What makes IT, IT and Production, Production [Archive]

turboICE

01-09-2006, 03:41 PM

I see this approximate comment alot regarding rule changes or interpretations:

~ We don't want to creep towards becoming production. ~

And I have to say in the context it is frequently used in (sometimes for any change in the rules at all) I really think it is misused or I simply have no idea what they are saying.

I think my view is that the difference is production involves substantial internal engine development and substantial chasis modification.

So while I would agree that any rule allowing additional work on the long block or the attached carb/FI beyond the current rules and allowances (even though I requested an alternate distributer/oil pump gear) would be indicative of creeping towards production - I disagree that improving aspects outside the long block (such as wiring, MAF and ECU if allowed) would be improper for IT and moving towards Prod.

Regarding the chasis while I would agree that permitting alternate or modification to suspension arms, additional chasis reinforcement, seam welding, and other types of structural fabrications would be creeping towards production - I disagree that improving the connecting or wear components (such as short shifters including linkage, any type of suspension joint connection) would be improper for IT and moving towards Prod.

I'd would like this thread to focus on what makes IT, IT and Prod, Prod - so as to focus thoughts on when a rule is creeping toward Prod for real, rather than just being creepy in general. ;)

I guess I am just tired of the "IT is not Prod" crowd throwing it out for any discussed rule or for interpretting a rule fairly but beneficially to the building of an IT car.

ddewhurst

01-09-2006, 05:19 PM

Ed, IMHJ anyone who has a desire to strain & or torture the written words of the GCR/ITCS to meet their personal agenda or to move the IT written rules closer to the Production rules should re-read the Improved Touring purpose & intent.

Within the Spherical bearing thread do you remember the post from a guy who has a 1st gen RX-7 who modifyed OEM parts to make the Spherical bearing fit ? :( Did ya pay any attention to "who" did these modifications & or where he received his information ? :(

One of the "IT is not Prod" crowd throwing out what his thoughts are.

turboICE

01-09-2006, 05:30 PM

I agree that if modification of the structural part is needed in order to use an alternate bushing besides not being legal that would be beyond what I understand IT's intent to be.

This thread wasn't really geared towards that discussion in particular but as a result of responses within many of these rules threads.

I fully agree that IT is not Prod, should not be Prod and will not be Prod.

What I question is what I would describe as abuses to the "IT is not Prod" responses. Is that really the answer to every rule question or proposal?

What I really wanted to discuss is broad ideas of what people think the intent is for IT and how it fits overall. If the argument is that the IT ruleset already is fully at the limit of the IT intent and no additional rules or changes make sense at all then I would like to hear that. I think there is room within the intent to still improve the ruleset and that not every rule change creeps towards Prod.

Take for instance the intake rule change passed recently. I think it is a good example of an improvement in the ruleset, within the intent as I see it and is not at all creeping IT towards Prod. I am sure more exist.

Knestis

01-09-2006, 05:41 PM

I don't have time right now to find it but there was a strand here wherein Scott Giles put forth the proposition that the heart and spirit of IT-ness was defined by just a few major areas of "leave it the hell alone:"

** Stock bodyshell, fenders, hood, doors, and glass
** Stock gearbox and gears
** DOT tires
** Stock brake rotors and calipers
** Unmodified suspension pick-up points
** Essentially stock engine internals

I think that's the list, anyway. Maybe someone else remembers for sure...

As far as that went, it was a useful reminder of what it might really boil down to, once the battles are over. However, I'm get pretty anxious about this definition because it opens up the possibility that someone will convince the powers-that-be that everything else - or anything else - should be open.

I'm already clearly on record as believing that we are generally better off where we are, than someplace even a tiny bit closer to production, but it is POSSIBLE that changing technologies (in OE cars and racing products) MIGHT make it sensible to make changes that don't necessarily go that direction. Maybe. Sort of...

K

mustanghammer

01-09-2006, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 9 2006, 09:19 PM
Ed, IMHJ anyone who has a desire to strain & or torture the written words of the GCR/ITCS to meet their personal agenda or to move the IT written rules closer to the Production rules should re-read the Improved Touring purpose & intent.

Within the Spherical bearing thread do you remember the post from a guy who has a 1st gen RX-7 who modifyed OEM parts to make the Spherical bearing fit ? :( Did ya pay any attention to "who" did these modifications & or where he received his information ? :(

One of the "IT is not Prod" crowd throwing out what his thoughts are.

70489

David,

I am really not interested in being vilified by you and or held up as the poster child for racers that say one thing and mean something else. When I answered your questions I was being honest. When I have made comments about rules and rules creep I was and am being honest. You don't know me and you can't make these assertions accurately.

I know a freakin' thing or two about race cars and what makes them work. I built a solo II car that had no stock or store-bought aftermarket suspension pieces on it before I came to IT. I rent shop space from a guy that has a well developed first gen E prod RX7 and have lunch with dudes that build Prod and IT cars for a living. If I need to know what an production cars is I can walk 20 feet and look at it or ask the man who helped make limited prep Prod cars a reality.

You didn't like the answer that I gave you last week. Too bad. You made a comment that my car is illiegal. So protest me. Heck, come to HPT this April, I'll be there and buy you a beer. Even after you hang paper on me.

I frankly didn't know that SB's were an issue to ANYBODY. As I stated I helped install them on an ITA RX7 12-13 years ago. If this is still the huge problem that it appears to be then you concerned IT drivers are doing a piss poor job of policing your sport and the rules you live by.

And David, if you are going to continue to refer to me in your posts as "a guy who has a 1st gen RX-7" or "One of the "IT is not Prod" crowd throwing out what his thoughts are" then use my name. I'd like the credit.

turboICE

01-09-2006, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by Knestis@Jan 9 2006, 05:41 PM
Scott Giles put forth the proposition that the heart and spirit of IT-ness was defined by just a few major areas of "leave it the hell alone:"

** Stock bodyshell, fenders, hood, doors, and glass
** Stock gearbox and gears
** DOT tires
** Stock brake rotors and calipers
** Unmodified suspension pick-up points
** Essentially stock engine internals

I think that's the list, anyway. Maybe someone else remembers for sure...

70491

Actually I think that is a pretty good list and also by saying leave them the hell alone (though doors have already been moved off the list by the CRB for cage considerations) does not mean that any other modification permitted not be discussed and justified. I think any rule (new or change) should be discussed and justified - but I would prefer to leave the "IT is not Prod" comments to the list above. Not to every single change being discussed - I think a better reason should be given and is likely available for other areas than IT is not Prod.

Another thing I see a lot of - the modification doesn't benefit me or I don't want to do it myself so don't allow it - which again doesn't mean it is outside of the IT intent or moving towards production.

There are things that production allows that IT doesn't - my point of view is that not all of them are necessarily outside the scope or intent of IT just because they are in the production ruleset. If the determinant of having a rule or not is whether or not production has the modification then we should be driving dealer showroom stock cars.

Trust me I don't want to move towards Prod or I would be there - but I think there are things that could be done in the ruleset to make IT more appealing to what the younger crowd sees everyday as common basic mods on their street cars or less frustrating to someone developing their own IT car.

I think hands off the above list is a great core of what to leave the hell alone though. And add to the body shell part, subframes, suspension linkages, (structural nonmaintenance type stuff), etc. I do think anything that can commonly be worn out though should to the extent reasonable be open to aftermarket available items especially when they are common in normal street tuning.

ddewhurst

01-09-2006, 07:39 PM

Scott, it's stuff like you & Charlie did if I read your post correctly to the front of your 1st gen RX-7 that got Production to where Production is today & it's that same stuff/thought process that will get the IT rules closer to Production. I understand that Charlie has been around for ever. Personally the remaining 4 illegal IMHU Spherical bearings that you have in your car are not by themselves going to make your car a winner. & I could care less how many races you win or otherwise. I attempt to race a legal car & do the best finish position I am capable of.

Being vilified or a poster child is your oopinion of yourself. & all of us who know a thing or two about race cars should also know the rules & that you cant modify OEM parts to make Spherical bearing fit our personal desire. Nuff said on this subject, I'll buy the beer. ;)

dickita15

01-09-2006, 07:45 PM

This is actually an interesting topic to me.

Prod is very much about engineering the cars. They are tub car but really become a ship in a bottle. Many of these guys build GT cars inside the production tub. Prod is very concerned with as most of the cars being able to win if prepped and driven well. That has led to constant request for adjustment to the specs of each car with the only justification given or needed is a poor finish at the runoffs. The class is absolutely micro managed by the CRB. Reading the Prod board is fascinating but a warning, post there at your own risk, it is a tough room.

It is about racing. IMHO it is about taking cars you want to race and allowing the modification required to get those cars to be fun to race cars. It should be relatively simple to build an IT car. The absolute best racing technology is not necessary. After what would the net effect be on the racing if everyone had 50 more horsepower?

Historically the CRB just divided the available cars in to 4 piles and said have fun. What the ITAC has been working on for a couple of years is balancing the potential in those 4 classes a little better but not at the risk of “becoming Prod”

I think it is ironic that many of our conflicts on rules creep come from the concept of being relatively easy to build an IT car. Guys who run older cars like mine seem to want it to be simple to keep old cars running. You will find that I usually would prefer being able to replace wires, throw away useless items like wiper stocks and side marker lights. Then there is the other camp. My guess is that these guys tend to have newer cars. Their idea of keeping it simple is the absolute least number of changes because any change that could increase performance is one more modification everone will have to make from stock that does nothing to make the net racing better.

Knestis

01-09-2006, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 9 2006, 05:51 PM
...I think a better reason should be given and is likely available for other areas than IT is not Prod.

I would respectfully suggest that you've got it backwards. It should be completely unnecessary to argue against a proposed allowance. Instead, it should be necessary to make a really compelling argument why a suggested change (remembering that they are always the allowance of MORE changes, rather than prohibition against them) is good for the health of the entire category, over the long term. The burden of proof should favor the status quo.

The recent intake allowance is one that I don't think we've heard the last of, and is an example of a change that (so far as I can see, anyway) doesn't provide a broad benefit appropriate to the likelihood that it has opened the door to unforeseen consequences.

... I think there are things that could be done in the ruleset to make IT more appealing to what the younger crowd sees everyday as common basic mods on their street cars or less frustrating to someone developing their own IT car. ... I do think anything that can commonly be worn out though should to the extent reasonable be open to aftermarket available items especially when they are common in normal street tuning.

Okaaaay. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop here. What are you talking about, for example? There are a TON of hairy, expensive things that are readily available on the tuner market, that I don't want to have any part of in a road racing series. That seems like a very dangerous set of criteria that you have defined there, at least as they might relate to the current state of the art in IT.

K

turboICE

01-09-2006, 08:22 PM

I did qualify it as common in normal street tuning certainly not the cover technology of sports magazines or tunerwars - and that is more a description of my standard, by no means suitable as an ITAC standard for instance which should be much better defined than that. I am not even suggesting that this thread come up with a standard for anyone to use or stand by. Just trying to understand where everyone else is coming from.

And you are correct any change absolutely should bear the burden of supporting its reason for occurring. But when support for a change is presented I don't think "IT is not Prod" is an automatically appropriate response. A ton of other reasons are likely to exist as to why it doesn't fit IT intent or scope without reference to Prod as the default.

Should a hurdle higher than fitting IT intent or scope be in place for rules setting?

Knestis

01-09-2006, 08:48 PM

I wouldn't invoke the "IT is not Prod" stance except to remind people of what they seem to forget...

...and there's a bush over yonder that you haven't yet beaten around. Give us an example, man. I'm dying to hear what you have in mind as an illustrative example of something that has been proposed, has had "support for the change," but was summarily beaten down with shouts of "IT ISN'T PRODUCTION!"

:)

K

turboICE

01-09-2006, 09:09 PM

There is no doubt that I have little idea regarding all involved in the final conclusions at the CRB. This is more about arguments given on this board. If I look at threads that have generated enough interest and response to be longer than five pages I have a hard time finding many without IT is not Production being thrown out.

It happened just today on the discussion as to whether or not SBs are legal alternate material bushings.

Originally posted by RacerBill
On the other hand, I don't want to see IT creeping into the modifications that are allowed in Prod classes.

Spherical bearings are a perfect example to me of when the issue of IT is not Prod should not come up. We can and have discussed endlessly whether or not they are legal and can discuss even if they should be legal. But I see no connection to their use and coming any closer to production class. My views and the discussion of their legality are in that thread and I am not seeking to start another on that topic - but in this thread on this topic I will state that the use of spherical bearings in unmodified OEM suspension links fits well within my view of IT intent and scope without threatening a shift of IT towards Production classes.

Joe Harlan

01-09-2006, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by turboICE+Jan 9 2006, 06:09 PM-->
There is no doubt that I have little idea regarding all involved in the final conclusions at the CRB. This is more about arguments given on this board. If I look at threads that have generated enough interest and response to be longer than five pages I have a hard time finding many without IT is not Production being thrown out.

It happened just today on the discussion as to whether or not SBs are legal alternate material bushings.

<!--QuoteBegin-RacerBill
On the other hand, I don't want to see IT creeping into the modifications that are allowed in Prod classes.

Spherical bearings are a perfect example to me of when the issue of IT is not Prod should not come up. We can and have discussed endlessly whether or not they are legal and can discuss even if they should be legal. But I see no connection to their use and coming any closer to production class. My views and the discussion of their legality are in that thread and I am not seeking to start another on that topic - but in this thread on this topic I will state that the use of spherical bearings in unmodified OEM suspension links fits well within my view of IT intent and scope without threatening a shift of IT towards Production classes.

70519
[/b]

Ed, I would suggest a trip to E-bay purchase a pre-72 PCS ,GCR and you will see prod car rules could have been almost IT with a few exceptions. It all started with the addition of slicks, then fenders, the our motors starve for oil cause they have to much traction...blah,blah...It really would not take much effort to send us flying down that road.

turboICE

01-09-2006, 09:56 PM

I definitely do not have the historical context (I do sit here with recent GCR's and assumed the current state is in line with past class intents) and can appreciate not wanting to go throw out of whack what I enjoy as relatively affordable car preparation.

Does that mean any additional allowances take us in that direction?

Did IT exist in those pre-1972 years? Or did IT develop due to the direction Production went?

ddewhurst

01-09-2006, 11:01 PM

***Did IT exist in those pre-1972 years? Or did IT develop due to the direction Production went?***

If these questions are answered your thread would come to an early end. :rolleyes:

turboICE

01-09-2006, 11:23 PM

::Chuckle:: But it could also be insightful of institutional mindset. (not to be taken in a negative context but as either a fact or not)

Some good insights already in this thread.

mustanghammer

01-09-2006, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 9 2006, 11:39 PM
Scott, it's stuff like you & Charlie did if I read your post correctly to the front of your 1st gen RX-7 that got Production to where Production is today & it's that same stuff/thought process that will get the IT rules closer to Production. I understand that Charlie has been around for ever. Personally the remaining 4 illegal IMHU Spherical bearings that you have in your car are not by themselves going to make your car a winner. & I could care less how many races you win or otherwise. I attempt to race a legal car & do the best finish position I am capable of.

Being vilified or a poster child is your oopinion of yourself. & all of us who know a thing or two about race cars should also know the rules & that you cant modify OEM parts to make Spherical bearing fit our personal desire. Nuff said on this subject, I'll buy the beer. ;)

70504

Damn David you caught us. It was 12 years ago and I can remember it like it was yesterday, Charlie came out of his office at the Small Car Shop/KC Racerware and handed me a pile of S/B's to install and then proclaimed; today spherical bearings and tomorrow cantilever slicks! We both laughed the evil laugh and then went back to work. Yes a dozen years later and the march to production is in full swing and we are the band leaders.

How we doing?

Seriuosly the SB issue is troubling to me. This is a modification that I have known about for along time. Frankly I never paid much attention to it one way or another which is why I was surprised by the thread in the first place. To me this was something that was alwaysinstalled in an IT car and there was no question of legality. I still do believe that an SB is a bushing. However, with respect to my car - which was not built by me or KC Raceware - I will investigate the methods of attachment and see if I need to make changes.

Sorry to hijack this more general thread.

Joe Harlan

01-09-2006, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 9 2006, 08:23 PM
::Chuckle:: But it could also be insightful of institutional mindset. (not to be taken in a negative context but as either a fact or not)

Some good insights already in this thread.

70530

Ed, Prod started as almost SS back in the day....(way before even I was born) by the mid sixties it would appear the special factory parts and even custom parts started sliding in under the lets make'em equal clause. I am not sure when the slicks came in but pretty soon one car needed flares to fit enough tire then came the well if one gets them they all should clause and pretty soon we have semi tube cars with no washer bottles. The biggest killer was loosing the ability to drive to the track. I love the stories from the old guys that flat towed the MGA to the track with an MGA....lol

The current track record holding 240z here in PDX can still be driven to the track on nice days.

Peter Olivola

01-10-2006, 12:26 AM

1962 is the year Prod changed and started down the road it has reached today. A bargain made with the devil created a rules set that induced CalClub to become the replacement for SCCA's LA Region which had folded. This was all part of the SCCA/USAC wars.

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 9 2006, 10:58 PM
Ed, Prod started as almost SS back in the day....(way before even I was born) by the mid sixties it would appear the special factory parts and even custom parts started sliding in under the lets make'em equal clause. I am not sure when the slicks came in but pretty soon one car needed flares to fit enough tire then came the well if one gets them they all should clause and pretty soon we have semi tube cars with no washer bottles. The biggest killer was loosing the ability to drive to the track. I love the stories from the old guys that flat towed the MGA to the track with an MGA....lol

The current track record holding 240z here in PDX can still be driven to the track on nice days.

70534

Knestis

01-10-2006, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by mustanghammer@Jan 9 2006, 10:54 PM
...Seriuosly the SB issue is troubling to me. This is a modification that I have known about for along time. Frankly I never paid much attention to it one way or another which is why I was surprised by the thread in the first place. To me this was something that was alwaysinstalled in an IT car and there was no question of legality. ...

This sums up exactly what i went through during the oversize piston debate a couple weeks ago, which is precisely why it is a good idea to have these conversations. I made a different purchasing decision on the new engine based on that input and have a clearer understanding of things as a result.

I try to avoid the old-fart rants, Ed but I do wish that you understood how different the IT car of today is from the IT car of the mid-'80s, when both the class and my SCCA membership card were new. IT was created to address perceptions of two major problems - a lack of somewhere for aged-out SS cars to go, and the rapid cost increases of running in other classes.

The "Sedan" category was becoming the GT category, as technology trickled down from TransAm, or was appropriated from the funny car circle track technology.

Production cars had officially stopped being "production," as incremental changes (as Joe mentioned) made the cars more specialized and dramatically more expensive. As an example, I looked at an F Prod Spitfire rolling chassis in about 1981, nicely built a few years earlier, that was for sale for $3000. I was told by folks in the know that, in the last few years, it had gotten to the point where a new engine would cost several times that amount and even at that, the car was going to need a lot of work to be competitive - new bodywork, cage, suspension, etc.

Meanwhile, Showroom Stock was gaining in popularity and had been around long enough that cars were exceeding their "use by" date, and were no longer eligible. IT was a response by individual regions to START OVER, where Production and Sedan classes had been years before - with mildly modified cars that would be racier than SS but not so far removed from stock that they couldn't be driven to the track.

The original rules - and DAMN, I wish I had kept my copy of the very first ITCS - required that the headliner and passenger front seat remain in place, and that the rollcage be bolted in (a la SS, where the desire was to avoid stiffening the chassis unduly).

The OE technology of the period was transitioning from carbs to EFI, so there were some funky rules in place influencing what could be done under the hood - the vestiges of which are still in the books decades since the last carb went on most of these cars.

The state of aftermarket technology OF COURSE had a great influence on the rules. Allowances were made that were understood - in the context of the time - to be apprpriate but not exotic, and herein is the root of many of our difficulties today. When the "bushing" rule was written, it was completely inconceivable that anyone would put something as exotic as a spherical bearing in the suspension of a Datsun 510 or Ford Pinto. Ditto "real" coilovers, computer-controlled ignition, or any number of other things that are now in the aftermarket mainstream or come OE on cars today.

Today's IT car is - and there's room for some argument here - fits the racing food chain in about the same place as did the Production car of the late '70s. The current Touring cars are someplace near where IT cars were when they were a new idea - philosophically anyway, if not in terms of detail spec or cost.

The natural forces involved all but guarantee that rules will creep. Record laps in SS classes drop every year as the top car in the class gets marginally quicker. Current SSC cars are faster than SSA cars were 20 years ago. Little allowances are added every year - a la the new intake thing - without anyone noticing that we inch further toward the next conceptual level of preparation with each step. It's like being nibbled to death by ducks. IT would arguably be even farther down that path, were it not for the institutionalized neglect resulting from its "regional-only" status, the "no guarantee of competitiveness" clause, and the "no adjustment" policy...

We have UNDONE those constraints in the past two years - fixing the rot, giving the category some long-overdue attention, getting some cars at least in the CLASS where they belong, and even addressing in a very general way how weights are spec'd. The danger here though, is that the barn door is now open and the horses are looking at green grass out on the horizon. Now that it is possible to change things, it is equally possible to dick them all up in the process. If Iraq might be the "new Vietnam," todays IT might indeed be the "new Production" unless we work VERY hard to keep the lid on it.

K

turboICE

01-10-2006, 11:17 AM

Great response and more importantly offers a means to enable appreciation for other points of view - given my just a little over 2 years of looking at IT with a view towards participation vs spectating.

turboICE

01-10-2006, 11:20 AM

[half jokingly]So if we creep far enough do we have a better chance of moving to a national status.[/half jokingly]

I know national status brings up class issues completely separate from the rules in terms of competition and cost.

Bill Miller

01-10-2006, 11:47 AM

Great write-up Kirk! :023:

Greg Amy

01-10-2006, 12:03 PM

Great write-up Kirk!

:happy204:

GregA, certifiably an Old Fart at 41 yrs old (driving in SCCA well over half that...)

ddewhurst

01-10-2006, 01:12 PM

K, real nice post. :happy204:

Greg, 41 is only a kid. :023: (I gotcha by over 50% of your youth.)

mowog

01-10-2006, 01:43 PM

Based on discussions ranging from many years ago to a few years ago, this was the vision, in terms of preparation levels:

Showroom Stock ---> Improved Touring ---> Production ---> GT

In other words, someone could theoritically start with an SS car, modify it to IT, modify it further to Prod, then go all out and run it in GT. Each change involved an escallating range of modifications (and costs). Of course not ever car is allowed in each of the various groups, but that's for another discussion. another consideration was that ONLY Production (and I think GT) stipulate that the cars are to be modified to be competitive. In other words, Prod cars that have no chance to run in the front should be allowed some car specific mods to make them more competitive. IT cars, per the rule book, do not have this allowance. To take this a step further, as a Prod car owner, I should be able to petition the CRB to allow me X - let's say bigger throttle body. I should not be able to do so as an IT car owner, because no where in the rules does it stipulate the cars are to be equally competitive within their classes.

So....SS = no modifications, no guarantee your car selection will be competitive, supposedly little mechanical work or knowledge required. Prod = many modifications, and this includes a range of car/model specific mods for competitiveness (is that a word???), mechanical and at least some fabrication skills required to be competitive. GT = few rules for an almost anything goes mentality. Mechanical and fabrication skills or the money to pay someone with these talents is crucial to even build a car, much less to be competitive.

Where does this leave IT (and to some degree, limited prep Prod)? The car should be close to stock, but the discussions when this class first became a reality centered on "bolt on" modifications, removal of many unnecessary items (such as gutting the interior), and adding most (not all) safety items required in Production.

What is rules creep really? I think it's two things: one is the desire to be able to add things to YOUR SPECIFIC car to make you and your car more compeitive. This is mandated in the PCS for the car, not the ITCS, a tough pill to swallow for many. Therefore many request something they want but for everyone, not just themselves. Another factor is the desire to make the car easier, or cheaper, to work on. Some things will make the car last longer - maybe all cars, maybe just some models of car. Some things are easier to source - again, it depends on the car. For example a bolt on part might be available to make camber changes quick and easy on a Honda (just an example!), but impossible to find on a Jensen Healey. So the Jensen Healey driver, figuring the Honda driver will have an advantage, either requests a rules change (for all cars of course), or fabricates his own part. The VW driver sees this, and although parts might be available for his car, they are outrageously expensive, or maybe difficult to find, or maybe he thinks he can do it better, so he fabricates something similar to the J-H car. In a few years, it seems to be a de-facto modification that is allowed by the rules because so many have now done it.

Now we are back to the original question, what is IT? Should it be based on readily available bolt on parts? If so, what about the cars that don't have this option available to them? Should the rules allow them to fabricate something, and this mod be on the spec line? If so, that's Production-like. So should the change be given to everyone? If so, that's rules creep.

Bill Miller

01-10-2006, 03:01 PM

Pretty good write-up Chris (is this catching?), but I have to offer a slight correction. SS cars are eligible for comp. adjustments, in the form of weight.

Greg Gauper

01-10-2006, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 10 2006, 02:01 PM
Pretty good write-up Chris (is this catching?), but I have to offer a slight correction. SS cars are eligible for comp. adjustments, in the form of weight.

70603

And restrictor plates (as in the case of the Z4's and Mini's)....

Andy Bettencourt

01-10-2006, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 10 2006, 02:01 PM
Pretty good write-up Chris (is this catching?), but I have to offer a slight correction. SS cars are eligible for comp. adjustments, in the form of weight.

70603

...and upon initial classification in the form of 'trunk kits'.

AB

mowog

01-10-2006, 04:07 PM

While the CRB may adjust for competition potential, it is not mandated. The difference is the Production (and GT) rules DO call for adjustments based on the car's potential, the SS and IT books do not (GT has the same basic wording as Production):

"cars will be classified in Production classes based on their competitive potential in modified form. The Club may alter or adjust specifications and permit or restrict certain components to equate competitive potential."

By stated rules, I think this is one of the biggest differences between IT and Production. The other differences involve philosopy and/or intent. As these are typically not written, it tends to go back to discussions involving history and opinion. Obviously written rules are a bit easier to quantify.

Bill Miller

01-10-2006, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 10 2006, 01:31 PM
...and upon initial classification in the form of 'trunk kits'.

AB

70605

Actually Andy, I think they did away w/ trunk kits a year or two ago. Existing cars that had them, could still run them, but they haven't been allowed on new classifications in, I believe, the last 2-3 years.

RacerBill

01-11-2006, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 9 2006, 11:58 PM
Ed, Prod started as almost SS back in the day....(way before even I was born) by the mid sixties it would appear the special factory parts and even custom parts started sliding in under the lets make'em equal clause. I am not sure when the slicks came in but pretty soon one car needed flares to fit enough tire then came the well if one gets them they all should clause and pretty soon we have semi tube cars with no washer bottles. The biggest killer was loosing the ability to drive to the track. I love the stories from the old guys that flat towed the MGA to the track with an MGA....lol

The current track record holding 240z here in PDX can still be driven to the track on nice days.

70534

Joe: Here's one. I remember following Peter Pulver from his shop in Millerton, NY to Line Rock. He regularly drove his Lotus on the street to the track, with a license plate held on with coat hanger swinging from the roll cage! :D

Edit: Sorry for the hijack, could not resist.

Having been around SCCA in the 60's, I remember quite a number of cars that were tweeked (if you can call running a V8 in a MGA tweeking!). Those cars were classed in 'Modified' classes - the precurser to 'Sports Racing'.

Production seems to have migrated to somewhere between SS and Modified. By the way, my Shelby Dodge can be run in four classes - ITA, F Prod (LP), E Prod (full prep) or GT3. But I'll bet that there are not many other cars in the same boat. However, it gives me almosst unlimited options on how fast fo I want to go, how much money I want to spend, and what I want to do to the car.

That being said, I think that we all agree that the difference between IT and Prod can be summed up in one word - engineering. That's just my opinion. Some others might suggest 'technology', but I think engineering is a better fit. I didn't use 'preparation' since there are many IT cars that have gone thru massive amounts of preparation. And that I find one of the really appealing aspects of IT - you can put whatever level of preparation you want into your car, and go and have fun.

I have read in recent threads, and I agree that rules must be written extremely clear, as concise as possible, and with great thought to the overall effect they have on IT, as opposed to individual cars. I see the conflict between being able to react to changing situations, attitudes, etc quickly and being resonsible to the whole group of drivers, car owners, etc.

The current ITAC is doing an admirable job. :023:

I do think that we have to realize that the technology of cars has and will continue to change. New cars will need to be added to the list of raceable cars. Young folks are modifying their street cars more that what we allow in it today. In order to conitinue, we must be proactive in developing rules that will allow new racers to join our ranks. And still allow existing cars to run (not necessarily competitive). Will this be hard? Yes. Is it impossible? No. But, as one A. Lincoln once said "You Can't please all of the people all of the time"

Back to IT vs Prod. My suspension is bone stock, not even poly bushing. I don't like the idea of putting in threaded shocks/sturts, but once I have acwuired the skill to know how to adjust them, I will probably put them in. On the issue of SB's, I wish there was a way to make everyone happy here, but I would go along with the interpretation that they might be legal but should not be, if for no other reason than to make the LP suspension the equivilent of IT. Please, this is not meant to insult or anger anyone, just my opinion, and if it helps someone make up thier minds on the subject, one way or another, it's worth it.

OK, I'm done for a while.

Edwin Robinson

01-11-2006, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 9 2006, 10:51 PM
....- but I think there are things that could be done in the ruleset to make IT more appealing to what the younger crowd sees everyday as common basic mods on their street cars or less frustrating to someone developing their own IT car.

Hi Ed-

It's an excellent point! - Something that I'm sure the SCCA rulemaking dept has been dealing with. I think we've seen some of these concerns addressed in the SOLO categories ( and perhaps the Club Racing categories as well ) recently. However, by and large, the program has been pretty concise about what is allowed. Personally, I think that SCCA has ( for better or worse ) the largest number of classes and venues available. I don't think anyone here is advocating MORE classes.
However, we continually discuss how certain changes may be beneficial for the club in its' entirety. Albeit sometimes with rather slow response- I think that those (most important) issues are implemented.

You have to remember- sometimes old habits die hard- and this can certainly be the case here.

As far as National status- I think that's long overdue...but that's just my opinion...

~E.

P.S. - You're not in Kansas anymore!

Bill Miller

01-12-2006, 12:03 AM

By the way, my Shelby Dodge can be run in four classes - ITA, F Prod (LP), E Prod (full prep) or GT3. But I'll bet that there are not many other cars in the same boat

Not to hijack it any further, but my Rabbit can run in:

ITB or ITC, depending on year
HP 1.6 limited-prep
GP 1.6 full prep OR 1.8 8v limited prep
FP 1.8 8v full prep
GT3 1.8 8v
GTL 1.6 8v

dickita15

01-12-2006, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by Edwin Robinson@Jan 11 2006, 09:52 PM
Hi Ed-

It's an excellent point! - Something that I'm sure the SCCA rulemaking dept has been dealing with.

70742

Not to pick on you Edwin but I don’t want that premise left out there. There is no SCCA rulemaking department. There are members and committee of members. The Topeka staff administers the club. We have the ITAC, appointed knowledgeable volunteers; half who are willing to post here and all I believe all read this stuff. We have the CRB, more involved members, most of who track the important discussions here. We have the BOD, elected members from about the country.

IT.com is the town square where ideas are aired, some great, some crazy, but it us, the members that start things not the “rulemaking department”.

turboICE

01-12-2006, 08:55 AM

Ed, been a while didn't even know you posted here good to "hear" from you.

I thought you would see some of the same patterns as I do given your business and time at the track with multiple organizations.

RacerBill

01-12-2006, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 12 2006, 12:03 AM
Not to hijack it any further, but my Rabbit can run in:

ITB or ITC, depending on year
HP 1.6 limited-prep
GP 1.6 full prep OR 1.8 8v limited prep
FP 1.8 8v full prep
GT3 1.8 8v
GTL 1.6 8v

70751

Yeah, but you got different engines there! :P :D :D

Renaultfool

01-12-2006, 08:53 PM

I agree with the list posted by Knestis near the start of this thread. That defines IT compared to Production.

It seems to me that we get into the most trouble with things we want to "put on" our cars. I don't think we should have a problem with things we can "take off" (remove) from our cars. We could get rid of that stupid bottle that way.
Anyway, anything added to the car should be spelled out in the rules. And the rules should be short and clearly written.

We also must consider the advance of technology in the engine controls department. Each year there are more exotic engine management systems coming out on new cars and this is the area of our greatest challange.

Are SBs new ideas? Heck no, I had SBs on the inner end of of the lower suspension arms on my (IMSA) Pinto in 1976, when I bought it used, and it had been that way since 1972! The IMSA rules for the Radial Series at that time were very much like the IT rules.

I don't use them now because I cannot legally install them and I am too cheap to buy them. They were cheap back then.
Carl

Knestis

01-13-2006, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by Renaultfool@Jan 12 2006, 07:53 PM
...when I bought it used, and it had been that way since 1972! The IMSA rules for the Radial Series at that time were very much like the IT rules.

This statement needs some examination, I think. I obviously don't know anything about the specific car to which you refer but the IMSA RS rules, even when the series was new in the early '70s, were more like stock car rules of the time, than they would be like even current IT rules - let alone the original IT ruleset (e.g., hand-built, gen-u-ine race cars).

The cages were comprehensive, welded into the chassis in multiple places. Dashboards were removed and replaced with simple sheet panels. Fenders were trimmed, yanked, bulged, or flared. Brake systems were WAY not stock, with dual master cylinders and racing pedal assemblies. Bumpers could be removed. Stuff was cut off of the chassis if it wasn't required to hang an engine or gearbox from.

Engines were high-compression beasties with aftermarket cams, shooting for the 250-300hp range on roller rockers, aftermarket rods, and aftermarket valves. Some models had alternate heads or other major components allowed. Little rear-drive, 4- and 6-cylinder cars ran gearboxes swiped from their V8 cousins, bolted in with custom bellhousings. The later FWD cars used straight-cut gearbox internals and the Renaults used the Gordini crossflow hemi head, for Pete's sake.

I submit that it is not a fair representation of the spherical bearing's place in IT history, to cite their use on IMSA RS cars - even early ones. The IMSA sedans of all generations, from the first RS cars to the International Sedans and LuK clutch series generation, were "real" racing cars, where IT cars have arguably not had their mission statement much revised since the category was born.

K

Z3_GoCar

01-13-2006, 03:06 AM

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 9 2006, 12:41 PM
I see this approximate comment alot regarding rule changes or interpretations:

~ We don't want to creep towards becoming production. ~

And I have to say in the context it is frequently used in (sometimes for any change in the rules at all) I really think it is misused or I simply have no idea what they are saying.

I think my view is that the difference is production involves substantial internal engine development and substantial chasis modification.

So while I would agree that any rule allowing additional work on the long block or the attached carb/FI beyond the current rules and allowances (even though I requested an alternate distributer/oil pump gear) would be indicative of creeping towards production - I disagree that improving aspects outside the long block (such as wiring, MAF and ECU if allowed) would be improper for IT and moving towards Prod.

Regarding the chasis while I would agree that permitting alternate or modification to suspension arms, additional chasis reinforcement, seam welding, and other types of structural fabrications would be creeping towards production - I disagree that improving the connecting or wear components (such as short shifters including linkage, any type of suspension joint connection) would be improper for IT and moving towards Prod.

I'd would like this thread to focus on what makes IT, IT and Prod, Prod - so as to focus thoughts on when a rule is creeping toward Prod for real, rather than just being creepy in general. ;)

I guess I am just tired of the "IT is not Prod" crowd throwing it out for any discussed rule or for interpretting a rule fairly but beneficially to the building of an IT car.

70478

Here's my take on Prod vs IT.....

In Prod a Z3 weighs 200lbs less than a Miata....
I could start with any chassis and not just a 4 cylinder....
I'd have to run 15 inch rims with slicks.....
and I'd have to remove the windshield and posts.....

In IT I need a 4 cylinder Z3 to start with.....
My Z3 with very limited parts avalibility weighs 400 lbs more than a Miata...
I can't run 15 inch rims, only 16's that no one makes....

Why not run prod?? how about the cost of tires alone. The much higher level of prep required... with more options much more needs to be performed to be competitive... much more chassis development is required on an as yet under developed chassis. If one wants to learn how to drive to their limits, IMHO IT fits the bill better.

James

Renaultfool

01-14-2006, 02:00 AM

In the very early days of the Radial challange it was not so much that way. You had to use the standard carb until the mid 70s, and the drive train had to be from the model used. Later on it got kind of wild, closer to SCCA GT rules. As matter of fact I converted Bobby Archers championship Alliance to GT-4 by moving the fuel cell.
The point is that those modifications have been used much earlier than you might guess, and don't in some cases have to cost a fortune to do.
In a Pinto with a single lower control arm you can eliminate the compliance of the inner rubber bushing, and gain the negative chamber you need by simply cutting off the end of the arm, welding in a nut, and screwing in a Heim joint. The whole thing costs about $20 compared to the cost of hard bushings, legal ones, and offset bushings/chamber plates on newer cars.
I am not suggesting that we do that, but to some, weighing $20 against $150 per side is tempting, and some can justify to themselves that it makes no competitive difference.
If I am allowed to spend all the money in the world to legally adjust my chamber does it really make it more fair for me to spend the money to do it that way as opposed to doing the same thing on the cheap, not currently allowed by our rules?
Is that why I have seen several Honda CRX rear upper links that have been cut and welded shorter? They have negative chamber for next to nothing cost wise as opposed to buying the high priced parts from someone's sponser.
Maybe we should just think about what the wording of some of our rules means and what it does cost wise. If it is an allowable mod, then the methodology in many cases only lines someones pocket.
I still like the first list.

Knestis

01-14-2006, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Renaultfool@Jan 14 2006, 01:00 AM
... you can eliminate the compliance of the inner rubber bushing, and gain the negative chamber you need by simply cutting off the end of the arm, welding in a nut, and screwing in a Heim joint. The whole thing costs about $20 compared to the cost of hard bushings, legal ones, and offset bushings/chamber plates on newer cars. ...

No question. That's been standard practice on rally cars for decades. There are probably dozens of similar ideas that could be implemented on an IT-type car, making it stronger, faster, arguably safer, and easier to fix but the REAL trick is writing a rule that allows those relatively cheap, high return-on-investment changes but still constrains things so they don't get out of hand.

A lightbulb went on for me back in the late '70s, when someone explained how TransAm cars could have fabricated tubular suspension pieces. The rules, ostensibly with the intent of allowing the kind of thing described above, allowed suspension components to be modified, lightened, or reinforced (safety's important, y'know). Builders were only a couple of iterations down the logical path that opened up to them when some clever Dick decided he could "lighten" an A-arm completely away, and reinforce the empty space between the chassis and upright with chromemoly tubing and sheet metal.

We haven't used the term "slippery slope" yet here but that's how it applies.

K

PS - I've been thinking in the last week that it would be a really interesting technical exercise to "modify" the rear sway bar (aka the trailing arm axle) on a Golf. It wouldn't be particulary hard for someone with mad metal skilz to build a new one that was half the weight and twice as stiff, incorporated hard bushings everywhere, and included provision for easily adjustment. Based on the wording of the rule and the GCR definition of "sway bar," it would be completely within the rules.