Rules NERDs - RIP

[Knestis]

I'm afraid that the tide of opinion has well and truly turned in the last few weeks. We conservative rules literalists - Rules NERDs - are pretty much extinct. Our propositions seem no longer valid in the current context - that (1) the framers of the IT rules would have expressly included allowances had they wanted them included (typically inaccurately invoked in arguments as "intent"), that (2), the letter of the rule trumps interpretation of the rule, and (3) that changes in technology or other influences should be allowed to influence the rules, their interpretation, and enforcement thereof only grudgingly.

These realizations have been growing out of a couple of things that my equally endangered Neanderthal NERD buddy Greg A. hinted at recently, that were bouncing around in my head yesterday as we got the shop ready for the shell to come back from the painter:

First, the emerging T3/T4 cars represent the "New IT." Yeah, the lifespan rule makes initial purchases more expensive and we all have some idea of what it takes to build (or cheat up) a "stock" drivetrain but philosophically, the idea of bolting some suspension pieces on a car is where IT started, even if most current drivers can conceive of that only in abstract terms typically reserved for telegraph communication, steam locomotives, and the War of Northern Agression.*

Second, "you don't want" guys like Greg building IT cars applying the loosey-goosey interpretations that so many seem to have such fun with. Convince him to come to the Dark Side and you won't know creep until y'all done got creeped, big-time. The post hoc allowance of changes is only going to encourage clever, liberal-thinking, interpretationists, and the cat seems utterly out of that bag at this point.

It's ironic that most IT guys/gals will tell you, without recognizing the irony, that Production is out of control. This, even as most of them seem all too willing to tear - well, creep - along in exactly the same direction with their category. At this point, I have little choice but to concede that this dynamic is an inevitable function of our culture and that the only solution is to ride a category along as it evolves, until it turns into something one no longer wants to do. It's now 2006:

** The small GT classes are on life support
** Production is where the GT (Sedan) was in 1980
** IT is where Production was in 1975
** Touring is where IT was in 1985

The constipation that plagued the IT rules for a couple of decades has been cured but a couple of codified creeps in the last FasTrack have convinced me that, along with relief from our discomfort, we can't avoid a big, smelly pile of poop.

I'm officially old. I'm losing enthusiasm for fighting to keep people from helping to make a mistake that they collectively just have to make. You all think I'm a crotchety old bahstahd for suggesting that a spot weld holding a spherical bearing in an A arm spells doom for the category. You don't get it, you won't get it, I can't help you get it, and sadly - ONCE YOU DO GET IT - it will be too late. If you stay in this category long enough, each of you will reach a tipping point where all of a sudden, you don't recognize the cars you are racing against.

You will want to become a rules NERD, and you may. Because I'm turning in my card.

K

* I've been in North Carolina for a while now

[Bill Miller]

Wow Kirk, that was a bit of a shock. Although, I can't say as I blame you. But, to me, it's a sad day when you admit that this has worn you down to a point where you don't want to fight for it anymore. I have to agree w/ you though, the tack weld thing really shocked the crap out of me. I think IT is now firmly entrenched in the rules creep process.

It's kind of like skiing (slippery slope reference). When you first start out from the top of the hill, you're not going that fast, and you actually have the option of stopping and making your way back up to the top of the hill. However, once you've gone not all that far down the hill, you will pick up speed, and be pretty much committed to going to the bottom of the hill (although you could get back to the top through an aduous (sp?) climb that will probably wear you out to the point that you don't have the energy to do anything but find the easiest way down, and call it a day.

When looked at in a somewhat macro way, the guys in Production are much closer to the bottom of the hill, in so much as there's not a whole lot left to do to the cars. You've got specs on brake size, wheel size, engine size, and weight. Everything else is pretty much open. Limited-prep was supposed to stop that kind of hemoraging (sp?), but it has been sufficiently corrupted at this point, that it's only a matter of time (and probably not all that long of one at that) before the distinction between limited-prep and full-prep is completely lost. The precedent has already been set for a full-prep car w/ only a limited-prep lump. The requests are already in for more of the same, with different cars (note: it remains to be seen if it will be extended to all cars, or only used as a tool to preserve 40+ y/o british car's positions at the top of the heap).

For those of you that don't see the similarities between the preferential treatment that the E36 got, initially w/ the FPR, and subsequently w/ the SIR, to what's happened in Prod to maintain those 40+ y/o british cars at the top of the food chain, Kirk's right, you won't "get it" until it's too late. As an extension to Kirk's earlier comment about rules enforcement and cheating, I'll add that inconsistent and subjective application of our rules not only facilitates and enables rules creep, it actually encourages it.

It's well and truly a shame, that such quantum steeps to correct some of the past problems w/ IT have to be associated w/ things that really don't bode well for the future of the cateegory, as it's defined by today's PP&I.

[Marcus Miller]

I hear performance touring is the in thing. :cavallo:


marcus :P

[racer14itc]

Kirk,

Thanks for fighting the good fight. :dead_horse:

There are three type of people in the world: the ones that make things happen, the ones that watch things happen and the rest who wonder WHAT happened. The GTL guys (the 5 of them that are left) are standing around wondering what the hell happened to their class. The answer: they got exactly what they wanted. Over the years, the rules were opened up more and more, liberalized in the name of "cheaper/better/easier to enforce" racing. And now the ones that are left are stuck with very expensive paper weights that they cannot give away.

Production is also in this predicament, although to a lesser extent. There is at least a faction of the group who are royal pains in the ass when it comes to holding/drawing the lines in the sand but the inevitable pressure from those folks, usually newer prod members who KNOW BETTER than the old guard, is moving the limited preparation rules right down the same path of destruction that caused the creation of the limited preparation rules in the first place. We'll see what happens there.

Even the Spec Miata crowd isn't immune to this. With air intakes of the week, $1,100 clutches, $7,000 pro-built motors, etc., the cost of a nationally competitive SM is now well north of $30K.

Kirk, if you ever want to come over to the dark side of Prod, I will be the first to recruit you back into the Knights of the Rules table. :cavallo: We'll lift our silver goblets of grog and toast the King of the Rules Nerds. :birra:

MC
:024:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well, I too am sorry to hear Kirk's thoughts. I have spoken with him (and Bill Miller and Greg A.) on the phone and respect his historical perspective as well as the analytical nature of his positions. I know that this won't make ANYONE happy but I think my stances bridge the two camps.

I really try and read the literal word. THAT is where the grey-area-operators work. While I don't build in the grey, some do, and rules need to be examined with that in mind. I try and support rules that support the written and the intent.

Let's take the two latest issues:

I was against SB's and .040 pistons for everyone because I didn't feel the written rule allowed them. 2 distinct sides gave their opinions and there was no consensus. Same dynamic happened on the ITAC con-call when these issues were on the agenda. What did we do? We looked to the CRB for INTENT, then committed to write the rules so that we turned grey into black and white.

The SB's do exhibit some creep IMHO in that an allowance was added that wasn't there to begin with (tack-welding). I explained why this was allowed in the SB thread. IF you are going to specifically allow something, it doesn't make much sense to make it unnecessarily cost-prohibitive (maybe ECU's will follow or get cut at the knees).

The current ITAC is very aware of creep. It would seem we allow it where it makes sense and we feverishly protect against it when there is no benefit. If the CRB had come back to us and told us that SB's were never intended to be used as bushings, we would have written language that specifically prohibited them. Same with the .040 deal. Times change, and we have to go with the flow WHILE AT THE SAME TIME knowing our history and staying grounded. Lots of things have been done in the past they we don't agree with, and the same will be said for what we have done by future groups. We can only hope to do our best.

I really think that IT has never been a better place to race.

Maybe a new thread on what rules are still grey or open or just plain suck...and we can work on them in 06 for 07. Having said that, don't ask for something to be clarified/closed up unless you are prepared for it to go against your current thought process... :birra:

AB

[lateapex911]

I agree with Andy...I am in both camps.

THe SB thing though is troubling to me because it is considered "creep"...

First, lets establish that the rule represents no change in performance than when it was originally written. Why??? Because it was possible, even using a very restrictive "material" only definition of the rule, to create the type of suspension control that equals SBs. I hunk of Delrin, a lathe, and some creativity can yeild some offset, ball in sleeve bushings that are effective at both controlling the suspension, and emptying your pocket.

So the performance, the and the action are readliy available using the "old" definition, even being a strict "materialist". How do I know? Look around. Heck, look at my car, and I'll show you Delrin. (Not offset though)

So the allowance of SBs, which BTW the CRB has considered perfectly legal from day 1, doesn't represent a bit of creep.

There are those that say, "Sure, but most guys can't cut their own Delrin bushings"...and I agree. But a few could and did. And trust me, it wasn't the isolated and extreme example...they, or their equivilents, (Not including SBs) are fairly common. Others might say, "But now that SBs are allowed [sic], EVERYONE has to have them"....moot point I say...only those who think they are important...just as before!

Now personally, I liked the "no alteration" rule, and kind of dug the challenge of fitting things without altering....but, again, that means that the guys who are brighter engineers, guys who have lathes, or the money to pay for the work can acheive things that others can't.

So, in the big picture, the "new rule" brings the available performance, which has always been there, down to a simpler, easier to use level, and really closes the gap for the "Haves" and the "Have nots".

It's possible to ague that making an allowable mod easier for the masses IS what IT is all about.

[Knestis]

Don't get me wrong, guys - this isn't just about the spherical bearing question and it SURE isn't just about the ITAC. It's the whole way that the winds look like they are blowing, at least to the degree that this site is a barometer. (Sorry - mixed metaphor there.)

K

[Doc Bro]

So, in the big picture, the "new rule" brings the available performance, which has always been there, down to a simpler, easier to use level, and really closes the gap for the "Haves" and the "Have nots".

It's possible to ague that making an allowable mod easier for the masses IS what IT is all about.
[/b]


Jake,

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

How does this close the gap???? I TOTALLY DISAGREE. What closes the gap is the dissallowance of SB's. That would make the "haves" equal to the "have nots" not the other way around.

SO you take a guy with delrin or stock rubber (the Horror) and you sort of "force" him into SB's. In an unspoken sense.

If IT is not "entry level" then please tell me what class is? Certainly NOT SS where every part must come from the ""stealer. It looks like F500 to me?!?!?!

I said it in my other post- this is seagull management....Fly in, sh!t all over everything, and fly out. Someone else will be forced to clean it up....just like you guys had to with the new classing process.

Let's just see how this get's twisted in the future. While I agree clarity of the rules is important, evolving the classes in a way that benefits few and hurts more is not the right direction. An open definition of a tack welding is bad for IT (or GT or Prod for that matter).

I'm with my buddy Greg Amy let's just leave the rules alone!!!

R

(SB's, "tack welds", MOTEC, and we argue over our washer bottles and signal stalks!!!!!!!! This makes little if any sense to me)

[lateapex911]

Jake,

....How does this close the gap???? I TOTALLY DISAGREE. What closes the gap is the dissallowance of SB's. That would make the "haves" equal to the "have nots" not the other way around.

SO you take a guy with delrin or stock rubber (the Horror) and you sort of "force" him into SB's. In an unspoken sense......

[/b]

Rob, I think that sometimes the "common" definition, or the "popular conception" gets confused with what is really happening out there.

(And this ignores the CRBs contention that SBs were fine from the 'git go')

Delrin or urethane bushings can be purchased for a lot of cars off the shelf. But not all. They fit in a conventional way. And they work...sort of. They can be a massive pain to install, and they can highlight minor misalignments. And they will wear and squeak and get loose if everything isn't perfect. (Urethane more than Delrin). That's the "entry level" bushing, so to speak.

But that's not what is actually being run! There are setups that are multi peice affairs that replicate the function of a SB. The resulting suspension control is extremely similar to what a SB set up will yield, but the expense and hassle is much higher. But if it's possible, someone will do it, and then another.... and so on.

So, the level of performance already exists.

By clarifying the legality of SBs, and allowing a simple installation, it eliminates the need to get all crazy with cassettes, heated/cooled never to come apart again istallations and so on. I agree that the lack of a "tack weld" guideline or definition makes me uneasy. On one hand, common sense would be nice, but on the other, we need to define the "line".

It doesn't "force" anyone to do anything. But it makes it easier for the guys who wanted to get set up, but couldn't because of the exorbinant expense, or the required engineering, or hassle or all three.

In short, even with out using SBs, the performance levels were already there. By opening the rule, it makes it easier for more people to acheive them. But they don't have to, just as before.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Rob,

I am ging to disagree with you because the premise of your position is based on SB's NOT being legal now. I am betting 75% + of the members think that they are. A check with the CRB and BINGO - they were meant to be legal. This just clarifies a rule already in place.

It allows those who have them to be 100% sure and it allows those who want them a very economical way to go that route should they choose too. Looking at the SB thread, who had NOT done it because they thought it illegal? Seemingly just Greg.

AB

[Doc Bro]

Seemingly just Greg.

AB
[/quote]



Poor Greg!!!!!

GA I'm still your friend!!

I respect both of you guys very much (Jake and AB).

My stance is that IT can or should be compared to a bell curve. Don't worry about the bottom and don't cater to the top. I still don't agree with SB's at this level of my knowledge and I certainly don't believe in MOTEC for IT. I understand and respect the points raised but I hold my original contention.....where is or what is the entry level SCCA class?? I THOUGHT it was IT.... am I wrong??? Is there NO entry level class??? Are we all that successful (or just snooty)??? Please let's not forget the children!!


I believe the children are the future....teach them well and let them lead the way............... (that sounds sooo familiar):D :D

R

[lateapex911]

Your question gets philosophical, but needs definition..

What is "entry"????

Is it just cheap and easy?

Is it super simple?

Is it the least expensive, but has a chance to win?

Is it safe? Or is it open wheel?

I think that IT has levels..and the lower levels ARE great entry levels. Remember, a built C or B car can be had for less than the sorted stuff you need to get the car to the track!

Back in the day (LOL) the racing society had no problem with driving your car to the track. Wives grumbled a bit, but went along. But now, look around...club racing paddocks are full of motorhomes! BIG ones too! Lots of people have big rigs and long enclosed trailers. As a nation, we have become more demanding and more expectant. Air bags and DVD players in our cars. We used to toss the kids in the back of the Corvette and think nothing of it!

Where am I going with this? Well, so many racers think nothing of getting the best. What was unthinkable in '84 is common now. The result is that is makes it harder to just jump in and expect to be in the hunt. Not just in IT, but any class.

But, even with all that, you can buy well built, fast, examples of ITC and ITB cars for less than the rig and the trailer, and if you forgo the luxury of those, it's as "entry" (and winning capable) as it gets.


Re: Motec, etc, times change and things have to looked at pragmatically. Sometimes we need to do things nobody wants to do...trust me, the entire ECU thing didn't hlep MY competiveness, and if I was thinking only of myself, they'd go away in a heartbeat. But i know thats not the right answer. What IS the right answer?

Can we prohibit spending? (Thats what the Motec complaint is, right? Spending time and money...
Is it more pragmatic to just admit that we can make thes changes very hard, but that just means that those who CAN, Will.....
Or do we open it up so that the masses have a chance too? Does that make it less "entry level"

Look atthe grid at Lime Rock Rob.....the front of ITA...how many "budget efforts" are there even 12 cars back??? It's not just "catering to the top", when the front half of the field is running the same gear.

Listen, I agree with your angle...I was a guy who drove to the track my first season, and didn't drive home three times, LOL. But at the same time, pragmatic approaches are needed.

[Z3_GoCar]

I'm afraid that the tide of opinion has well and truly turned in the last few weeks. We conservative rules literalists - Rules NERDs - are pretty much extinct. Our propositions seem no longer valid in the current context - that (1) the framers of the IT rules would have expressly included allowances had they wanted them included (typically inaccurately invoked in arguments as "intent"), that (2), the letter of the rule trumps interpretation of the rule, and (3) that changes in technology or other influences should be allowed to influence the rules, their interpretation, and enforcement thereof only grudgingly.

These realizations have been growing out of a couple of things that my equally endangered Neanderthal NERD buddy Greg A. hinted at recently, that were bouncing around in my head yesterday as we got the shop ready for the shell to come back from the painter:

First, the emerging T3/T4 cars represent the "New IT." Yeah, the lifespan rule makes initial purchases more expensive and we all have some idea of what it takes to build (or cheat up) a "stock" drivetrain but philosophically, the idea of bolting some suspension pieces on a car is where IT started, even if most current drivers can conceive of that only in abstract terms typically reserved for telegraph communication, steam locomotives, and the War of Northern Agression.*

Second, "you don't want" guys like Greg building IT cars applying the loosey-goosey interpretations that so many seem to have such fun with. Convince him to come to the Dark Side and you won't know creep until y'all done got creeped, big-time. The post hoc allowance of changes is only going to encourage clever, liberal-thinking, interpretationists, and the cat seems utterly out of that bag at this point.

It's ironic that most IT guys/gals will tell you, without recognizing the irony, that Production is out of control. This, even as most of them seem all too willing to tear - well, creep - along in exactly the same direction with their category. At this point, I have little choice but to concede that this dynamic is an inevitable function of our culture and that the only solution is to ride a category along as it evolves, until it turns into something one no longer wants to do. It's now 2006:

** The small GT classes are on life support
** Production is where the GT (Sedan) was in 1980
** IT is where Production was in 1975
** Touring is where IT was in 1985

The constipation that plagued the IT rules for a couple of decades has been cured but a couple of codified creeps in the last FasTrack have convinced me that, along with relief from our discomfort, we can't avoid a big, smelly pile of poop.

I'm officially old. I'm losing enthusiasm for fighting to keep people from helping to make a mistake that they collectively just have to make. You all think I'm a crotchety old bahstahd for suggesting that a spot weld holding a spherical bearing in an A arm spells doom for the category. You don't get it, you won't get it, I can't help you get it, and sadly - ONCE YOU DO GET IT - it will be too late. If you stay in this category long enough, each of you will reach a tipping point where all of a sudden, you don't recognize the cars you are racing against.

You will want to become a rules NERD, and you may. Because I'm turning in my card.

K

* I've been in North Carolina for a while now
[/b]

Kurt,

I find it sad that you're giving up on IT at point sad :unsure:

There's still lots of differences between IT and Prod even with these current events, what some would call rules creep. Cam's, Open flywheels/multiplate clutches, alternate transmissions, completely gutted bodies, and the elimination of VIN #'s are but a few diffences that I noted on a quick tour of the Prod rules. These factors make a Production racer much more development intensive to make, and contribute to the fact that 45 year old car is competitive national champ.

Secondly, unless IT specified what springs/dampers could be run at some time in the past, Touring and IT have their diffences too. I realize that IT used to require the stock interiors, but specifyed trunk kits are more like spec miata.

Finally, IT will have to change to adapt to and over come new technology designed to save the lowest common denominator from their own stupidity or the environment. Active door lock, anti-lock brakes linked with stablity control, throttle by wire, eventually even throttle with out a throttle body, but by cam timing, these are major changes in what's required to prep for a race car. What about hybrid drive systems? How would one of these be fixed into a race car? Hang in there Kurt, IT is a great class to start racing in, lots of choices, it gives each a chance to express our individuality in what race car we choose.




Rob,

I am ging to disagree with you because the premise of your position is based on SB's NOT being legal now. I am betting 75% + of the members think that they are. A check with the CRB and BINGO - they were meant to be legal. This just clarifies a rule already in place.

It allows those who have them to be 100% sure and it allows those who want them a very economical way to go that route should they choose too. Looking at the SB thread, who had NOT done it because they thought it illegal? Seemingly just Greg.

AB
[/b]

I always thought hardend steel and greese were "materials" too, but that was IMHO untill it was clarified.

James

[Z3_GoCar]

Seemingly just Greg.

AB
Poor Greg!!!!!

GA I'm still your friend!!

I respect both of you guys very much (Jake and AB).

My stance is that IT can or should be compared to a bell curve. Don't worry about the bottom and don't cater to the top. I still don't agree with SB's at this level of my knowledge and I certainly don't believe in MOTEC for IT. I understand and respect the points raised but I hold my original contention.....where is or what is the entry level SCCA class?? I THOUGHT it was IT.... am I wrong??? Is there NO entry level class??? Are we all that successful (or just snooty)??? Please let's not forget the children!!
I believe the children are the future....teach them well and let them lead the way............... (that sounds sooo familiar):D :D

R
[/b]

Rob,

Had any luck finding something other than the Dinan? The Z3 practically cries out for some sort of open ecu rule, actually most OBD II cars need somthing to break the control strangle hold imposed by EPA/CARB. BTW, I've found an aftermarket source for exhaust headers for the Z3, although on examining our stock header any gain would be minimal compaired to removing the cat and replacing with an expansion chaimber.

I'll see your Houston and raise you a Nuggent

I got you in a strangle hold baby, now get out-a tha way..... :^)

James

[JLawton]

I tend to stay out of the "what's legal, what's not" arguments. Usually good arguments on both sides. What really bothers me lately are the personal attacks. It seems to be happening more and more over the last couple of months. This site, more than all the others had good discussions without giving the low blows!! (where's the "kickem' in the crotch" smilie??) People are taking this way to serious. I know I'm not going to running any races this year, I'm just going out to have some fun........

[bldn10]

"I am ging to disagree with you because the premise of your position is based on SB's NOT being legal now. I am betting 75% + of the members think that they are. A check with the CRB and BINGO - they were meant to be legal. This just clarifies a rule already in place."

Andy, I don't often disagree w/ you but I have to here (even though I think you are mainly being defensive of the action taken because your opinion previously was that they were not legal). Most of the people I've spoken to (in other classes as well) have been utterly dumbfounded to hear that someone in Topeka opined that a SB was a "sleeve or tubular insert" and constituted nothing more than a change in bushing material. I think you have it backwards - only those guys who absolutely needed SBs to make their suspensions work (the 240SXs e.g.) and the ever clever ones who are always pushing the envelope, and a few others, thought they were legal.

Who the hell is the CRB? How many on the current Board were on it when these rules were put into place? If they were not then they have no more competency or authority to say what the original intent was than any of us here. If they were then they are the worst rules-drafters the world has ever seen. We've discussed this before, intent is determined by the language of the rules, and the language of these rules is clearly that all that was intended was a change in bushing material - not design. Since then the tide changed and it was decided that we wanted SBs to be legal. Although I disagree w/ that, I accept it if it is what the IT community wanted. But I think the way it was done was poor - why can't we just simply say that, whether SBs were legal before or not, we are now making them legal for sure, rather than perpetuating if not sanctioning bullshit interpretations of the rules by implying they were legal all along? You asked in another post why such interpretations exist and suggested it may be a lack of protests. It is not a lack of protests - it is the lack of balls in Topeka to reject BS interpretations. When the SCCA itself engages in them - through staff, stewards, and COAs - it is a signal to all that that is the way the rules are going to be interpreted. So, as long as you can come up w/ any argument at all, no matter how specious it may be, you have a shot and you have a defense to serious penalties.

"Looking at the SB thread, who had NOT done it because they thought it illegal? Seemingly just Greg."

So, Andy, you and Nick had the Flatout EP-only SBs on your cars? :rolleyes:

I had not done it because I didn't know I needed it but I would not have anyway because I thought it was illegal and I try to avoid being hypocritical when I can. I guess I'll have to get them if all the other RX-7s do. Great.

[cherokee]

I agree that the rules are changing and they are pushing the cars in the direction that Prod was years back, but as long as we keep the engines the way they are, don’t start moving susp. Points I think we will come out ok. The trouble with the small GT class is the same problem with ITC the world is moving away from small low HP cars. I also think that the new touring classes are closer to SS then to IT, and there should be IT classes that when a touring car gets too old it can move to, if you run with ITE you run with some super fast cars already. SB’s ECU’s and the like I don’t have that big of a problem with (did I just say that). As long as we stay away from what I would call core Prod things (dry sumps, fiberglass, nutty engines, susp. Moving around, you get the idea) I think that IT will still be the best place to play.

Don’t give up your nerd hat just yet, you will be needed when someone wants to change cams when the stocker is NLA. I just don’t see the sky falling it is just a new day.

[Bill Miller]

"I am ging to disagree with you because the premise of your position is based on SB's NOT being legal now. I am betting 75% + of the members think that they are. A check with the CRB and BINGO - they were meant to be legal. This just clarifies a rule already in place."

Andy, I don't often disagree w/ you but I have to here (even though I think you are mainly being defensive of the action taken because your opinion previously was that they were not legal). Most of the people I've spoken to (in other classes as well) have been utterly dumbfounded to hear that someone in Topeka opined that a SB was a "sleeve or tubular insert" and constituted nothing more than a change in bushing material. I think you have it backwards - only those guys who absolutely needed SBs to make their suspensions work (the 240SXs e.g.) and the ever clever ones who are always pushing the envelope, and a few others, thought they were legal.

Who the hell is the CRB? How many on the current Board were on it when these rules were put into place? If they were not then they have no more competency or authority to say what the original intent was than any of us here. If they were then they are the worst rules-drafters the world has ever seen. We've discussed this before, intent is determined by the language of the rules, and the language of these rules is clearly that all that was intended was a change in bushing material - not design. Since then the tide changed and it was decided that we wanted SBs to be legal. Although I disagree w/ that, I accept it if it is what the IT community wanted. But I think the way it was done was poor - why can't we just simply say that, whether SBs were legal before or not, we are now making them legal for sure, rather than perpetuating if not sanctioning bullshit interpretations of the rules by implying they were legal all along? You asked in another post why such interpretations exist and suggested it may be a lack of protests. It is not a lack of protests - it is the lack of balls in Topeka to reject BS interpretations. When the SCCA itself engages in them - through staff, stewards, and COAs - it is a signal to all that that is the way the rules are going to be interpreted. So, as long as you can come up w/ any argument at all, no matter how specious it may be, you have a shot and you have a defense to serious penalties.

"Looking at the SB thread, who had NOT done it because they thought it illegal? Seemingly just Greg."

So, Andy, you and Nick had the Flatout EP-only SBs on your cars? :rolleyes:

I had not done it because I didn't know I needed it but I would not have anyway because I thought it was illegal and I try to avoid being hypocritical when I can. I guess I'll have to get them if all the other RX-7s do. Great.
[/b]


Well said Bill, and for a textbook example of the section in bold, I'll refer you to the 'functional reverse gear' issue from, IIRC, the '02 Runoffs.

[Knestis]

... Don’t give up your nerd hat just yet, you will be needed when someone wants to change cams when the stocker is NLA. I just don’t see the sky falling it is just a new day.[/b]
That's been tried and - mostly - been beaten back but only because it was a creep ahead of its time. We're now a couple creeps closer to the point that the "next big thing" will be cam allowances, and you're on your own from here on out.

I'm not giving up on IT - just on trying to stem the tide.

K

[turboICE]

I thought SB's were allowed. I thought no modification to implement them wasn't.

I am glad for the clarification. I am surprised at the welding part - though I understand the explanations given.

However, if the explanations were to be universally applied there are a lot of areas that need the same reasoning applied. ECU hardware either need to be opened to the reasonable affordable (if it attaches to the OEM harness only its free) beginner also or hardware changes need to be eliminated from ECU rules completely. (While I have a preference for one, either result would be better than the current rule which is entirely undesirable as it currently exists.) The ECU rule as it currently stands would have suggested the CRB would not have considered the very explanation given for the tack weld rule. Its current standing is at complete odds with the explanation.

It costs a heck of a lot less to properly fit a suspension bushing/bearing/thingamajig without the need for a tack weld, than to put a stand alone system in an OEM box.

[turboICE]

I'm afraid that the tide of opinion has well and truly turned in the last few weeks. We conservative rules literalists - Rules NERDs - are pretty much extinct.
...

I'm officially old. I'm losing enthusiasm for fighting to keep people from helping to make a mistake that they collectively just have to make. You all think I'm a crotchety old bahstahd for suggesting that a spot weld holding a spherical bearing in an A arm spells doom for the category. You don't get it, you won't get it, I can't help you get it, and sadly - ONCE YOU DO GET IT - it will be too late. If you stay in this category long enough, each of you will reach a tipping point where all of a sudden, you don't recognize the cars you are racing against.

You will want to become a rules NERD, and you may. Because I'm turning in my card.[/b]

I can't reconcile the camp you claim to be in with this:


Eliminate the "create a model" prohibition and "two VIN number" requirement clauses from the ITCS (Knestis).[/b]

Isn't that the type of creep you wouldn't want being from the described camp? I actually agree with it as I would love to triple the number of S13 shells available for ITA - but at the same time you know somehow somewhere there is the unintended consequence of there being some improvement to be gained in allowing this. Heck it could even be that unbeknownest to anyone that some design/manufacturing line change due to weld location or improved technology or a different alloy could have made the 1992 S13 chassis stiffer than the 1989 S13 chassis - though I look at them as identical.

Also there are three VIN numbers on the S13, 1 stamped and 2 plated. I could pretty easily put two 89 plates on a 92 shell. Would that be legal? I think it might but I couldn't in good faith push it there myself as I think that it would be completely against the intent.

[lateapex911]

I thought SB's were allowed. I thought no modification to implement them wasn't.

I am glad for the clarification. I am surprised at the welding part - though I understand the explanations given.

[/b]

Well, the jury is out on whether they were, or were not legal. One camp says, "Of course" while the other camp says "no way!, and if the CRB tells us so, they're peddling BS", LOL. Literalists see the fallacy that the rule actually allowed nothing as any material would change the effect of the component mounted to it which constituts a design changer which was not listed as allowable.......

(Either way, legal workarounds existed that resulted in the same performance)

But none of us ever felt that you could get a welder out, thats for sure.

And while the SB as been clarified as being okay, it may only be used in certain situations. I can not see, for example, how it could be used on an RX-7s lower "drag link" from the frame to the A arm. But within the A arm pickup, or now "pivot" point, it could do nicely.....if tack welded only.

[StephenB]

TurboICE nailed this one exactly,

Everyone should just take a deep breath, just because your ideas didn't become allowed doesn't mean you should turn your back and run away, worse yet why are you throwing back a bomb at us.... The Imprved Touring Catagory is improving and becoming better if you like it or not.

This is the BEST racing, it's not like they are making us all run the same exact body shell (NASCAR next year)

If you can't afford to run ITS don't. Run in ITB or ITC.
If your smart you can win for under 10 grand in those classes, i have done it, I know. Maybe not all the time but you can and most importatnly you can go out there and have fun at the very least.

STOP TRASH TALKING OUR CATAGORY. A LOT of people have worked very hard to make it what it is. Much Much Better. You and I both no things are much better than a year ago.

Stephen
PS: No I don't have SB and I don't plan on getting them.

[RSTPerformance]

Hi Stephen-

Welcome back stranger... figures it takes you going to Canada on vacation to come on line!!!

Raymond

[Knestis]

I can't reconcile the camp you claim to be in with this...[/b]

I've thought about it a hundred times and can't - based on the wording that I proposed - think of a way that it can go wrong. If it turned out that the 1992 Whatsit S shell was different than the 1990 Whatsit L (from a different spec line), then it wouldn't be legal to USE one to build the other. All I proposed was that we treat the body shell like any other piece on the car. Would you have any qualms about using a hood off of a 240sx from a different spec-line car, if they were the same? Why should a bigger piece of sheetmetal be any different.

Not all rule changes are creep but y'know what? It's no big deal.


... just because your ideas didn't become allowed doesn't mean you should turn your back and run away, worse yet why are you throwing back a bomb at us.... STOP TRASH TALKING OUR CATAGORY. [/b]
If that's for me, Stephen - with all due respect...

1. You are taking a blindingly shallow view of my point. This is NOT about my proposal being denied. It's about a few very significant shifts in first principal that seem to have taken place hot on the heels of some very good, and very important improvements having been made. The difference between a good artist and a great one is knowing when to quit messing with one's medium and the point at which "good" change becomes dangerous change is RIGHT NOW. Look back at the last couple FasTracks and the accompanying discussion here (accepting that this is just a snapshot of opinion, not the sum of it).

You'll see a re-emergence of the idea it might be OK to fudge on the written rule if a change "doesn't improve performance." You'll see codification of exceptions to the IIDSYCYC law. You'll see expanding interpretations that changes to one part not specifically allowed by the rules is OK, to facilitate making an allowed change. You'll see a surprising number of people agreeing to the proposition that interpreting the written rules as scrupulously as possible amounts to "tortured interpretation." This is happening WAY too fast and at this point, I don't think that very many people want to slow it down and I've decided to go along with the prevailing mood.

2. I'm not TRASH TALKING a category, and "OUR" sure as hell includes MINE. I ran my first IT race in 1986. I've earned the right to have opinions about it because I care about the longterm health of the category. I'm just going to care differently from here on out. I don't know why you are complaining because you - those of you who think all of this is progress or think it's cool that you will get to remove your wiper stalks, OE wiring harnesses, and marker lights - you have convinced me that you are right! I'm not going to worry about interpretations, I'm not going to call folks on illegal stuff (not on the boards, anyway), I'm not going to try to convince you that we should try to contain creep.

I'm going to start reading the book with an open mind, build the best car that I can afford, work on my mad skilz and try to win some races. I have some ideas that revolve around what an "assembly" is, and how they might be maximized to good effect. I think that there's room for some interesting developments around the definition of "sway bar," where the rear beam of a Golf is concerned. I'm some really groovy bearings in my front A-arms. I want to explore chip tuning based on on-track data collection from a wideband O2 sensor.

It's all good...

K

[lateapex911]

You'll see a re-emergence of the idea it might be OK to fudge on the written rule if a change "doesn't improve performance." ......
K
[/b]

Kirk, it is always interesting and enlightening to read your posts, and I only wish I could retain all that they contain.

This particular line is one I would like you to expand upon, perhaps with an example.

(I have long been troubled by the term "assembly" as well.....)

[turboICE]

Absolutely agree that all rule changes are not creep, but those from your prior camp have told me many times on these board that yes in fact they are.

I still think there is a disconnect from the way you used to want it to be and your request - within the wording of your request there could be a difference in a chasis between spec lines or classes that isn't known and it would be permitted.

And of course joining us on the dark side you have the overall intent to rely on:


Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage.[/b]

Your focus should now be on the part with the emphasis - if the purpose of doing xyz isn't to obtain a competitive advantage doing xyz isn't illegal even if isn't specifically allowed. ;)

Of course you will have to face people from your old camp - the presumption is it was done for a competitive advantage or it wouldn't have been done...

Be well.

[Bill Miller]

Absolutely agree that all rule changes are not creep, but those from your prior camp have told me many times on these board that yes in fact they are.

I still think there is a disconnect from the way you used to want it to be and your request - within the wording of your request there could be a difference in a chasis between spec lines or classes that isn't known and it would be permitted.

And of course joining us on the dark side you have the overall intent to rely on:
Your focus should now be on the part with the emphasis - if the purpose of doing xyz isn't to obtain a competitive advantage doing xyz isn't illegal even if isn't specifically allowed. ;)

Of course you will have to face people from your old camp - the presumption is it was done for a competitive advantage or it wouldn't have been done...

Be well.
[/b]

Well Ed, part of the flaw in your logic lies in the fact that you've already got cases where there are differences in chassis on the same spec line that are different, yet run at the same weight. Do you think those differences were taken into account when the car was classified? Not likely. It's more a case of not being able to differentiate the different chassis by VIN #. I'll give you a great example. You can take an '89 VW Golf tub, and build either an ITA 16v car or an ITB 8v car out of it, regardless as to which one it started life as, because there's no way to tell them apart, via the VIN #. But on the flip side, you can't take an '83 VW Rabbit tub and build an ITB Rabbit GTI out of it, because there's a digit in the VIN# that indicates engine size. You want to talk intent, let's talk intent. Oh, and let's not even go into the cases where people have swapped VIN tags.

Now, let's talked about the clause that you cited. That's been on the books for a while, and should have been all that was necessary to keep us from ending up w/ Motecs. So, " ...for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage" really reads " ...for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage unless we decide it's too much work to police". Interestingly enough, a couple of years back (and I forget the details, but I thought it had to do w/ a Mustang), there was a response to a request that essentially said that a modification that increased part longevity (in this case, the engine), was considered to be a competitiive advantage. Maybe 'competitive advantage' needs to find its way into the glossary? :119:

BTW, I think you can make the case that if you remove something, that has no direct effect on the performance of the car, it can be considered a competitive advantage, as now you don't have to worry about it, and can focus more time on other parts of the car. It would be a whole lot different if the language said "performance enhancement" rather than "competitive advantage". (Kirk should appreciate the policy implications of that difference)

[Knestis]

Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage.[/b]
Ed did my homework for me, Jake. For EVER, the common standard has been exactly the opposite - that it is not necessary to demonstrate that a change not specifically allowed by the rules, for it to be considered illegal. Ed's right, though - if my purpose is something other than to "obtain a competitive advantage," I can do all kinds of things in the name of making the car quicker to work on or easier to keep clean, keeping sponsors happy, saving money, or doing things that look cool.

Yeah - it's clear that the CRB made the SB decision based only on political expedience (unless someone can tell me which of the current members participated in drafting the first IT rulebook), but that's OK - 'cause I got 'em now.

Expand your mind and the ITCS will set you free. B)

K

PS - spray urethane foam is a "paint or coating."

[dickita15]

PS - spray urethane foam is a "paint or coating."
[/b]
oh my god! I am starting my whale tail spoiler tonight. :D

[ddewhurst]

***Yeah - it's clear that the CRB made the SB decision based only on political expedience (unless someone can tell me which of the current members participated in drafting the first IT rulebook), but that's OK - 'cause I got 'em now.***

Jake, there are others that ain't afraid to use the word political relative to CRB responses.


To all, as Jeff posted & the thing that is going to keep me away from reading all the great posts is the people bashing. :018: That will divide the FUN people on this site.

[x-ring]

Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage.

[/b]

I've always wondered, for you steward types out there, how does that apply to this



In the event a car is found in non-compliance, a claim that the noncompliant item(s) offer no performance advantage shall have no influence on any ruling.

[/b]

from GCR 13.4?

Personally, I think that the "for the purpose..." part should be struck from the ITCS.

[turboICE]

Wouldn't the ITCS trump the GCR? I mean the GCR is the broad default, unless the class rule is in conflict and then the class rule is applied - or am I mistaken?

I think it probably should be struck as well. It would seem to have the potential to pretty much open a lot. I can understand why it is there so that something that is reasonably done out of some necessity that does not result in a competitive advantage can be done without being jumped on unreasonably. Not that there is anyone in IT that would be unreasonable in either direction...

And I disagree that solely making a car more reliable or adding to a part's longevity is a competitive advantage - it has no bearing on sprint race competition it only reduces prep time off the track. I know most disagree with me which is why I follow the IIDSYCYC - but it sure would be nice to be able to reasonably improve reliability and longevity when lap times aren't affected as a result.

For instance I think having a gear that performs identically should not be disallowed when all it does is prolong the gear's life. (i.e. fewer tear downs)

Whereas better material pistons and valves while prolonging life, can also actually permit more agressive tuning and result in faster lap times, than OEM materials and reasonably shouldn't be allowed except if and as explicitly allowed by a rule.

[Bill Miller]

Ed,

I'm not saying that I agree that increased longevity is a competitive advantage, just that I've heard it described as such, in a somewhat official context.

And guys, one clause says "performance advantage" the other says "competitive advantage". Not entirely the same thing.

[StephenB]

To all, as Jeff posted & the thing that is going to keep me away from reading all the great posts is the people bashing. :018: That will divide the FUN people on this site.
[/quote]


yes you are correct, and I apologize for doing this. I was not trying ot personally attack Kirk (Eventhough I think this thread is inappropriate for a website that is here to help our race group) I was however attacking the changing mood of the "old Timers" on this website.


This is what I should have said:
I came to this site 4 years ago and got a ton of advice. This site has always had 2 sides of the debate but that is what made it informative. Rules Nerds shouldn't back down from your knowledge and thaughts. It is what makes this website great. I also don't think that the people that like to stretch the rules should go away. they should keep antagonizing you :) that is also what makes this website so informative even if you don't agree with everything.

I do think this website can be informative and a great resource. If you look at the past few months it has become more and more less resourcefull yet if you look through this carbage like wht I am righting right now it still is great. I do remember the bashing that others took here a few years ago and they stuck around. I hope you all do the same and you change back to how you may have been before. I liked your point of view and truely thaught it made this site what it is. If you give in and change to the dark side we will all suffer and loose a great perspective.

Live on Rules NERDS! don't give in.
Stephen

[Knestis]

Thanks, young NERD-i but the force is growing weak in this one. You must take up the cause.

K

[Catch22]

I'm going to start reading the book with an open mind, build the best car that I can afford, work on my mad skilz and try to win some races. [/b]

Now thats what I'm talking about.
Welcome to ScottLand Dr. K. The weather is always sunny here and the rides are fun.

Look, we are amatuer club racers. This means two things...
1. We do this for fun
2. Someone is always going to try to cheat, torture rules, and "read" things a little funny.

It doesn't matter what you do or how you write the rules. Someone who reads the current rules in bad faith will find a way to do the same with any new rules you write.
Bad Faith? "Hey Scott, what's bad faith rule reading?"
How about a 40lb kill switch plate. Yeah... Thats reading the rules in bad faith. You KNOW the rules don't intend that to be allowable.

So, I won't ever protest anyone. Right?
I just wanna have fun. Right?

Wrong.

Start bump drafting frontrunning ITS cars in your ITA BMW at Daytona... I care.
Put your 90lbs of ballast in the right rear instead of the passenger footwell... I care.
Use a 40lb kill switch plate... I care.
Put Integra brakes on your CRX... I care.

Gut your passenger side door and run the "NASCAR" bars in 1 inch instead of 3 inches... I really don't care.

Sorry guys, I just don't see myself being that weenie that protests a autocross Stock class guy because he forgot to put the 1oz plastic covers back on his rear shock tower trim panels (yes, this actually happened). Sure, thats a violation of the rules... But who cares?

The best thing that could happen to IT nationwide is for all the rules nerds to quit picking nits on the interweb and start actually protesting guys who are bump drafting ITS cars in ITB cars. Those guys are out there, lets pick that low fruit before we worry about how far into a door frame bars need to be to be called "NASCAR" bars.

Fire up the grill and hand me a beer. :birra:
This shit is supposed to be for fun.

[Marcus Miller]

Fire up the grill and hand me a beer. :birra:
This shit is supposed to be for fun.
[/b]

YES! :birra:

Marcus

[JIgou]

So probably this isn't the place to ask for a definition of what/how big a tack weld is then, right?

:cavallo:

:D

Jarrod

[turboICE]

So probably this isn't the place to ask for a definition of what/how big a tack weld is then, right?

:cavallo:

:D

Jarrod
[/b]
:018: Probably a good thing there isn't a groin kick emoticon! LOL

I suspect at some point you have added enough material that it either becomes a modification to the suspension component or would be considered to serve another purpose.

[ddewhurst]

***CRB made the SB decision based only on political expedience***

Stephen, I was only refering to the contex on how the SB decision/CRB Fastrack response was generated. Sorry if the post was received another way. ;)

***This shit is supposed to be for fun.***

I agree with ^ therefore I will ask Jarrod (or anyone else with an ITA Miata or Spec Miata) a Spec Miata question. Jarrod, do your roll cage side hoop pass THROGH your Miata instrument panel & if so how close are your roll cage side hoops to the A pillar ? Keep in mind this is a FUN question. :D :D :D

Just so that everone knows why I am asking the question please understand that if anyone has a desire to have the roll cage side hoop path THROUGH the instrument panel be within 1/2 inch of the A pillar there is a bunch of questionalbe altering/modifying one MUST do to items that are to my understanding of the rules not allowed. ;)

[JIgou]

I agree with ^ therefore I will ask Jarrod (or anyone else with an ITA Miata or Spec Miata) a Spec Miata question. Jarrod, do your roll cage side hoop pass THROGH your Miata instrument panel & if so how close are your roll cage side hoops to the A pillar ? Keep in mind this is a FUN question. :D :D :D
[/b]

Nope.

I smell your cookin', though.....

:birra: :birra:

Jarrod

[ddewhurst]

Jarrod, ya have a good nose. :023:

[flaboy]

well i may only race in itc....but i'm in it just fr fun...yes i want to be cpmpettive...but we are all here to just have fun


isn't that why we are all hear!!


ok let the name calling and bad mouthing begin!! i can handle it.

[ddewhurst]

***well i may only race in itc....but i'm in it just fr fun...yes i want to be cpmpettive...but we are all here to just have fun

isn't that why we are all hear!!

ok let the name calling and bad mouthing begin!! i can handle it.***

flaboy, first you need to make a point.

I don't giva a hoot which car or class you race we all race for fun & we all do the site for fun. We may argue a rule point now & then just for grins. ;)

[Greg Amy]

Frustrated by the same sentiments that Kirk describes in post #1, I logged off the IT board about a month ago. After this hiatus, I felt cleansed and invigorated, ready to go racing in 2006. I thought I'd simply ignore the last four months and prep the car to what the rules are supposed to be. Then I log back on this morning to see we're all still pissing back and forth about rules minutiae, still pushing the envelope.

But I've had an epiphany, which is what motivated my logging back on to this board test the winds for emotional guidance. Last night during the Speed broadcast of the F1 Malaysia practice, the commentators (Bob Varsha, David Hobbs, and Steve Matchett) got into a discussion about pushing the rules (primarily about potential wing violations.) Steve, a guy whose technical knowledge and experience I have a lot of respect, put it succinctly (I paraphrase):

"The rules are published for all to read. It is the responsibility of the team to exploit those rules to their fullest extent. If the governing/enforcing body (i.e. Charlie Whiting and company) does not deem those actions against the rules, they are, in fact, legitimate."

So, I have a new perspective on life now. I am reading the IT rulebook in a whole 'nother light. Whereas before I saw limitations with allowances (as per the stated philosophy) I now see allowances with limitations (as per recent rules intepretations and ajudications.) With those blinders off, the opportunities are, well, nearly limitless and I will be 'exploiting those rules to their fullest extent.' The mind boggles at the possibilities once you pick up the rules and re-read them with this new mindset; with the 'enforcing body' being fellow competitors - who have continually demonstrated a loathing for throwing paper - the opportunities ARE truly limitless.

So, welcome to The New Greg (hopefully with better success than The New Coke). You're not going to find me out-and-out cheating, what you will find is a lot of creative interpretations that will twist your titties, cause you to REALLY THINK about what we've done these last five years, and will likely make the ITAC and CRB completely re-write the ITCS (to which we begin anew). I wholly encourage any and all persons to stop by my pit space at any time; anyone is always welcome to look in, on, or under my car, as long as you don't get in the way.

Bring your own copy of the GCR.

Signing off yet again... - GA

[Doc Bro]

See that folks....too much TV is not a bad thing after all!! :happy204:

Greg,
I look forward to the education.

R

[benspeed]

That's the way to do it, Greg! :happy204:

Just don't go as far as Chad Knaus - he sorta lost his wits at Daytona and stepped over the line.

[bldn10]

CAUTION: EDITORIAL CONTENT

It goes w/o saying that there are mammoth differences between the situation in F1 and amateur club racing so I wouldn't take too many cues from them. First, F1 is and always has been considered the absolute pinnacle of a cutting edge, technology-driven series, and pushing the envelope is inherent in the series philosophy. Absolutely the opposite in club racing, expecially IT, which has a stated philosophy that is essentially anti-technology - pro-affordability. Those guys are paid for what they do and millions of dollars are at stake. We race for fun, pieces of wood, and bragging rights. F1 has a huge, highly-educated and trained technical staff while SCCA relies mostly on volunteers. It is unfair to the Club in general and stewards, tech officials, staff, COA, et al. to be constantly testing them w/ wacky modifications beased on flimsy rule interpretations. If everyone did that, we'd never get out of Tech. On the other hand, F1 cars are inspected rigorously before competing, while we rely on superficial annual tech inspections, impound inspections, and self-policing via protests. F1 engineers have virtually immediate official feedback on mods they make, so they can take chances and rely on tech inspectors to weed out obviously illegal mods that might result in DQ or big fines. An SCCA competitor can effect a cheat and get away w/ it for an indefinite time simply because it may never be checked. So it is incumbent upon us, and I believe implicit in our rules, that we exercise self-restraint in the interest of a fair playing field and affordable racing. I have no problem w/ taking advantage of loopholes in the rules but many of the interpretations I've seen here have been are patently absurd. If interpretations get too out of hand, and the efficient conduct of events starts to get bogged down thereby, I for one will advocate much harsher penalties for rule violations. In any event I agree we need a rules re-write.

[JeffYoung]

Bill, I think Greg's point is that they have already gotten out of hand.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Funny that I appreciate Greg's position and Bill's position equally. Action item for me?

Have protest paperwork on file in my trailer, an eye on everyone assuming they are pushing the rules and a renewed commitment to all my fellow drivers that I will police my patch with a vengence. Some will consider that harsh but the net/net will be that ITA in NER will be known as a place for legal cars to play because at least one guy will be ready to erradicate the cheaters and manipulators. Protests don't cost squat if you are right.

AB

[turboICE]

Welcome to the LIGHT, Greg!

The result of competiveness in interpretation and preparation only means I will get my clock cleaned more as both my driving and preparation ability are tested - but my nature is that only thorough competitiveness is rewarding.

Which would by no means ever extend into any justification for intentionally cheating.



essentially anti-technology - pro-affordability[/b]Those are incompatible as illustrated by the ECU rules. The position against technology makes it unaffordable. Technology and affordability should not be viewed as mutually exclusive especially once the technology has become a commodity which by definition is affordable on a relative basis.


We race for fun, pieces of wood, and bragging rights.[/b]Part of the fun is from competing, and preparation is as much part of competition as driving. Isn't the view that no one should expect to win if they don't fully prepare their vehicle? If that isn't the case we should get off the E36 drivers' backs about winning in half prepared cars and let them run as they had been when originally classed. Whether preparing for a pine wood derby or F1, preparation is an optimization under the ruleset. If the membership were not to have the competitive nature to optimize as much as possible under the ruleset would it be as much fun?



Have protest paperwork on file in my trailer, an eye on everyone assuming they are pushing the rules and a renewed commitment to all my fellow drivers that I will police my patch with a vengence. Some will consider that harsh but the net/net will be that ITA in NER will be known as a place for legal cars to play because at least one guy will be ready to erradicate the cheaters and manipulators. Protests don't cost squat if you are right.

AB
[/b]
As it should be and no one should feel negative about it. If they are right, that is vindication enough. If they are wrong, well then they shouldn't harbour anything against anyone else for being so.

[Knestis]

Greg is one of us now. Greg has been assimilated.


... So it is incumbent upon us, and I believe implicit in our rules, that we exercise self-restraint in the interest of a fair playing field and affordable racing. I have no problem w/ taking advantage of loopholes in the rules but many of the interpretations I've seen here have been are patently absurd. ... [/b]
Six weeks ago, I would have agreed with you but I'm happier now, having accepted the dominant paradigm despite having not helped create it. Can't beat 'em, join 'em.

However, I'm leaning toward a different approach than Greg - going back to the strategy we used in the '80s, when we kept everything under wraps. For example, we used to keep a towel on the rear wing of the SuperVee/FAtlantic Ralt and whip it off last thing, as the grid cleared. Y'all will never know if we really have anything to hide, but it's sure a hell of a lot of fun to watch people twitch about things that they imagine rather than see. It's hard to watch both of the magician's hands...

:D

K

[bldn10]

Ed, my anti-technology/pro-affordability premise is not rebutted by the ECU situation because I am confident that it was never contemplated that people would stuff engine management computers into the stock box. True, once that got started, the observation that the rule actually ADDED to cost because it was cheaper to accomplish the same thing outside the box, was validly made. The situation IS antithetical to the pro-affordability but the mistake was inserting the words "or replace" in the ECU rule - not in the underlying philosophy. It is another example of poor implementation of a valid policy. And another example why I think the rules should be drafted by people who are trained and experienced at doing it. The solution there IMO was not to open up the rule even further but retract it as soon as it became obvious what the implication of "or replace" was. The error was compounded by letting it get past the point of no return, and now we are faced w/ a legitimate argument to go way further than was ever dreamed. This is not rules creep - it is [NEW TERM COMING] rules leap!

"I'm leaning toward a different approach than Greg - going back to the strategy we used in the '80s, when we kept everything under wraps."

Conversely, would it help self-police (and perhaps even result in fewer protests) if there was a rule that all cars shall be available for "inspection" by other competitors? I.e. if you want to go by so-and-so's car and crawl underneath, you have the right to do so as long as you don't hinder another driver's prep. Just a thought.

[zracre]

Conversely, would it help self-police (and perhaps even result in fewer protests) if there was a rule that all cars shall be available for "inspection" by other competitors? I.e. if you want to go by so-and-so's car and crawl underneath, you have the right to do so as long as you don't hinder another driver's prep. Just a thought.
[/b]

You can...thats what impound is for! In the SM race in jan at Sebring they brought all of us in and made us open our hoods and doors for other competitors to look at and police. I crawled around many cars just to looksee...next race in impound (whether you made it there or not) snoop around the winners cars and ask questions. I do it just to see what people say! I have seen many a foot stuffed in a mouth from people talking in the post race babble.

[turboICE]

Bill, I agree the ECU rule either needs to be pulled back or pushed forward (I don't care which), its current state of implementation whether originally intended or not, I think is totally undesirable in IT. My guess is that over 90% of the EFI cars actually being fielded in IT currently have plug n play (stock plugs and harness) ECU replacement solutions, either they should be equally available for use or take away the box stuffing.

I just disagree that technology and affordability are incompatible. There is a point where technology reaches a critical point and affordability is best achieved via that technology widely available to the masses.

As another example - the old threaded body coil over restriction, for many years the GC and shop fabricated solutions were much more expensive than the available OTS solutions from multiple competing vendors. GC's recommended application for my car at the beginning of 2004 was north of $3250, the coil overs I went with at the beginning of 2005 was less than $1750 with more adjustability. I am very comfortable that what I am using would not be outperformed by the more expensive route required before 2005. And the affordable technology had been available since at least 2000.

I am not saying any ole technology that comes along should be adopted in IT just because it is there or that wide open fabrication should be allowed, but that technology and affordability are not mutually exclusive.

[lateapex911]

While I agree with Greg....and he's a sharp guy, it's hard not to agree with him in many cases, I do see a distinct difference between amatuer and professional racing.

The philosophy is different, as all pro organizations are policed by impartial tech staff, but amatuer organizations are self policing. If Charlie Whiting doesn't say your double frmaper valve is illegal it becomes legal. (Until he changes his mind, LOL) But in amatuer organizations if the same valve was run, there is no legality gained by it's mere existance. If a year later, a competitor protests it, and it's found illegal, it's out.

When I read a rule, I try to define each word in the rule, first by going to the GCR, then to the greater accepted definitions. I try to simplify the rule and remove the car component. It's easier to think openly if you remove the car specific parts and then analyze the rule. Sometimes the different viewpoint can yeild interesting results.

As long as the mod meets the rules, it's all good...the rules are written and give allowances. We should all find the true limits to those allowances. As the freat IT sage says, "If it says you can, you bloody well can". Good on ya.

But......we all owe to ourselves to put out foot down, and firmly, when we find that 'creative" interpretations are the use of improper pistons, or cams or valve springs or conn rods or whatever.

No whining if you don't do something about it, but by the same token, 'atta boys' are due to the guys who think creatively.....within the written boundries. Push all you want, but don't push through the barrier.

[Knestis]

From the GCR: Anti-Roll Bar (Sway bar) - A torsion control device connected to a car’s structure, and to moving portions of the suspension, which is intended to control body roll. (Some types of ARB may also serve as a suspension component.)

From the ITCS: 1. Any anti-roll bar(s) ... may be added or substituted, provided its/their installation serves no other purpose. The mounts for these devices may be welded or bolted to the structure of the vehicle. (Emphasis mine)

Picture the rear torsion beam of a VW Golf as you re-read the above. Whee!

K

[lateapex911]

As the great IT sage says, "If it says you can, you bloody well can". Good on ya.[/b]

Kirk, my thought is only, why hasn't anyone done it (I am assuming that you are refering to a wholesale replacement of the stock anti roll bar/beam that also serves as a suspension component) before?

[Eagle7]

From the GCR: Anti-Roll Bar (Sway bar) - A torsion control device connected to a car’s structure, and to moving portions of the suspension, which is intended to control body roll. (Some types of ARB may also serve as a suspension component.)

From the ITCS: 1. Any anti-roll bar(s) ... may be added or substituted, provided its/their installation serves no other purpose. The mounts for these devices may be welded or bolted to the structure of the vehicle. (Emphasis mine)

Picture the rear torsion beam of a VW Golf as you re-read the above. Whee!

K
[/b]

[Knestis]

Kirk, my thought is only, why hasn't anyone done it ...?[/b]

Because they haven't been listening to Geo: "If it says you can..." Because they've been presuming that the Elders of IT had more limited vision than the words in the rules allow. Because they are closeted NERDS. :)

The new piece would serve exactly the same purpose as the OE part - no ifs, ands, or butts.

Did I mention, "Whee?"

K

[Bill Miller]

Because they haven't been listening to Geo: "If it says you can..." Because they've been presuming that the Elders of IT had more limited vision than the words in the rules allow. Because they are closeted NERDS. :)

The new piece would serve exactly the same purpose as the OE part - no ifs, ands, or butts.

Did I mention, "Whee?"

K
[/b]

:023:

[JLawton]

I tell ya, if some of these "rules nerds" (ie Kirk and Greg) decide to turn to the dark side, we're all in trouble!! :lol:

[ddewhurst]

Greg, were ya feeling alone out in the garage ? Ya needed to stir the pot................ :018:

[bldn10]

Ed, this goes too far back for me but I'm not so sure that the coil-over situation was not just like the ECU one. In other words, at the time the rule was enacted coil-overs were available but end-around-the-rule ersatz "coil-overs" were not. The intention may have been to limit you to the stock shock and spring arrangement except that you could subsititute after-market shocks and springs. That intention would not have been to ban coil-overs because they were higher technology or even if they were more expensive but because they were simply felt to be inconsistent w/ the class philosophy. Then, unanticipated, the pseudo-coil-overs appear and fall w/i the scope of the rule. So we are left w/ a more expensive legal alternative to illegal but less expensive true coil-overs. Again, the error would not be w/ the philosophy but w/ the rule drafting - if they did not want fake coil-overs, the rule should have been more explicit.

I do not think that technology and affordability are mutually exclusive and did not mean to imply that. What I do mean is that IT on one hand is explicitly intended to be "affordable" racing, and on the other is not intended as a high tech class in the SCCA universe of classes. It was intended to be SS w/ some additional leeway to create more of a "real race car" while maintaining the stock basis. Prod and GT were available for the techies. We've moved pretty far afield but the ITCS class philosophy has not been changed.

Zacre, I don't know about you but after a race, especially in the summer down South, I'm not going to crawling under cars in my drivers' suit in impound. :wacko:

[lateapex911]

I do not think that technology and affordability are mutually exclusive and did not mean to imply that. What I do mean is that IT on one hand is explicitly intended to be "affordable" racing, and on the other is not intended as a high tech class in the SCCA universe of classes. It was intended to be SS w/ some additional leeway to create more of a "real race car" while maintaining the stock basis. Prod and GT were available for the techies. We've moved pretty far afield but the ITCS class philosophy has not been changed.

[/b]

Correct, but to a degree. I think that if you look at SS today (Touring, as SS became impossible to have in the current technical and political point in time), and Prod, with it's billet cranks, slicks, nonstock bodywork, and GT with it's 'start with a bunch of tubes' basis, IT IS still a relative bargain and sits not that far up the "real race car" ladder.

Fact of the matter is that the world changes, and all categories have to change with it. I think that IT has had some missteps, to be sure, but overall, is poised to provide a vibrant and relatively simple place to race.

It is strong in it's ability to provide a good structure for a huge variety of makes and models to race in a relatively easy to police state. It is weak in making it 'easy' for newcomers to just 'run what they brung' as the currrent ruleset doesn't represent what a lot of owners do when modifying their cars.

I think that, in the big picture, IT really hasn't moved that far afield, but the field has certainly moved on it's own.

[turboICE]

What I do mean is that IT on one hand is explicitly intended to be "affordable" racing, and on the other is not intended as a high tech class in the SCCA universe of classes. It was intended to be SS w/ some additional leeway to create more of a "real race car" while maintaining the stock basis.[/b]
This is part of the problem Bill, I read on here a lot of intent about rules whether explicit or implicit - yet rarely is any of it what is written is evident in the written word. This is the problem with oral histories, where has it ever been written that IT is explicitly intended to be affordable or SS with some additional leeway?


A. PURPOSE
Improved Touring classes are intended to provide the membership with the opportunity to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition.[/b]


B. INTENT
It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car. This class is intended to allow a variety of popular, inexpensive cars to be eligible; however, those determined by the Club to be outside of these parameters will not be classified.[/b]

Low cost cars and inexpensive cars - it doesn't mention any purpose or intent that the modifications to the cars be low cost, inexpensive or affordable.

It is a consistent problem whether it is the day an entry in the rules becomes effective or ten years later - each and every entry into the rule book should say what it means and mean what it says. If it doesn't it is both ineffective and inefficient. When they really want to limit something they do quite a good job of it, I can only assume when language isn't exactly limiting something then they aren't trying to limit it.

If the intent of the prior wording was "to limit you to the stock shock and spring arrangement except that you could subsititute after-market shocks and springs" it wasn't even close and why would any ride height below stock be allowed? The least expensive way to adjust ride height on a majority of our cars is threaded body coil overs - custom height springs and custom length oem style struts are extremely expensive - the limitation on a threaded body was hardly sufficient to achieve the potential intent.

I don't necessarily disagree with your view on where IT "fits" but I listed out its fit in a similar manner once on this forum and was told I was absolutely wrong. And believe me I am one who very much could use rules that result in affordable full preparation under the rules - but I don't see a set of rules in the ITCS that support that except on a relative basis.

What I am saying is that if what a lot of people say IT is and what a lot think the rules should be to support it, write the CRB - because telling someone on here what it is when the rule language doesn't support it is going to be a losing battle.

[bldn10]

" low cost cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition ... Low cost cars and inexpensive cars - it doesn't mention any purpose or intent that the modifications to the cars be low cost, inexpensive or affordable."

Now, Ed, you aren't serious are you? You read that to mean that the purpose/intent/philosophy is cheap chassis w/ unlimited-cost mods? No way. It means that the car you put on the track is "low cost." Of course, as you point out, that term is indeed relative. How are the cars kept low cost? By classifying only those that are cheap and readily available and allowing only "limited modifications" primarilly for the purpose of making the car "suitable for racing competition" which primarilly means safe and durable (because durable = affordable). This is the reason I believe the BMW should not have been classified when it was - not because it would be an overdog but because decent tubs generally did not satisfy the affordability criterion.

The reason I write is to try do one of 2 things: either hold the class to the stated philosophy; or change it to reflect modern technology and the desires of the IT community. I think that the problems we have w/ cheating and argument over rules are the result of the natural conflict between these 2 directions. Racers will always want to change their cars to make them faster, but it is up to the sanctioning body to keep them from going too far. We should not get bent out of shape when they do their job. We should get bent out of shape when they fail to do so. If we think the current philosophy is out of step - write 'em and tell 'em.

[turboICE]

The cost of mods is unlimited though - it has been illustrated in instances where there is a deep pocket it will be reached into. This happens most often in the areas of vague rule language, whether being vague was intentional or not.

I have seen too many instances where affordable (including especially durable = affordable) full preparation have been bypassed in areas, where the performance effect is already permitted, to believe that the rules are currently being set within the philosophy of an affordable full preparation car. I don't buy that affordability is a significant function in the rule making process as written and maintained.

Remember that there is a group that believes durable does not equate to affordable but rather to improved performance because why would you increase the durability if your performance wasn't going to be improved.

Of course that goes back to what is performance. In the context of ITCS, I think performance should be defined in terms of consistent repeatable lap times - not in some much broader application such as durability. Some positions taken could even be translated to be that affordability is part of performance in that being more affordable is an increase in performance.

While I admit that I suffer from the same limitations in communicating actual thoughts as most, I do generally mean what I am writing and writing what I mean and it can be taken as such as long as it isn't read into. Reading into what I write may well result in taking my thoughts to be other than what they are. And when I read the ITCS and look at BoD actions I get no warm fuzzy feeling that the class is meant to result in cars that are affordable as fielded in full to the rules preparation. And definitely not the most affordable means to achieve full to the rules preparation. A much more affordable car with the same lap time performance could be fielded if the rules were written with affordability of full preparation in the purpose/intent/philosophy of the actual rules.

[lateapex911]

You guys are getting into a dangerous zone here, LOL.

There are some instances where the rules could be written in such a way as to produce a more economical result for some, but there are always things that seem like a good idea, but then are shown to be more....or less than expected.

It is my opinion that consideration to expense is given in the rules writing process, and that rules are crafted where possible to result in a "point of diminishing returns" manner. In other words, some rules are written that allow you to spend a gazillion dollars to go far beyond what most will do, but will only return 1/10th of a second in lap time. Yes, I am aware of the argument that in a popular class, there will be those who will take the option and spend the money, which forces others to, but it is very difficult to control spending in racing or nearly any competition. If the cost can be crafted to far outstrip the reward, then we are most of the weay there.

And look what happens when we try, LOL. Case in point: The suspension bushing/SB issue. A rule that existed for years, and about which reasonable men differed. So the CRB was asked: "What do you REALLY mean by this? Did you want SBs to be allowed?" And they said "Yes". So the rule gets a 'clarification', and then the mounting of the SBs is addressed. Again, the CRB decided that it was an easier and more affordable solution to allow simple tackwelds to retain the SBs, rather than requiring expensive 'cassettes' and other pricey solutions.

So, going in we had guys spending lots of money on machined delrin solutions, and making sleeves that are heat/chill contraction fits (guys like me) and spending lots of money to do so to meet the letter of the rule, when $30 SBs were available. And coming out, the solution is cheaper, faster and easier, and results in no incrreased performace on the track than what was had previously.

But......some very wise and bright observers have pointed to that rule change as the unraveling of the category, and a point in time from which nothing will be the same. A virtual opening of the Pandoras box.

So...point of all this? It's not as simple as it seems, and there is considerable disagreement as to the need for a solution.

[bldn10]

Ed, if I sometimes seem inconsistent it because I see, as apparently you do too, a difference between what the language and intent of the Rules seems to say and what Club Racing, the CRB, and some stewards and COAs say they say. If I have not made it clear before now, I believe that a lot of our problems go back to initial rule drafting and then subsequent tampering w/ and faulty interpretation of them by the aforementioned. There has not been a firm policy of drafting and interpreting consistently w/ the class philosophy. It is easy to point out numerous anamolous situations, but I think they are for the most part the result of ad hoc rule changes and interpretations that strayed from the class philosophy. "Low cost" always has to be viewed in the context of the class philosophy so there will indeed be instances where a lower cost mod will not be allowed because it will be deemed inconsistent w/ class philosophy. That is the anti-technology factor I mentioned before and a perfect example of the affordability - technology tension. There is a balancing and sometimes the result will not come out as some people prefer. As I have said before, the premise of opening up the rules to make all cars faster across the board has no place in IT. It is natural for us to want that but, again, it is up to mother SCCA to save us from our baser instincts. What I am saying is that an argument that X mod should be allowed because it is cheaper than Y mod, which is already legal, is not necessarilly valid if X is deemed a more exotic mod that is not in keeping w/ the "limited modifications" aspect of the class philosophy.

"A rule that existed for years, and about which reasonable men differed. So the CRB was asked: "What do you REALLY mean by this? Did you want SBs to be allowed?" And they said "Yes". So the rule gets a 'clarification',"

Actually, even though I wasn't there, I don't think that is how it went down. I don't think they were asked what the rule was originally intended to mean [although they should have] - I think they were simply asked, or they asked themselves, whether we now want SBs to be legal or not. We know the answer. It was done in the guise of a Technical Bulletin so it could be effective immediately rather than as a substantive rule change, which goes out for comment w/ a delayed effective date. To be a TB it had to be a "clarification" rather than an outright change. FWIW because I think SBs were never legal, and the TB in fact actually changed a defininition in the Glossary, I don't like the way this was done. It sets (or perpetuates) a dangerous precedent that substantive rules changes can be made overnight w/o notice if cloaked as a "clarification."

[lateapex911]

Actually, even though I wasn't there, I don't think that is how it went down. I don't think they were asked what the rule was originally intended to mean [although they should have] - I think they were simply asked, or they asked themselves, whether we now want SBs to be legal or not. We know the answer. [/b]

I was there. If you, as a lawyer put me on the stand as a witness, and asked, was the CRB asked if they intended the SBs to be legal when the original rule was drafted, my answer would be affirmative.

You will have to ask the CRB whether they are truthful in their response.

The net net on it is this though:
before the 'clarification' I spent big money in a high tech manner to acheive a result. legally. to the conservative reading of the rule.

after the 'clarification' I am spending less and taking less time to acheive the same result.

The class has not gotten faster across the board as a result.

The mod is easier.

I understand your distrust of the process, and I can not say whether the CRB was less than truthful in my dealing with them, you will need to determine that fact for yourself.

[turboICE]

Bill, I think we are mostly in agreement about what should be and what is, certianly more so than in disagreement.

[ddewhurst]

***FWIW because I think SBs were never legal, and the TB in fact actually changed a defininition in the Glossary, I don't like the way this was done. It sets (or perpetuates) a dangerous precedent that substantive rules changes can be made overnight w/o notice if cloaked as a "clarification."***

Thank you Bill ^, I had typed up a similar post & then deleated it because mostly the only people posting are the I TOLD YA SO types.


***I was there.***

Jake, does that "I was there" mean you heard the the originator/orginators of the rule speaking or did you year a dribble down conversation ?



I could post a thread about what I beleive the rules would call illegal side hoops within ITA & Spec Miata cars. I also would argue that if enough of these side hoops were protested the CRB would make the illegal side hoops legal with one swift stroke of their Technical Bulletin pen.

This S.B. rule response is the same rules responses that has been going on in Production for years. If ya think I am wrong go ask someone who has been around since the 60's. That person will tell ya that is exactly what got Production where they are today.

[lateapex911]

***I was there.***

Jake, does that "I was there" mean you heard the the originator/orginators of the rule speaking or did you year a dribble down conversation ?

[/b]

"I was there. If you, as a lawyer put me on the stand as a witness, and asked, was the CRB asked if they intended the SBs to be legal when the original rule was drafted, my answer would be affirmative."

That statement refers to a con call with two CRB reps.

Is that clear?

[bldn10]

"If you, as a lawyer put me on the stand as a witness, and asked, was the CRB asked if they intended the SBs to be legal when the original rule was drafted, my answer would be affirmative."

And you would be a competent witness since you have first hand knowledge of the question being asked. But if each current member of the CRB was put on the stand and asked that question, I would object on the grounds of lack of foundation. I.e. they first have to demonstrate that they have first hand knowledge of the initial drafting of the rule. Because, I stated in another post, unless the membership of this CRB is substantially the same as the one that was responsible for the rule to start w/, they are no more competent and have no more authority to say what the original intent was than do I or anyone else here.

"You will have to ask the CRB whether they are truthful in their response."

I have no reason to doubt that they were not truthful in their opinions on the SB issue - but again, unless they were there when the rule was drafted, their opinion and "understanding" is all they can give. And those opinions and understandings were undoubtedly influenced by what I think was an erroneous interpretation by the staff as well as the water-under-bridge" or genie-out-of-the-bottle factors. Those members of the CRB who were not in on the initial drafting should have answered, "I will have to recuse myself because I was not there."

"The net net on it is this though: before the 'clarification' I spent big money in a high tech manner to acheive a result. legally. to the conservative reading of the rule. after the 'clarification' I am spending less and taking less time to acheive the same result."

I'm not sure what you mean by "conservative reading of the rule" but if you mean that using SBs was a conservative or safe reading of the bushing rule, I obviously disagree. But, since you are evidently saying that the "clarification" is saving you money, let me ask you this: are you spending more or less on SBs than you would have on the simple substitution of urethane or Delrin or whatever material bushings for the stock ones? I suspect you are paying more. A truly conservative (and IMO correct) interpretation of the rule would have saved you more. Now your car might not handle as good, but that is another issue and is perhaps justification for changing the rule, but it is not justification for strained interpretation of the rule.

[lateapex911]

Bill, good points, and what a refreshing change for the sling-fest in the BMW section, LOL

Yes, we are at the mercy of the lack of direct connections to the original ruling, and of course I can not state what caused the CRB members to respond as they did.

Now, regarding the effect on my car. A conservative approach in the "PC" days, (Pre Clarification, ;) ) would have been to use delrin, for example, and to machine it into parts that nest and capture themselves that can emulate the actions and functions of a SB. It is of course, a bit tricky, and time consuming, but it isn't impossible. The result is that the SBs performance characteristics are mimic'ed very closely. Now, post PC, I can just buy a $30 off the shelf part and go to work.

Thanks for your thoughts.

[ddewhurst]

***Yes, we are at the mercy of the lack of direct connections to the original ruling, and of course I can not state what caused the CRB members to respond as they did.***

Jake, thank you, the above statement is CLEAR. That above ^ is answering a question with what I believe is a fact. The above ^ fact response is my expectation of ALL ITAC, CRB & BoD members.