A2 VW, so used and discount OEM parts aren&#39;t a problem. I chose an IT car because it allows me some flexibility in the future. I&#39;m 36, married and have 3 small kids. I have a good enough career that I can afford to run a few hillclimbs and some autocrosses a year. I am by no means able to write checks for development stuff but with 3 little kids my biggest hurdle is time. Don&#39;t get me wrong, I wouldn&#39;t change my situation one bit, I&#39;m ecstatic to be able to do the racing that I can. But the time spent poking around a pick and pull for an 18 year old washer bottle is time I&#39;d rather spend keeping everyone happy at home so when I want to disappear for a weekend in Reading a few times a year, to drive up a hill, I can. Again, I&#39;m not complaining, just stating the issues that a lot of us have to balance.

The $$ amounts that some folks are reported to be spending in IT is huge. The folks that are putting out 10&#39;s of thousands for cars and a few grand per weekend in travel and consumables are going to spend the money anyway. All I&#39;m saying is allowing the removal of a set list of nonessential items could make it easier for some people. Again make it a trial basis, and fix it if the sky falls.

-Bob

Using the washer bottle as an example because the irony makes me laugh.

[ddewhurst]

Popsted by Rob

***On the counterpoint....If my premise is wrong and IT is closing the gap on prod and the two are not on the same pace then we should get rid of MOTEC once and for all as it is clearly one of the chief culprits.***

Posted by Bob

***Again make it a trial basis, and fix it if the sky falls.***

Guys, the sky fell on Production IIRC back in the early 90&#39;s when Limited Preparation/Restricted Suspension was implemented mainly because the costs of Production racing was out of control. IMHU the CRB is attempting to reel Production back towards it&#39;s roots in that the RULES CREEP had been going on for 40 plus years. The ugly part of the reel in is that the CRB has implemented rules in the LP/RS process that are made just like the Production rules of the past. Loosley written such as the alternate control arm rule. With the word alternate they opened the gate & let the cows out. We should all be able to learn from the Production errors of past.

[dickita15]

You know I am one of the guys that would like to get rid of the signal stalk, vulnerable marker lights and replace the rotting wiring harness on my old carbureted car, but I understand that there are people who want to hold the line an any of these changes so the class will not get out of hand. I just wish these nay sayers were more vocal when thing like the motec deal came along.

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by dickita15@Dec 16 2005, 11:55 PM
I just wish these nay sayers were more vocal when thing like the motec deal came along.

68527


Alleliua, brother !!! And can I get an Amen!!

R

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by dickita15@Dec 16 2005, 04:55 PM
vocal when thing like the motec deal came along.

68527



Dick, the problem is I think at that time it was a high hanging curveball and we all missed it when the bottom fell out.

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by dickita15@Dec 16 2005, 05:55 PM
I just wish these nay sayers were more vocal when thing like the motec deal came along.
68527
Dick, I don&#39;t think anyone - except the clever BMW/RX7/MoTec guys - saw this one coming. By the time we all realized that MoTec was happening on a widespread basis (I&#39;d put that at about Spring &#39;04 or so) it was too late; everyone recognized that it was CLEARLY outside the philosophy of the class, CLEARLY outside the intent of the rule, but also clearly within the letter of the rule.

No one was willing to either protest it or spend the money for a 13.9, so *POOF* de facto legal. And now the ITAC and CRB are afraid to touch that new sacred cow for fear of pissing off someone (c&#39;mon, kids, you did it with remote reservoir shocks!) Just add it to the bottom of the list along with things like spherical "bushings".

Joe, I disagree with you: it wasn&#39;t a hanging curveball, it was definitely heat. Woosh-POP-WTF was that...? - GA

[Eagle7]

MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec MoTec!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don&#39;t have a Motec. I don&#39;t want a MoTec. I don&#39;t need a MoTec.

Now that we&#39;ve set the context, could someone please explain to me what the huge benefit of a MoTec is? All of our engines are just an air pump, and you ain&#39;t gunna pump more air through it than it&#39;ll pump. Seems like most everyone has "chipped" their ECU to optimize fuel and spark, and yet they complain complain complain about MoTec, which is just another way to do the same thing. If the big complaint is that someone is allowed to legally spend that much money on their car, then I think we should restrict everyone to 2 sets of tires per year. The guys that throw their money into MoTecs are running fresh tires every session, too, and I can&#39;t afford to keep up with that.

I&#39;m currently putting an aftermarket ECU into my car. Costing me all of about $200. I&#39;m hopeful that it&#39;ll make it quite convenient for me to tune it properly. Is it as good as a MoTec? I don&#39;t know and don&#39;t care. Is it a competitive advantage over the "chipped" ECUs? I can&#39;t see why. I think it just makes it cheaper and easier to prep my car. Isn&#39;t that one of the goals of IT?

Kirk, I really disagree with your arguments that cheaper and easier is bad because it gives me more time and money to put into go-fast things. I think cheaper and easier is totally consistent with the philosophy of IT, and should be encouraged wherever possible.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So...we were all looking for a curve and we got the heater. I am in the middle as a team owner and competitor. So in the interest of full disclosure, we have spent thousands on programmable fuel management on the 7&#39;s and I am ABOUT to do it again on the Miata.

IF someone were to start a major groundswell to rewrite that rule...how should it be written?

I *THINK* the original intent of the rule was to allow flashing (undetectable) and chipping. The rule did not take into account that PFMS were getting small enough that they could be stuffed into some OEM cases. Here we are today.

- How do we word the revised rule
- What do you do about current classifications (if anything)
- As the 2nd &#39;strike&#39; (RR shocks), how do we make sure this sort of thing doesn&#39;t happen again

Might be a new thread but if this was back in the bottle and everyone was allowed to run without a washerbottle IT would be the best class in SCCA, no? :)

AB

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 16 2005, 07:28 PM
So...we were all looking for a curve and we got the heater. I am in the middle as a team owner and competitor. So in the interest of full disclosure, we have spent thousands on programmable fuel management on the 7&#39;s and I am ABOUT to do it again on the Miata.

IF someone were to start a major groundswell to rewrite that rule...how should it be written?

I *THINK* the original intent of the rule was to allow flashing (undetectable) and chipping. The rule did not take into account that PFMS were getting small enough that they could be stuffed into some OEM cases. Here we are today.

- How do we word the revised rule
- What do you do about current classifications (if anything)
- As the 2nd &#39;strike&#39; (RR shocks), how do we make sure this sort of thing doesn&#39;t happen again

Might be a new thread but if this was back in the bottle and everyone was allowed to run without a washerbottle IT would be the best class in SCCA, no? :)

AB

68541

ANdy you start by removing the replace clause in the current rule. You allow 1 season for current users to remove offending Aftermarket ECU&#39;s....You specify the intent of the rule in it&#39;s publishing......Blah blah the intent is to allow flashing,reprograming and chipping of the original ECU...I know my wording is not perfect and I woudl think long and hard before going to print but I bet there is a way to get it done.. The way to prevent it in the future is to have active wide open folks like the current ITAC working on these issues.....I will agree with Greg this once was in the mit before anyone saw the pitch... B)

[Eagle7]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 16 2005, 11:05 PM
ANdy you start by removing the replace clause in the current rule. You allow 1 season for current users to remove offending Aftermarket ECU&#39;s....You specify the intent of the rule in it&#39;s publishing......Blah blah the intent is to allow flashing,reprograming and chipping of the original ECU...I know my wording is not perfect and I woudl think long and hard before going to print but I bet there is a way to get it done.. The way to prevent it in the future is to have active wide open folks like the current ITAC working on these issues.....I will agree with Greg this once was in the mit before anyone saw the pitch... B)

68542

Help me out here Joe. Why do you feel so strongly that flashing, reprogramming, and chipping of the original ECU is a good thing and replacing it with an aftermarket ECU is a bad thing?

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Eagle7@Dec 16 2005, 08:16 PM
Help me out here Joe. Why do you feel so strongly that flashing, reprogramming, and chipping of the original ECU is a good thing and replacing it with an aftermarket ECU is a bad thing?

68544

Covered it a few times Marty, But it is all about cost. You feel you don&#39;t need one but I have dyno&#39;ed enough stuff and written maps to tell you that 2 cars side by side prepped the sme in every way. You with your 200 dollar (megasquirt?) VS you with my 7000 dollar Motec conversion. The motec makes better power and the fact that you have one of them noise makers I would bet that we could taylor a midrange package along with traction control and you are there. This technology that was never meant to come to IT......Improved is the key not replace.....Allowing this has hurt IT.

I have it on good authority that a current M3 with nothing else but a cat back and a custom motec saw 37HP at the wheels....You be the judge. This has been hashed many times over and beat like a dead dog. I believe we stuff the genie back in the bottle and get back to grass roots type stuff and go racing.

[Eagle7]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 16 2005, 11:31 PM
Covered it a few times Marty, But it is all about cost. You feel you don&#39;t need one but I have dyno&#39;ed enough stuff and written maps to tell you that 2 cars side by side prepped the sme in every way. You with your 200 dollar (megasquirt?) VS you with my 7000 dollar Motec conversion. The motec makes better power and the fact that you have one of them noise makers I would bet that we could taylor a midrange package along with traction control and you are there. This technology that was never meant to come to IT......Improved is the key not replace.....Allowing this has hurt IT.

I have it on good authority that a current M3 with nothing else but a cat back and a custom motec saw 37HP at the wheels....You be the judge. This has been hashed many times over and beat like a dead dog. I believe we stuff the genie back in the bottle and get back to grass roots type stuff and go racing.

68546

1) Thanks for the reply. I really do value your experience and perspective. I&#39;m an old guy, but fairly new to ECUs and performance tuning.
2) I read the GCR to make traction control illegal. Am I wrong?
3) Why will the Motec make better power than my MegaSquirt? They&#39;re both using the same sensors, ignition, and injectors. MS has 12x12 maps with interpolation between points.
4) If I put the extra 6800 into my suspension I think I&#39;d go faster than putting it into a Motec.

Like the threaded body shock rule, I think this may be a case where advancement in technology has removed the cost factor and made this a non-issue. If someone wants to spend a bloody fortune to build a 10/10 car, he doesn&#39;t need a Motec to do it, but I remain convinced that a better driver in a 9.9/10 car will beat him to the checkers.

If "Improved" meant no replacement, we&#39;d all be running stock shocks, stock final drives, etc.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Eagle7@Dec 16 2005, 09:19 PM
1) Thanks for the reply. I really do value your experience and perspective. I&#39;m an old guy, but fairly new to ECUs and performance tuning.
2) I read the GCR to make traction control illegal. Am I wrong?
3) Why will the Motec make better power than my MegaSquirt? They&#39;re both using the same sensors, ignition, and injectors. MS has 12x12 maps with interpolation between points.
4) If I put the extra 6800 into my suspension I think I&#39;d go faster than putting it into a Motec.

Like the threaded body shock rule, I think this may be a case where advancement in technology has removed the cost factor and made this a non-issue. If someone wants to spend a bloody fortune to build a 10/10 car, he doesn&#39;t need a Motec to do it, but I remain convinced that a better driver in a 9.9/10 car will beat him to the checkers.

If "Improved" meant no replacement, we&#39;d all be running stock shocks, stock final drives, etc.

68549



The mega squirt is only handling your fuel isn&#39;t that correct?

You don&#39;t have to trust anything I say. When you have a 10/10ths car show up and it includes a 10/10 shoe and 10/10 prep you help your chances by have at least the 10/10 prep.

[Eagle7]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 17 2005, 12:25 AM
The mega squirt is only handling your fuel isn&#39;t that correct?

68550

Nope, spark too.

[Geo]

First of all, let me start by saying I would like nothing more than to eliminate MoTeCs or any other aftermarket PFM devices from IT.

One of the problems as I see it is finding a good, workable rule to replace the current one. Out of the frying pan and into the fire is not the next step we need to take.

So, how to word the rule?

We could require the stock board remain in place. However, if we allow modifications to the board, what will prevent someone from removing all of the stock gizmos on the board and simply wiring a MoTeC to that board? You might say "no one would do that" but that sort of response is how we got MoTeCs into stock boxes.

We could require stock ECUs. I would love that if we could police it. I know some folks will say it&#39;s up to the competitor to prove legality. But if a tech cannot tell if it&#39;s been reprogrammed (especially with flashable memory), just how can anybody rule on legality? As I&#39;ve said before, if the FIA cannot police ECUs in F1, how is the SCCA going to police ECUs in regional racing?

Then let&#39;s not forget there are some people for whom the current rule is a godsend because without it they had little to no hope of modifying their stock engine management.

OK, all that said, I&#39;m not being negative or contrarian. I&#39;m only trying to look head-on at the issues that need to be considered before rewriting the rule. Ignore these issues and we very likely would jump from the frying pan into the fire. I KNOW what I envision and I&#39;m sure everyone else KNOWS what THEY envision as a solution. The key is to find a workable solution that can be effectively written to make that workable solution work effectively.

Again, I&#39;d like to see the MoTeC go away. How do we word the rule?

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Eagle7@Dec 16 2005, 09:19 PM
... Kirk, I really disagree with your arguments that cheaper and easier is bad because it gives me more time and money to put into go-fast things. I think cheaper and easier is totally consistent with the philosophy of IT, and should be encouraged wherever possible.

Marty - If you think that I said, "cheaper and easier is bad," you need to pay more damn attention. That&#39;s insulting as hell. The least you could do is actually read the ideas you are crapping on.

You know what? I kind of hope you all get exactly what you are asking for because it&#39;s the only way you&#39;re going to learn. I&#39;ve been in - or thereabout - IT cars since before there was a national rule set, and have watched the Sedan classes get screwed up beyond recognition, only to become the GT classes (which got screwed up beyond recognition, TOO), to get reborn as the "new" GT classes (which worked great for about 3 years, before some idiots messed THAT up), to become a random smattering of GT "Lite" cars, a six pack of motherless GT3 mutants (a lot running SPU or other catch-all classes), and some ex-TransAm leftovers.

Production - same deal only worse in many ways. Nearly Darwin&#39;d themselves out of existence, only to be "saved" by creating a whole new preparation level that survived what - two years? - before people starting picking at the scab of "progress." And that&#39;s a category for which, last time I checked, I could build an "affordable" gearbox for a "limited prep" VW that would cost $10K.

Spec Renault is going to save club racing! Oldmobile engines and wings are exactly what s2000 cars need. I wish I&#39;d purchased all of the rolling stock when Enterprises got out of the V6-, square-tube-frame, POS spec racer business. Wait - NEONS! Yeah, that&#39;s the ticket...

"Professional" road racing has been the collective poster child of this foolishness. How many series have come and gone in the last 20 years? In that time, how much has NASCAR prospered? IT was kind of like that - a success story despite of its problems, because it was very hard to mess with the rules (albeit not because the France family was running the show). It has issues but it also had stability.

FINALLY, we have some clever people making decisions to guide the category to what could be its finest hour - eliminating a few major issues that REALLY needed to be addressed - but I&#39;m beginning to think that all of the progress and changes that have been made in the last 2 years, unblocking the most constipated, bureau-crap-tastic rule set in the club, has been an unholy mistake. A line is forming behind a herd of washer-bottle guys and Mr. I Hate Wiper Stalks, each person in which has his or her own personal thing to add to "the list" - and none of them has the experience or foresight to even know to look behind them. Anyone who HONESTLY does not think that SOMEONE out there will put plastic windows and fiberglass body panels on the wish list within two years of an allowance to take off the piddly crap mentioned here is either blindingly optimistic or knows nothing of the history of how this deal works. Or both.

I&#39;m truly worried that you are going to dick it all up and I don&#39;t want to be a part of that. Andy et al., I&#39;d like to respectfully request that the ITAC recommend against my central lock proposal, or tell me what I have to do to withdraw it. Whatever - just don&#39;t let it pass. Someone obviously needs to draw a line sooner rather than later because it&#39;s just going to get ugly fast. I thought that maybe there was room for some more change and a few more fixes but this conversation has convinced me that I&#39;ve been caught a little starry-eyed by recent progress. Our nature has not changed and the ITAC now faces the challenge of protecting us from us.

K

[Joe Harlan]

OK Marty not to Dis your system. I looked at it in 2000 for a prod project and went a different way based on several things.....Speed being the first. that system is a 16bit 8 mega hertz system with very little memory on the board. Now you may be able ot upgrade some of that but that&#39;s not my deal. No time to build the stuff and modify it too. I went Motec the first time cause it had 32bit processor and I can&#39;t remember the clcok speed off the top of my head. I did not like the Motec software at first cause at the time it was DOS based but as I got to learn the software I found it very usable. I am now using the AEM stuff and I like it even better for speed and software plus the fine resolution. I like the 3d mapping features in the software and in some cases the autolearn features built in for quick setup. The reality is that while burning chips for the Nissan is a PIA it keeps costs down to a real number for the level of racing we are talking about. You will say the same about the MS but if you added all the ignition stuff I have to believe you are deeper than 200 bucks.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 16 2005, 10:39 PM
Andy et al., I&#39;d like to respectfully request that the ITAC recommend against my central lock proposal, or tell me what I have to do to withdraw it. Whatever - just don&#39;t let it pass. Someone obviously needs to draw a line sooner rather than later because it&#39;s just going to get ugly fast. I thought that maybe there was room for some more change and a few more fixes but this conversation has convinced me that I&#39;ve been caught a little starry-eyed by recent progress. Our nature has not changed and the ITAC now faces the challenge of protecting us from us.

K

68553


...and your impending body-shell proposal? Wow! 2 birds...:)

One of my worries about the reversal of the PFM issue is that the cost of this technology is definatley on the decline with more and more options coming to market. Would we be chopping it off at the knees just as it&#39;s about to get &#39;affordable&#39;? Realizing of course that the damage is done...

I know, I know...shut up and figure out how to eliminate the washer bottle requirment... :P

AB

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 16 2005, 09:39 PM
I&#39;m truly worried that you are going to dick it all up and I don&#39;t want to be a part of that. Andy et al., I&#39;d like to respectfully request that the ITAC recommend against my central lock proposal, or tell me what I have to do to withdraw it. Whatever - just don&#39;t let it pass. Someone obviously needs to draw a line sooner rather than later because it&#39;s just going to get ugly fast. I thought that maybe there was room for some more change and a few more fixes but this conversation has convinced me that I&#39;ve been caught a little starry-eyed by recent progress. Our nature has not changed and the ITAC now faces the challenge of protecting us from us.

68553


Kirk, is it not possible to just disable the system by disconnecting a fuse or connector? Shoot, just install a blow fuse if you believe the fuse needs to be there. IMHO equipment that is not allowed to be removed must be there, but I don&#39;t think it needs to be functional. If some obscure, unneeded/unwanted part goes bad, I&#39;m damned sure not going to replace it. And if you come off the track with a blown fuse, is anybody going to have the jewels to write the paper (if they even believe everything must be 100% functional)?

If I were in your position Kirk, I would just disconnect a connector or a fuse. Done. Game over.

While I haven&#39;t been racing in the SCCA as long as Kirk or Greg, I&#39;ve been going to SCCA club races since the early 80s and almost built an IT car in 86 but went kart racing instead. I remember a lot of the things you talk about Kirk. I remember Shelby Can-Am. Doesn&#39;t anyone even own a functioning copy anymore? I remember when Production was similar to IT today. They did allow composite body panels back in the early 80s, I do know that. Weren&#39;t intake manifolds and carbs more open even back then also? I remember Sports Renault (still one of the two most popular classes IIRC as SRF now). Shoot, I even remember when Tom Davey won GT3 with a unibody Scirocco (twice with gen 1 and once with gen 2). Now they are all "funny cars."

Anyway, I&#39;m rambling. Kirk, IMHO you are 100% correct. For my part, when considering requested rule changes, I try very very hard to consider unintended consequences. For me there must be a compelling reason to change, not just because it&#39;s only a tiny step. The only rule change I really really embraced besides PCAs is the change in the wheel rule to allow everyone to use up to 15" diameter wheels. I think that rule has really helped IT in our current environment and I&#39;ve yet to hear anybody complain that it was rules creep or created a huge need to spend to keep up with the Jones or the Bettencorts, or the Knestises or.....

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 16 2005, 09:39 PM
Marty - If you think that I said, "cheaper and easier is bad," you need to pay more damn attention. That&#39;s insulting as hell. The least you could do is actually read the ideas you are crapping on.

You know what? I kind of hope you all get exactly what you are asking for because it&#39;s the only way you&#39;re going to learn. I&#39;ve been in - or thereabout - IT cars since before there was a national rule set, and have watched the Sedan classes get screwed up beyond recognition, only to become the GT classes (which got screwed up beyond recognition, TOO), to get reborn as the "new" GT classes (which worked great for about 3 years, before some idiots messed THAT up), to become a random smattering of GT "Lite" cars, a six pack of motherless GT3 mutants (a lot running SPU or other catch-all classes), and some ex-TransAm leftovers.

Production - same deal only worse in many ways. Nearly Darwin&#39;d themselves out of existence, only to be "saved" by creating a whole new preparation level that survived what - two years? - before people starting picking at the scab of "progress." And that&#39;s a category for which, last time I checked, I could build an "affordable" gearbox for a "limited prep" VW that would cost $10K.

Spec Renault is going to save club racing! Oldmobile engines and wings are exactly what s2000 cars need. I wish I&#39;d purchased all of the rolling stock when Enterprises got out of the V6-, square-tube-frame, POS spec racer business. Wait - NEONS! Yeah, that&#39;s the ticket...

"Professional" road racing has been the collective poster child of this foolishness. How many series have come and gone in the last 20 years? In that time, how much has NASCAR prospered? IT was kind of like that - a success story despite of its problems, because it was very hard to mess with the rules (albeit not because the France family was running the show). It has issues but it also had stability.

FINALLY, we have some clever people making decisions to guide the category to what could be its finest hour - eliminating a few major issues that REALLY needed to be addressed - but I&#39;m beginning to think that all of the progress and changes that have been made in the last 2 years, unblocking the most constipated, bureau-crap-tastic rule set in the club, has been an unholy mistake. A line is forming behind a herd of washer-bottle guys and Mr. I Hate Wiper Stalks, each person in which has his or her own personal thing to add to "the list" - and none of them has the experience or foresight to even know to look behind them. Anyone who HONESTLY does not think that SOMEONE out there will put plastic windows and fiberglass body panels on the wish list within two years of an allowance to take off the piddly crap mentioned here is either blindingly optimistic or knows nothing of the history of how this deal works. Or both.

I&#39;m truly worried that you are going to dick it all up and I don&#39;t want to be a part of that. Andy et al., I&#39;d like to respectfully request that the ITAC recommend against my central lock proposal, or tell me what I have to do to withdraw it. Whatever - just don&#39;t let it pass. Someone obviously needs to draw a line sooner rather than later because it&#39;s just going to get ugly fast. I thought that maybe there was room for some more change and a few more fixes but this conversation has convinced me that I&#39;ve been caught a little starry-eyed by recent progress. Our nature has not changed and the ITAC now faces the challenge of protecting us from us.

K

68553

One only has to look at World Challenge, It won&#39;t be long now. they have run all of the privateers with personality off and now the factory efforts are the only ones winning because the rules have allowed MORE,MORE,MORE and it will be a dying deal as soon as they saddle it with failed Trans-am lable.....Racing is becoming more and more ground hog day....

[Eagle7]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 17 2005, 12:56 AM
OK Marty not to Dis your system. I looked at it in 2000 for a prod project and went a different way based on several things.....Speed being the first. that system is a 16bit 8 mega hertz system with very little memory on the board. Now you may be able ot upgrade some of that but that&#39;s not my deal. No time to build the stuff and modify it too. I went Motec the first time cause it had 32bit processor and I can&#39;t remember the clcok speed off the top of my head. I did not like the Motec software at first cause at the time it was DOS based but as I got to learn the software I found it very usable. I am now using the AEM stuff and I like it even better for speed and software plus the fine resolution. I like the 3d mapping features in the software and in some cases the autolearn features built in for quick setup. The reality is that while burning chips for the Nissan is a PIA it keeps costs down to a real number for the level of racing we are talking about. You will say the same about the MS but if you added all the ignition stuff I have to believe you are deeper than 200 bucks.

68555

You&#39;re right about the speed and memory, but I think it&#39;s come a long way from what you saw 5 years ago. 12x12 maps are recent. Couldn&#39;t do rotary ignition until this year. Autotune with wideband O2 is now working.

You caught me on the cost - I just looked it up and with the crank sensor circuit I&#39;m up to $226, but that includes a couple connectors and a bunch of other parts I didn&#39;t need.

[pfcs]

I hereby nominate Kirk to fill the Peter Kean&#39;s vacant position on the board.
Some day we&#39;ll meet and I&#39;ll give you a big hug!
It&#39;s such a pleasure to hear someone who&#39;s been around long enough to see the forest for the trees. Truly an IT renaissance man. Keep on truckin!

[Eagle7]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 17 2005, 12:39 AM
Marty - If you think that I said, "cheaper and easier is bad," you need to pay more damn attention. That&#39;s insulting as hell. The least you could do is actually read the ideas you are crapping on.

68553

Gee, insulting you was the last thing I was trying to do. I actually did read your ideas, but maybe I totally missed the point when you said:

"Anything that makes working on the car easier frees up time to do other things that make it go faster. Right or wrong?

Money you don&#39;t have to spend replacing OE wiring harnesses can get spent making it go faster. Right or wrong?"

[Geo]

Originally posted by pfcs@Dec 16 2005, 10:19 PM
I hereby nominate Kirk to fill the Peter Kean&#39;s vacant position on the board.
Some day we&#39;ll meet and I&#39;ll give you a big hug!
It&#39;s such a pleasure to hear someone who&#39;s been around long enough to see the forest for the trees. Truly an IT renaissance man. Keep on truckin!

68562


Peter is still on the committee or at least was at last month&#39;s conference call. :)

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by ryotko@Dec 16 2005, 05:08 PM
.........

Really who cares if the fast end of the field gets a little faster? They&#39;re going to be faster than those of us who have budget constrains anyway. And I&#39;m fine with that. Those who have the means and talent to run at the front would most likely love the opportunity to fab a cold air box in the place of their washer bottle. I on the other hand would prefer to not spend half a day getting one from a junk yard. Either way, given the diversity of cars and talent in IT a cold air box isn&#39;t going to change who won a given race. Again if it does, refer back to the trial basis clause.


-Bob
Who thinks it funny that when I first found this site 3 or 4 years ago washer bottles were the center of a great debate and they still are.

68507


Who cares??? EVERYBODY! Rules changes should NOT allow certain factions of the community (a faction could be a certain model, or a certain budget level) to recieve differential treatment. It DOES matter if a rule change allows the better financed to move further from the field...it is against the basic philosophy of the class.

A rule change CAN affect the outcome of a race...and rules changes must be considered with the premise that the drivers are equally talented..saying that there is enough driver and car diversity to obsure a result is an invalid justification...whether the results are affected every weekend or only on one weekend is largley a moot point. In the big picture, it WILL happen.

Yes, even 4 years later, the washer bottle remains as an iconic example of the rules making &#39;progress" of the category...but Greg&#39;s scenario about a washer bottle sitting right where a huge cold air inlet could go is a perfect example of an unintended consequence. Thanks Greg.

Rules changes like a "washer bottle deletion allowance" have to be considered on both sides...

--"Will it create unforseen actions or results that could theoretically change the competitive balance?",.
(Answer, certain makes could benifit more than others)

... and the other side...,

"What kind of hardship is NOT changing the rule creating?"
(Answer, it sucks, but hitting the net or ebay and scoring a washer bottle sucks, but is better than going to the dentist...)

Simply, does the risk/reward ratio work?

Each category has it&#39;s strengths and weaknesses....nobody will love EVERY aspect of every category....that&#39;s life, LOL.

It&#39;s fine to say, "If it doesn&#39;t work, just repeal it".....but that is very tricky in real life. One of the things that has TOTALLY (and rightfully so) pissed off members is the post rule change reversal. Reservior shocks comes to mind, as do others. It has happened in classing too....mistakes made classing certain cars have rendered entire classes as backmarkers.

Funny thing about the ECU...errr PFM,....errr...PFMS or whatever you call it...situation....

When the rule first came out, it was an attempt to level the field, but manage the ramifications. It was a knee jerk reaction based on the inability to detect and enforce the rule. The result was some tricky and enterprising folk spending lots of money stuffing things into (certain) ECU boxes that nobody thought could fit....and thereby raising the game for EVERYONE..AND upsetting the competitive balance. A DOUBLE whammy! (Cars that have no ECU can not tune the spark and fuel delivery maps equally, thereby the comptetive balnce was altered, as the change came POST classification of certain cars, and if you had a car that benefited form such mods, you now HAD to go do them if you wanted to run at the front. And lets presume that, as racers, running at the front might be desirable...)

A valant but flawed attempt would be a charitble summation.

And it is a huge Genie that fights cunningly to stay out of the bottle.

But...this might resolve itself, to some degree at least, and the irony is the same advancements that made it suck, might make it better. The march of progress on the data memory and mangement front is bringing the computing power to more and more racers So, a little rebalancing might happen.

Even still, if somebody has any way to jamb that guy back where he came from, I would be all ears.

[zracre]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 17 2005, 12:39 AM

I&#39;m truly worried that you are going to dick it all up and I don&#39;t want to be a part of that. Andy et al., I&#39;d like to respectfully request that the ITAC recommend against my central lock proposal, or tell me what I have to do to withdraw it. Whatever - just don&#39;t let it pass. Someone obviously needs to draw a line sooner rather than later because it&#39;s just going to get ugly fast. I thought that maybe there was room for some more change and a few more fixes but this conversation has convinced me that I&#39;ve been caught a little starry-eyed by recent progress. Our nature has not changed and the ITAC now faces the challenge of protecting us from us.

K

68553

I wouldnt withdraw it...there are many things like that on cars coming down the pipeline that will need to be adressed...this may be a good oppertunity to handle it in a model fashion that will make it a legitimate process to remove something thad distinctly does not give a performance improvement...I personally like my washer bottle...cleans the winshield off when it rains during enduros...

[Doc Bro]

[quote]

(Answer, it sucks, but hitting the net or ebay and scoring a washer bottle sucks, but is better than going to the dentist...)



That&#39;s it....the gloves are OFF!!!! :D :D :D

R

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 16 2005, 08:28 PM
IF someone were to start a major groundswell to rewrite that rule...how should it be written?
68541
C&#39;mon, Andy: you don&#39;t remember the Great Bloody Motec Battle of 2004? We lost of lot of good men there... ;)

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...p?showtopic=497 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=497)

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 16 2005, 10:39 PM
You know what? I kind of hope you all get exactly what you are asking for because it&#39;s the only way you&#39;re going to learn. I&#39;ve been in - or thereabout - IT cars since before there was a national rule set...
68553
Kirk, you are the coolest guy I know today. Anyone that didn&#39;t nod their head in agreement with this post is either 15 years old or hasn&#39;t been around SCCA for very long.

I think I&#39;m just going to pull up a lawn chair next to my bud here and watch the show. Need another Corona, Kirk? The limes are over there on the cooler... - Greg

[anrkii]

new guy here, so dont yell at me,

i just bought a car, (85 crxsi) , and i can clearly see that a washer bottle removal would be advantageous for my car. it sits directly underneath and in front of the air filter assembly, with it gone, i could easily direct another 25-40% more fresh air right into the air intake. that being said, i do not think its fair to remove it, because many other models do not have them in this convienient location, and the weight difference would be nothing compared to the difference in airflow...

i am just getting a start in road course racing, and i have chosen IT because it is affordable, that was the main decision maker... so if the rules creep gets out of hand, and IT becomes almost or as expensive as production, then what would be the selling point of IT then? I just dont understand why some people are trying to turn IT into production, I must ask those people, why not just build and go race a prod car now?

I really think that excessive rules creep would kill this class off entirely, but thats just a new guys perspective..

[Ron Earp]

I find that this has been an interesting discussion. It has had a lot of valid points drawn up by either "side" and I really liked Tom&#39;s boxing description of IT sparring - definitely a highlight of humor in the thread.

I was thinking about the ECU rules whilst at the gym this afternoon. I really don&#39;t like the open ECU rule and I really think the ITAC/CRB that allowed that rule to happen did not think ahead at all on that one. To me, one of the "younger" guys brought up on ECU cars most of my life, I think this outcome of stuffing Motecs in stock boxes was 100% predictable. Be that as it may, I don&#39;t like the open ECU rule. I agree with Joe H. on this one, put the ECUs away and let&#39;s go racing.

But, we&#39;ve got to think ahead for the future of IT too, at least, I hope we do.

I&#39;m familar with D/L Jetronic systems, Ford EEC-IV, and some of GM&#39;s setups. I think most of them fairly simple, are known quantities, and you can do a fair amount with them easily (more or less). But, some of the newer systems, Ford&#39;s EEC-V for example, require a good bit of compromises and work arounds to avoid MIL/ECU lights, limp home modes, etc. due to things such as the checking of O2 sensors before and after catalysts (there are fixes for this) and other things. Not many Fords racing but you get the idea. I assume some of the Honda systems are becoming less friendly to modification too, but I&#39;m not sure since I do not know Honda EFI systems at all.

The point is, newer OBD-II systems are in some ways very easy to work with due to standardization of data output and displaying real time data, but in some ways are harder to deal with due to manufacturer specific issues with programming for performance. If this does become a serious impediment (I&#39;ve not done enough research for future IT cars to know if it is or not) then it&#39;ll be hard to get new cars into IT, and, if we can&#39;t get new cars into IT then IT will die a slow and painful death. We all don&#39;t want to race 325s, CRXs, Integras, 240sxs, 240z, TR8s, and, heaven forbid, Jensen Healeys forever.

We might need an open ECU rule so that if you can get your Whatsamafloozit GT Type R to run worth a dang with the header, open exhaust, and whatever else you&#39;ve got going on, then you could at least slap a Megasquirt/Motec/Accel/TWM/Wolf 3D (there are a lot of options besides Motec) on it and have an option to get it to run well.

I don&#39;t like an open ECU rule, but if for some reason future cars for IT get to be very difficult or impossible to prep for race duty then and open ECU rule for the future of IT might be useful.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 17 2005, 02:12 PM
I find that this has been an interesting discussion. It has had a lot of valid points drawn up by either "side" and I really liked Tom&#39;s boxing description of IT sparring - definitely a highlight of humor in the thread.

I was thinking about the ECU rules whilst at the gym this afternoon. I really don&#39;t like the open ECU rule and I really think the ITAC/CRB that allowed that rule to happen did not think ahead at all on that one. To me, one of the "younger" guys brought up on ECU cars most of my life, I think this outcome of stuffing Motecs in stock boxes was 100% predictable. Be that as it may, I don&#39;t like the open ECU rule. I agree with Joe H. on this one, put the ECUs away and let&#39;s go racing.

But, we&#39;ve got to think ahead for the future of IT too, at least, I hope we do.

I&#39;m familar with D/L Jetronic systems, Ford EEC-IV, and some of GM&#39;s setups. I think most of them fairly simple, are known quantities, and you can do a fair amount with them easily (more or less). But, some of the newer systems, Ford&#39;s EEC-V for example, require a good bit of compromises and work arounds to avoid MIL/ECU lights, limp home modes, etc. due to things such as the checking of O2 sensors before and after catalysts (there are fixes for this) and other things. Not many Fords racing but you get the idea. I assume some of the Honda systems are becoming less friendly to modification too, but I&#39;m not sure since I do not know Honda EFI systems at all.

The point is, newer OBD-II systems are in some ways very easy to work with due to standardization of data output and displaying real time data, but in some ways are harder to deal with due to manufacturer specific issues with programming for performance. If this does become a serious impediment (I&#39;ve not done enough research for future IT cars to know if it is or not) then it&#39;ll be hard to get new cars into IT, and, if we can&#39;t get new cars into IT then IT will die a slow and painful death. We all don&#39;t want to race 325s, CRXs, Integras, 240sxs, 240z, TR8s, and, heaven forbid, Jensen Healeys forever.

We might need an open ECU rule so that if you can get your Whatsamafloozit GT Type R to run worth a dang with the header, open exhaust, and whatever else you&#39;ve got going on, then you could at least slap a Megasquirt/Motec/Accel/TWM/Wolf 3D (there are a lot of options besides Motec) on it and have an option to get it to run well.

I don&#39;t like an open ECU rule, but if for some reason future cars for IT get to be very difficult or impossible to prep for race duty then and open ECU rule for the future of IT might be useful.

68601


The reality is once the OBDII stuff comes in those of us that are working iwth it now will have most of the cracks figured out. Also the OBDII stuff is much more self adaptive than anything is previous models. Ron I will ask that you refrain from using words like a slow death. These kinds of words tend to make this class not look healthy. IT is headed for it&#39;s greatest period of growth since it was created based on some of the early moves made by the adhoc. There will be enough new stuff classified to keep it interesting long after the 240z has rusted its way back to the earth. I believe that the wording for modifying an OE box is out there and I will be working on a rule to present to the adhoc. Even though the basic technology is becoming more affordable that does not mean that it belongs here. Mikuni side drafts are cheap but you still can&#39;t run them on the 260...Basicly I see open ECU&#39;s as the exact same thing as giving a big alternate carb.

Once again IT is healthy and has a good 10 year outlook today. There are lots of classes that cannot say that.

[dickita15]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 17 2005, 05:24 PM
Basicly I see open ECU&#39;s as the exact same thing as giving a big alternate carb.


68602

oh oh oh can i have a big alternate carb. pleeease :rolleyes:

[dickita15]

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 17 2005, 05:12 PM
I don&#39;t like an open ECU rule, but if for some reason future cars for IT get to be very difficult or impossible to prep for race duty then and open ECU rule for the future of IT might be useful.

68601


Ron it is not very often that i read a post that makes me say hmm, that a good point. this was one. the problem is it the transition not in the future. :023:

[Spinnetti]

Well, the worst rules creep for me is the endless "safety" rules.
Take a few seasons off, and you get to modify your cage, get new belts, get new window nets, get new helment etc.. Hardly worth it just to take a 20yr old car around the track 1/2 as fast as I drive my street car. Bah! - $1,000+ down the tubes, only to do it again in a couple years.

I simply don&#39;t belive any of the stuff is really protecting me better than a little common sense on what needs replacing and when.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Spinnetti@Dec 17 2005, 11:44 PM
Well, the worst rules creep for me is the endless "safety" rules.

Sorry, but I have to take issue with a few points here...


Take a few seasons off, and you get to modify your cage, ...

If you are referring to the soon to take place door mods, then I would imagine you could meet the requirements for a few hundred, and it is the only mandatory change that has been placed on the books in over a decade..


...get new belts,....

Under $200...


get new window nets, ....

Under $100....


...get new helment etc..

Not needed for years at a time, and even so, an appropriate one runs $300 easily..


Hardly worth it just to take a 20yr old car around the track 1/2 as fast as I drive my street car. Bah! -

You drive your street car around corners, chcuking and jiving at over 1.2Gs??? Right next to other cars? Nice commute you have...


$1,000+ down the tubes, only to do it again in a couple years.

No. Add it up.....the cage rules rarely change....10 years between changes, thats about $33 a year....and a helmet every 5 years, thats $60 a year, net (not actually the rule, but ...) toss in $35 a year....belts are $100 a year if you go high end, ......it adds up...to $230 a year. What&#39;s a set of tires? $800...a fuel bill for the weekend? $300....Hotels for a weekend? $160?....you get the idea...the whole cost of being "safe" is pretty minor in the big picture....


I simply don&#39;t belive any of the stuff is really protecting me better than a little common sense on what needs replacing and when.

68616


Maybe, or maybe not...but can you show me that everyone in the SCCA has the common sense? I have seen that they don&#39;t.

That said, I DO agree that we are sliding down a slippery slope run by lawyers and liabilty consultants, and it sucks. Particularly the whole racket the SFI has going...

But...so far, the actual "cost" to the average racer has been pretty minor compared to both the big picture and the benefits.

[DavidM]

This may not be the right place to ask this, but it occurred to me while I was reading this thread so here goes.

How come nobody seems to care about the new rules allowing the air intake track to be pretty much free as long as you keep the stock air flow sensor and wiring harness and suck air from the stock location or in the engine compartment? People are all over removing the windshield wiper stalk, but a free air intake is ok? Maybe it&#39;s just me, but allowing a free air intake would seem to be moving a lot more down the evil path than some of the other things mentioned here. Yet nobody seems to care. Why?

David

[Renaultfool]

QUOTE(Joe Harlan @ Dec 17 2005, 05:24 PM)
Basicly I see open ECU&#39;s as the exact same thing as giving a big alternate carb.

Wow, Joe! Get off the sauce!
A bigger alternate carb equals more air flow.
An alternate ECU does not change the air flow.
Air flow is what determines the maximum available power for any engine; therefore restrictors, the only thing that works.
The ECU is tune up stuff, jetting, timing, redline or speed cutoffs.
The newer cars cannot race without allowances in this area.
There just isn&#39;t any other reasonable choice for most cars now unless you want to retrofit all cars back to Weber 32/36s. Now that would make them all equal.
Carl

[pfcs49]

Originally posted by DavidM@Dec 20 2005, 04:26 PM
This may not be the right place to ask this, but it occurred to me while I was reading this thread so here goes.

How come nobody seems to care about the new rules allowing the air intake track to be pretty much free as long as you keep the stock air flow sensor and wiring harness and suck air from the stock location or in the engine compartment? People are all over removing the windshield wiper stalk, but a free air intake is ok? Maybe it&#39;s just me, but allowing a free air intake would seem to be moving a lot more down the evil path than some of the other things mentioned here. Yet nobody seems to care. Why?

David

68811

because a lot of peple here are bozzos! Youbetcha! This intake duct rule is pure BS and if I&#39;da seen it coming, I&#39;da raised hell about it. NOT IN THE SPIRIT OF IT, now or ever! (I didn&#39;t see it because I let my membership lapse after trashing my car at ARRC, and didn&#39;t get Fastracks for a while)

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Renaultfool@Dec 20 2005, 05:36 PM
QUOTE(Joe Harlan @ Dec 17 2005, 05:24 PM)
Basicly I see open ECU&#39;s as the exact same thing as giving a big alternate carb.

Wow, Joe! Get off the sauce!
A bigger alternate carb equals more air flow.
An alternate ECU does not change the air flow.
Air flow is what determines the maximum available power for any engine; therefore restrictors, the only thing that works.
The ECU is tune up stuff, jetting, timing, redline or speed cutoffs.
The newer cars cannot race without allowances in this area.
There just isn&#39;t any other reasonable choice for most cars now unless you want to retrofit all cars back to Weber 32/36s. Now that would make them all equal.
Carl

68821



Carl, are you freakin kidding? if your gonna quote somebody use the whole thing not just one part to argue about. I am no born yesterday dipstick. I understand well what an engine need to work. I also understand how and why an open ECU rule would be similar to giving an open carb rule. Lets just say if we gave the 240z 44mm mikuni&#39;s but limited the air to the factory cfm that the SU&#39;s would produce. Do you really think I couldn&#39;t build more average power out of a much more refined carburator? Give a break. Peak HP is Peak HP BFD when everything is close it is average HP that wins races period. I have never said that we should go back to STOCK unmodified ECU&#39;s I believe that has been clearly stated many times in what I have posted and i can assure you there is no sauce around here.

Oh and BTW....a 240SX with a 58MM throttle body could make up to 300HP on that throttle body. I would contend that most EFI cars have more air available than they can use with their OE ECU&#39;s and cams ect. But I would guess a renault mastertech knew that... B)

[zracre]

Originally posted by DavidM@Dec 20 2005, 04:26 PM
This may not be the right place to ask this, but it occurred to me while I was reading this thread so here goes.

How come nobody seems to care about the new rules allowing the air intake track to be pretty much free as long as you keep the stock air flow sensor and wiring harness and suck air from the stock location or in the engine compartment? People are all over removing the windshield wiper stalk, but a free air intake is ok? Maybe it&#39;s just me, but allowing a free air intake would seem to be moving a lot more down the evil path than some of the other things mentioned here. Yet nobody seems to care. Why?

David

68811


I agree but it seems unfair to people running cars with airflow meters...us honda people can put whatever honking intake on we want because the metering device is basically the throttle body...the old rule seemed to leave the people with airflow meters without shiny intake pipes and a way to relocate the source of intake air...an imbalance that made change iminent...

[Renaultfool]

"Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand". Recorded by many bands in the 60&#39;s. Music Machine, Jimi Hendrix, Vanilla Fudge to name a few. Maybe if I could program some Jimi into my ECU it would help!

Do the folks on this thread really think that going back to allowing modification to the stock computer is the answer. You will still have the "haves" and the "have nots" because some ECUs are easy (cheap) to modify and some are not.
As the cars become more sophisticated we will be less able to do it ourselves, therefore encouraging high priced aftermarket parts for the cars that are popular enough for some company to engineer them. The rest of the fringe cars and/or less funded drivers, will be where they are now, running at the back.

Allowing a total replacement ECU such as the Motec (around $1,000) or the MegaSquirt (around $250) and many others that may be out there is a rather simple way to level the playing field for those who chose to buy in. The cost will probably turn out to be cheaper than trying to build a ship in a bottle, modifing the stock one as it were. It would allow everyone with an ECU to be on a level playing field. No, I do not have one. Stock Renix for me!

To keep things equal, if that is what we are going for, I just looked up some prices on the net. A race prep modified 32/36 Weber Carb is $625 from Pegasus and a race prep modified distributer for a CRX is $590 from King. So give me the race Weber and a race distributer, both of which are legal for some cars now and the total is $1,215. Oh wait, that is about what the Motec costs. So I guess it isn&#39;t about cost then.

Is it about adjustment? A clever lad can adjust their Weber across the entire rev range. Those who don&#39;t have the skills and knowledge to do so probably don&#39;t have the skills and knowledge to adjust their ECU either.

If you are trying to equal the performance in the ECU cars the only way to do it is to allow the aftermarket ECU, otherwise some will be able to get rid of speed controls, limp home modes and the like and some won&#39;t, so "factory stock" if you could police, it just won&#39;t work. Also, some will have access to modified chips, (find one for a Renix) some won&#39;t. We will still be where we are now, with an unlevel playing field.

To make the carb cars equal to the ECU/Injected cars is more difficult. They probably will never be equal. SCCA should just class them to the most appropriate group. How long can one expect 30+ year old technology to remain competitive anyway? Maybe give them a Motec and a throttle body the same size as their current induction on their stock manifold and have at it. Whatever, two valves will never equal 4 or 5. One cam will never equal two with variable cam timing, and on and on. It will never be equal.

It seems to me that most of the arguments against controlled progress are not well founded, looking at todays technology, and may be presented to maintain the status quo for particular cars that have an advantage now.
We need to look ahead, not behind.
Carl

[Fastfred92]

Originally posted by Renaultfool@Dec 22 2005, 07:06 AM

Allowing a total replacement ECU such as the Motec (around $1,000)
Carl

68940



Carl, where do you shop??? I will take several motec&#39;s at $1000 per !! When I still had my evil e36 I was quoted about $6000 installed and I doubt the install was $5000.......

[seckerich]

Originally posted by Fastfred92@Dec 22 2005, 09:12 AM
Carl, where do you shop??? I will take several motec&#39;s at $1000 per !! When I still had my evil e36 I was quoted about $6000 installed and I doubt the install was $5000.......

68961

$1000.00 is a sweeeeet ebay price. M4 for most cars is $1650.00-$1800.00 and the BMW unit is about $2200.00. The rest is for the knowledge and mapping. And yes Fred, your E36 was evil. :D :D Glad you saw the light.

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by Renaultfool@Dec 22 2005, 07:06 AM
"Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand". Recorded by many bands in the 60&#39;s. Music Machine, Jimi Hendrix, Vanilla Fudge to name a few. Maybe if I could program some Jimi into my ECU it would help!

Do the folks on this thread really think that going back to allowing modification to the stock computer is the answer. You will still have the "haves" and the "have nots" because some ECUs are easy (cheap) to modify and some are not.
As the cars become more sophisticated we will be less able to do it ourselves, therefore encouraging high priced aftermarket parts for the cars that are popular enough for some company to engineer them. The rest of the fringe cars and/or less funded drivers, will be where they are now, running at the back.

Allowing a total replacement ECU such as the Motec (around $1,000) or the MegaSquirt (around $250) and many others that may be out there is a rather simple way to level the playing field for those who chose to buy in. The cost will probably turn out to be cheaper than trying to build a ship in a bottle, modifing the stock one as it were. It would allow everyone with an ECU to be on a level playing field. No, I do not have one. Stock Renix for me!

To keep things equal, if that is what we are going for, I just looked up some prices on the net. A race prep modified 32/36 Weber Carb is $625 from Pegasus and a race prep modified distributer for a CRX is $590 from King. So give me the race Weber and a race distributer, both of which are legal for some cars now and the total is $1,215. Oh wait, that is about what the Motec costs. So I guess it isn&#39;t about cost then.

Is it about adjustment? A clever lad can adjust their Weber across the entire rev range. Those who don&#39;t have the skills and knowledge to do so probably don&#39;t have the skills and knowledge to adjust their ECU either.

If you are trying to equal the performance in the ECU cars the only way to do it is to allow the aftermarket ECU, otherwise some will be able to get rid of speed controls, limp home modes and the like and some won&#39;t, so "factory stock" if you could police, it just won&#39;t work. Also, some will have access to modified chips, (find one for a Renix) some won&#39;t. We will still be where we are now, with an unlevel playing field.

To make the carb cars equal to the ECU/Injected cars is more difficult. They probably will never be equal. SCCA should just class them to the most appropriate group. How long can one expect 30+ year old technology to remain competitive anyway? Maybe give them a Motec and a throttle body the same size as their current induction on their stock manifold and have at it. Whatever, two valves will never equal 4 or 5. One cam will never equal two with variable cam timing, and on and on. It will never be equal.

It seems to me that most of the arguments against controlled progress are not well founded, looking at todays technology, and may be presented to maintain the status quo for particular cars that have an advantage now.
We need to look ahead, not behind.
Carl

68940



I think you have been misinformed. Motec is more than 1K to cram into a stock ECU box AND takes hours of dyno tuning time. I have looked into the Megasquirt unit personally and it is just barely if at all IT compatible. (It uses GM and Ford sensors which are not "legal" in a BMW or Acura, etc. It also only controls injectors unless you go with a separate unit The Megaspark, which will handle the firing duty.
The point is that Motec is outside of the parameters of the "original class intent" and we need a groundswell to get rid of it.
You must understand one point. I drive a 1.9l Z3 which would GREATLY benefit from Motec. There aren&#39;t many bigger oddballs out there! However, I am categorically against the rule as written. If MOTEC is to be the future of IT racing then just let it out of the box.....otherwise put it back in the bottle!!! :D :P

Rob

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Fastfred92@Dec 22 2005, 09:12 AM
Carl, where do you shop??? I will take several motec&#39;s at $1000 per !! When I still had my evil e36 I was quoted about $6000 installed and I doubt the install was $5000.......

68961


If you really want to know what a MoTec is gonna cost, Click HERE (http://www.motec.com/dealers.htm) then make a call.

I just did the work up on JUST THE HARDWARE in order for it to meet IT rules. $3850. That doesn&#39;t take into account labor and tuning time on a dyno.

Each car is different in what you need - the simplest systems typically won&#39;t work for IT becasue they don&#39;t have enough capability and need expansion packs that don&#39;t allow them to fit into stock housings. The M400 is as &#39;low end&#39; as I can go for my application...

AB

[Fastfred92]

Originally posted by seckerich@Dec 22 2005, 03:50 PM
And yes Fred, your E36 was evil. :D :D Glad you saw the light.

68964



May I forever be banished to fwd crapboxes in IT, and Miata hell in speccrasher !

[Joe Harlan]

Carl,
Lucky for you the renualt appliance is classed in SCCA HP and you can run that 1000 dollar Motec or what ever speced carb they have.... you&#39;ll fit right in over there. People that think the future is opening up the ruleset to address something that really wouldn&#39;t be an issue if cars were classed correctly to start with... I am positive the current classification process is pretty solid. That has not been the case in the past.
If you gonna do a motec correctly you gonna spend as much on dyno time and somebody like myself programming it for you.


If you programmed Jimmy into the ECU you would end up with a hotrod that didn&#39;t get out of bed till noon and would OD right at the peak of it&#39;s carreer....Not sure I would really want that. ;)

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 22 2005, 05:40 PM

If you programmed Jimmy into the ECU you would end up with a hotrod that didn&#39;t get out of bed till noon and would OD right at the peak of it&#39;s carreer....Not sure I would really want that. ;)

68987


That&#39;s hilarious. Don&#39;t forget he was also a lefty playing a righty guitar.......

R

[Eagle7]

Originally posted by Doc Bro@Dec 22 2005, 11:51 AM
I think you have been misinformed. Motec is more than 1K to cram into a stock ECU box AND takes hours of dyno tuning time. I have looked into the Megasquirt unit personally and it is just barely if at all IT compatible. (It uses GM and Ford sensors which are not "legal" in a BMW or Acura, etc. It also only controls injectors unless you go with a separate unit The Megaspark, which will handle the firing duty.
The point is that Motec is outside of the parameters of the "original class intent" and we need a groundswell to get rid of it.
You must understand one point. I drive a 1.9l Z3 which would GREATLY benefit from Motec. There aren&#39;t many bigger oddballs out there! However, I am categorically against the rule as written. If MOTEC is to be the future of IT racing then just let it out of the box.....otherwise put it back in the bottle!!! :D :P

Rob

68965

Actually, you&#39;re a little misinformed wrt the Megasquirt. It can work with a variety of sensor types, and is fairly simple to adapt to many sensors that are not on the supported list. For example, the manifold air temp sensor in my RX-7 is not directly supported, but there&#39;s a utility to characterize the response of the sensor and include that into the code. It also DOES control spark - my base board will directly drive my ignitors with the addition of three resistors to the board. I don&#39;t know if it&#39;ll run the spark on your car, but it works for many.

I just don&#39;t get why Motec is "outside the parameters of the original class intent", any more than aftermarket shocks are. I can&#39;t see the logic in allowing modifications to the stock ECU that cost some hundreds or thousands of dollars, but prohibit my $200 Megasquirt that can&#39;t do anything that a modified stock ECU couldn&#39;t do. It just does it cheaper and easier.

[Eagle7]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 22 2005, 01:40 PM
If you gonna do a motec correctly you gonna spend as much on dyno time and somebody like myself programming it for you.

68987

And it seems like if you gonna rechip your stock ECU, you gonna spend as much on dyno time and somebody like yourself programming it for you. What&#39;s good(bad) for the goose is good(bad) for the gander.

[Renaultfool]

Right on Eagle7!

I got my Motec price off another thread on this website. Someone quoted $1,250 for the unit that you would have to adapt into your ECU case yourself. If that is wron, sorry for missleading everyone that is reading this thread.
The Megasquirt is still cheap and they claim you can adjust the program to the parameters of your factory sensors.

It seems to me that it would take a lot of dyno time to dial in a carb or fuel injection, no diffenence there. And you would still need someone with the skill and the jets/programs to do it.

Doc Bro, you refer to an "original class intent" developed before there were many ECU driven fuel injected cars. If you do not allow new cars to take advantage of headers by adjusting the lean condition they will cause, eliminating rev limiters, eliminating speed limiters, eliminating traction control, etc. you will not have any newer cars coming into IT. We can&#39;t all race RX-7s and Z cars forever. I agree with you that the box should not matter, to stuff something into a different box just increases the cost.

Joe, you must have missed the point that I run a stock Renault Renix computer in my car. I am able to get close to the correct mixture by altering fuel pressure with the factory regulator adjustment screw, and my ignition is a seperate crank drive unit from the factory. It is cars newer than my 85 Renault that need the help.
I am not at all interested in Production. Racing against multi-thousand dollar cars that have to be rebuilt between races in my IT car on slicks would not be that much fun.
Carl

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Renaultfool@Dec 23 2005, 12:17 AM
Right on Eagle7!

I got my Motec price off another thread on this website. Someone quoted $1,250 for the unit that you would have to adapt into your ECU case yourself. If that is wron, sorry for missleading everyone that is reading this thread.
The Megasquirt is still cheap and they claim you can adjust the program to the parameters of your factory sensors.

It seems to me that it would take a lot of dyno time to dial in a carb or fuel injection, no diffenence there. And you would still need someone with the skill and the jets/programs to do it.

Doc Bro, you refer to an "original class intent" developed before there were many ECU driven fuel injected cars. If you do not allow new cars to take advantage of headers by adjusting the lean condition they will cause, eliminating rev limiters, eliminating speed limiters, eliminating traction control, etc. you will not have any newer cars coming into IT. We can&#39;t all race RX-7s and Z cars forever. I agree with you that the box should not matter, to stuff something into a different box just increases the cost.

Joe, you must have missed the point that I run a stock Renault Renix computer in my car. I am able to get close to the correct mixture by altering fuel pressure with the factory regulator adjustment screw, and my ignition is a seperate crank drive unit from the factory. It is cars newer than my 85 Renault that need the help.
I am not at all interested in Production. Racing against multi-thousand dollar cars that have to be rebuilt between races in my IT car on slicks would not be that much fun.
Carl

69065


I very rarely miss the point. You pop off for the 5 grand it will take to motec the appliance and I will make it make more average HP than it does today. Nobody is talking about racing z&#39;s and 7&#39;s forever. I think the kick back is a effort to keep the class from eating itself up like the many other classes before it...Have a merry christmas folks.

PS Carl, I don&#39;t spout facts based off some thread from another link. I have actually bought installed and programed many different EFI systems on different applications than just road racing. Want FI on your 85 Itasca... :rolleyes:

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by Eagle7@Dec 22 2005, 07:00 PM
Actually, you&#39;re a little misinformed wrt the Megasquirt. It can work with a variety of sensor types, and is fairly simple to adapt to many sensors that are not on the supported list. For example, the manifold air temp sensor in my RX-7 is not directly supported, but there&#39;s a utility to characterize the response of the sensor and include that into the code. It also DOES control spark - my base board will directly drive my ignitors with the addition of three resistors to the board. I don&#39;t know if it&#39;ll run the spark on your car, but it works for many.

I just don&#39;t get why Motec is "outside the parameters of the original class intent", any more than aftermarket shocks are. I can&#39;t see the logic in allowing modifications to the stock ECU that cost some hundreds or thousands of dollars, but prohibit my $200 Megasquirt that can&#39;t do anything that a modified stock ECU couldn&#39;t do. It just does it cheaper and easier.

69000



Sorry if my info doesn&#39;t jive with yours. I got my info from the MS info board on their website by asking questions specific to IT and the Z3. As for the "original intent....." refer to pages 2 and 3 of this post where we went into it with the washer bottle thing. My only point in regards to that discussion was there should be some consistency in the IT rules as far as allowable and not allowable mods. I don&#39;t want to go there but......it is a really fun debate! :D :bash_1_: :happy204:

Rob

[Knestis]

Free to a good home - washer bottle for MkII Golf, and (I think) one for a MkI as well. Just pay shipping. Email me if you want dibs.

:D

Kirk

[JohnRW]

Originally posted by Knestis@Jan 4 2006, 09:12 AM
Free to a good home - washer bottle for MkII Golf, and (I think) one for a MkI as well. Just pay shipping. Email me if you want dibs.

70002


Does it come with washer fluid ?

[Knestis]

No. It&#39;s up to the end user to get the correct fluid from VW to be legal.

K