STUPID RULES

[dj10]

Everyone has some pet peeves about rules in racing. I'd like to see a list of the rules and racing phrases like "rule creep", that really blows your SKIRTS UP! No matter what organization it might be with, I'd like to see and read them. Maybe we can get them to the Late Show since Letterman is a race team owner. This is a good way to get some of this in the open and off your chest's. Ya never know, maybe we can fix some of them. I guess common sense doesn't always prevail.

From me:

Windshield washer bottles. WHO THE F&*( ever heard of a real RACECAR that had to have one of these??!!

Here's one, @ NASA runoffs last year, they had people checking to see if you had nomex socks on!!!!!! HAS ANYONE EVER HEARD OF SOME DYING FROM BURNT FEET? Next they'll have some sticking their heads down the drivers suit to see if they have nomex under wear on. :happy204:

[JohnRW]

Here's one, @ NASA runoffs last year, they had people checking to see if you had nomex socks on!!!!!! [/b]

You've never done an SCCA race at Lime Rock, have you ?

[charrbq]

I used to work grid with a woman who pulled just that stunt. It was a long time ago when double layered suits weren't the vogue. She had a couple of drivers that had continuously been a$$holes (long story). Just before the 5 minute warning she had tech announce that there would be an underwear check for all drivers. Everyone complained but complied immediately except for the two offensive drivers. They left the grid and had to get redressed before the one minute warning. They didn't make it, but they never gave her trouble again.

As to the socks, when working grid, one of my people noticed that a fairly young driver of an SM was standing and chatting with the other drivers and was wearing a pretty worn out pair of mesh top athletic shoes with "gym" socks. I had to confront the driver about his gear. His father, standing nearby, jumped down my throat with both feet and told me that it was perfectly safe and that he always drove that way. I politely told him that he wasn't going out on the course until completely dressed appropriately. Much fussing and cursing proceeded on dad's part. Both retreated to the race gear dealer and purchased the proper equipment. Since it was practice, little time was lost.
The boy's father latter apologized to me for being nasty. He said he was only trying to safe money as the kid was growing in sizes daily.

As for checking socks on a driver in a car...I've got too much to do before releasing drivers onto the track. If tech has a bunch of spare people (I doubt it) they can check them. As for their need, yes, they're needed. If you've ever seen a burn patient (from even the smallest burn) going through rehab, you'd agree. However, I hate wearing them while driving. I don't see how they work as they are so thin, but that's not my call.

Pet peeves.... Why, if you have an exposed filler pipe for the fuel, do you have to cover it? The neck, the filler, the vent, and the tank are all of the same guage metal. Yet it has to be covered with either a thin piece of metal, or the stock plastic (i.e. flammable) interior panel. Makes little sense in terms of safety.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Pet peeves.... Why, if you have an exposed filler pipe for the fuel, do you have to cover it? The neck, the filler, the vent, and the tank are all of the same guage metal. Yet it has to be covered with either a thin piece of metal, or the stock plastic (i.e. flammable) interior panel. Makes little sense in terms of safety. [/b]

I didn't remember this and a quick scan of the GCR has me wondering what rule you are talking about.

[dj10]

I used to work grid with a woman who pulled just that stunt. It was a long time ago when double layered suits weren't the vogue. She had a couple of drivers that had continuously been a$$holes (long story). Just before the 5 minute warning she had tech announce that there would be an underwear check for all drivers. Everyone complained but complied immediately except for the two offensive drivers. They left the grid and had to get redressed before the one minute warning. They didn't make it, but they never gave her trouble again.

As to the socks, when working grid, one of my people noticed that a fairly young driver of an SM was standing and chatting with the other drivers and was wearing a pretty worn out pair of mesh top athletic shoes with "gym" socks. I had to confront the driver about his gear. His father, standing nearby, jumped down my throat with both feet and told me that it was perfectly safe and that he always drove that way. I politely told him that he wasn't going out on the course until completely dressed appropriately. Much fussing and cursing proceeded on dad's part. Both retreated to the race gear dealer and purchased the proper equipment. Since it was practice, little time was lost.
The boy's father latter apologized to me for being nasty. He said he was only trying to safe money as the kid was growing in sizes daily.

As for checking socks on a driver in a car...I've got too much to do before releasing drivers onto the track. If tech has a bunch of spare people (I doubt it) they can check them. As for their need, yes, they're needed. If you've ever seen a burn patient (from even the smallest burn) going through rehab, you'd agree. However, I hate wearing them while driving. I don't see how they work as they are so thin, but that's not my call.

Pet peeves.... Why, if you have an exposed filler pipe for the fuel, do you have to cover it? The neck, the filler, the vent, and the tank are all of the same guage metal. Yet it has to be covered with either a thin piece of metal, or the stock plastic (i.e. flammable) interior panel. Makes little sense in terms of safety. [/b]



Thank you, this is great stuff, keep them coming!! :D And no I haven't or will I ever race Lime Rock Park since you will get bitched at for farting to loudly and only on Sundays. :birra:

As for burns, I've had and seen my share. The ironic part is that no one in racing has ever died from burnt feet and this is my only point.






I didn't remember this and a quick scan of the GCR has me wondering what rule you are talking about.

[/b]



Andy, I'm just trying to let everyone vent alittle. I want to keep the humor in this, a lot of these could lead to some good stories. Do you have any? B)

[dickita15]

Ok I will play, a couple of years ago at the Glen we had one of those races where we spent a lot of time behind the Pace Car. 3 laps of green and the 5 very slow laps of full course yellow, 2 laps of green and then yellow again for 3 or 4 laps. I was hot there was no air moving and the rotary puts out some heat. After we took the checker I took of my gloves. I spent years flagging and always wave to the workers. By about half way around the cool off lap the flaggers were all yelling at me to put my gloves back on. I kept waving. Sure enough I was pulled over in the pits and scolded by a steward for a few minutes. :018: Kept my helmet on and just nodded. I could not hear a word he was saying. B)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Vent away, but lets make them legit.

[Xian]

I didn't remember this and a quick scan of the GCR has me wondering what rule you are talking about.
[/b]
I think he's referring to this verbiage:

In any automobile where allowed removal of rear seats, upholstery, etc., creates an opening between the driver/passenger compartment and an exposed gas tank, fuel cell, or part thereof, a metal bulkhead which completely fills such opening shall be installed (See GCR 9.3.26.1.)

This is from 9.1.3 E in the IT portion of the GCR. In Civic/CRX's the removal of the interior panels or rear seats causes the fuel filler neck to become "exposed"...

Christian

[jackedrabbit]

Maybe not stupid,but I don't really understand the reasoning behind not being able to remove heater hoses or the heater core,while being able to block them.

[its66]

Unless you have NASCAR bars protruding into your doors, you are required to keep your windows, and keep them functional, but you aren't allowed to use them. hhmmm..

[dj10]

Ok I will play, a couple of years ago at the Glen we had one of those races where we spent a lot of time behind the Pace Car. 3 laps of green and the 5 very slow laps of full course yellow, 2 laps of green and then yellow again for 3 or 4 laps. I was hot there was no air moving and the rotary puts out some heat. After we took the checker I took of my gloves. I spent years flagging and always wave to the workers. By about half way around the cool off lap the flaggers were all yelling at me to put my gloves back on. I kept waving. Sure enough I was pulled over in the pits and scolded by a steward for a few minutes. :018: Kept my helmet on and just nodded. I could not hear a word he was saying. B)
[/b]



I've seen may Pro drivers do this as well as taking of helmets and hanging out open doors. I wondered if Hans Stuck ever got yelled at? :D Lesson: Don't wave to corner workers with gloves off. hehe




Maybe not stupid,but I don't really understand the reasoning behind not being able to remove heater hoses or the heater core,while being able to block them. [/b]



Hmm, makes you wonder??? :114:

[Ron Earp]

Must keep power steering functional if your car came with it? (And you can't backdate/change because all of "your car" had a power steering pump)

But in SM they can be disabled and SM is "supposed" to be more limited prep than IT.....

R

[dj10]

Unless you have NASCAR bars protruding into your doors, you are required to keep your windows, and keep them functional, but you aren't allowed to use them. hhmmm.. [/b]

Yea, why DO they have to be functional?




Must keep power steering functional if your car came with it? (And you can't backdate/change because all of "your car" had a power steering pump)

But in SM they can be disabled and SM is "supposed" to be more limited prep than IT.....

R [/b]

Interesting!

BTW Ron, I love the guys kicking each other off the cliff.

[Greg Amy]

Why, if you have an exposed filler pipe for the fuel, do you have to cover it?[/b]

Infrared radiation. While thin sheet metal may not be able to stop a propagating flame for long, it will do a damn fine job of blocking radiating heat from melting the fuel lines...

Try taking a thinnest piece of sheet metal and putting it in front of your face while you stand next to a campfire and you'll see what I mean.

[JohnRW]

I've seen may Pro drivers do this as well as taking of helmets and hanging out open doors. I wondered if Hans Stuck ever got yelled at? [/b]

Yup...WGI in the late 80's...IMSA race...they got all wiggy about it...it was the beginning of the 'dark period' at WGI. But...he had a pretty good 'yodel' on the podium.

[dj10]

Infrared radiation. While thin sheet metal may not be able to stop a propagating flame for long, it will do a damn fine job of blocking radiating heat from melting the fuel lines...

Try taking a thinnest piece of sheet metal and putting it in front of your face while you stand next to a campfire and you'll see what I mean. [/b]



So in essence, your saying two layers of sheet metal or other materials are what they want for addition safety? Why would they want to use a material such as plastic which would only contribute as an additional fuel for the fire?

[lateapex911]

At Watkins Glen, you pull off disabled and stop. The whole course goes yellow, while the tow truck trundles out to pull the car. You pull off your helmet, and then jump in the tow truck for a ride. Nope...no riding unless fully dressed...put that helmet back on you raidical enemy of all things safe.

Yup, ole Bubba is in a T-shirt and jeans, but YOU have to be fully kitted up.

Most uptight place I've been to.....

[dj10]

Yup...WGI in the late 80's...IMSA race...they got all wiggy about it...it was the beginning of the 'dark period' at WGI. But...he had a pretty good 'yodel' on the podium. [/b]

But it never stopped him. :026:




At Watkins Glen, you pull off disabled and stop. The whole course goes yellow, while the tow truck trundles out to pull the car. You pull off your helmet, and then jump in the tow truck for a ride. Nope...no riding unless fully dressed...put that helmet back on you raidical enemy of all things safe.

Yup, ole Bubba is in a T-shirt and jeans, but YOU have to be fully kitted up.

Most uptight place I've been to.....
[/b]

Same way in NASA, they'll fine you $50.00 if you aren't fully dressed. :D

[Off Camber]

IT Rules. 9-a
The Drivers seat only my be replaced by a race seat.

So you can leave the original passenger seat in but you cant replace it with a race seat. :bash_1_: :dead_horse:

[MMiskoe]

Washer bottles - well actually I've now taken the time on two cars to hook them up & make them work. Very necessary when driving in crappy weather & everyone keeps going off & coming back on track w/ mud.

And yes, NER can ask for some odd things - we had to surrender our helmets after qualifying this summer, to get them back we had to bring our factory manuals. I think there was one RX7 manual that got brought into the tech shed about 9 times, guys just waited outside the door for their turn with it.

But here you go with some of my favorites:

Why can't we have jack pads? How many cars have you seen w/ big crunch marks on the underside from jacks? Its not like a jack point really adds "competitive advantage", it just keeps the car from getting beat up, or falling on your head.

Why can't we put a vent window in the rear window? No, lets mount the thing in the front window where it either is less effective or blocks our view (or both).

So you can't have anything lower than the wheel rim - except the exhaust. First, why is the exhaust exempt? Second, w/ a 50 series tire (or 45) if its that low, its going to get ripped off and land in the track.

You can run any kind of radiator and engine oil cooler, any kind of diff set up (in the stock pumpkin). Why not a diff cooler?

Fuel testing.... Well, I'll be polite and leave that one alone. I think every knows why the rule got created, but it didn't get very well thought out before being implemented such that nothing that will burn in the car will actually pass. There's no good solution on that one.


Matt

[Andy Bettencourt]

Must keep power steering functional if your car came with it? (And you can't backdate/change because all of "your car" had a power steering pump)

But in SM they can be disabled and SM is "supposed" to be more limited prep than IT.....

R [/b]

Some of these are funny. In SM you are allowed to update backdate to the non-power rack - just like in IT. The only difference is the 'conversion allowance' - but it's still like IT in that there were cars with manual racks, so it's potato/potahto.

[Joe Harlan]

E. Face coverings (balaclavas) of accepted fire resistant material for drivers with beards or mustaches. Hair protruding from beneath a driver’s helmet shall be completely covered by fire resistant material. As an alternative to balaclavas, a full helmet skirt of accepted fire resistant material may be used. Double-layer balaclavas are recommended. If balaclavas are used voluntarily, they shall be of accepted fire resistant material.[/b]

So if you have a baby face you don't have to worry about burns? No head sock required but you better have them on your feet.

[dj10]

Washer bottles - well actually I've now taken the time on two cars to hook them up & make them work. Very necessary when driving in crappy weather & everyone keeps going off & coming back on track w/ mud.

And yes, NER can ask for some odd things - we had to surrender our helmets after qualifying this summer, to get them back we had to bring our factory manuals. I think there was one RX7 manual that got brought into the tech shed about 9 times, guys just waited outside the door for their turn with it.

But here you go with some of my favorites:

Why can't we have jack pads? How many cars have you seen w/ big crunch marks on the underside from jacks? Its not like a jack point really adds "competitive advantage", it just keeps the car from getting beat up, or falling on your head.

Why can't we put a vent window in the rear window? No, lets mount the thing in the front window where it either is less effective or blocks our view (or both).

So you can't have anything lower than the wheel rim - except the exhaust. First, why is the exhaust exempt? Second, w/ a 50 series tire (or 45) if its that low, its going to get ripped off and land in the track.

You can run any kind of radiator and engine oil cooler, any kind of diff set up (in the stock pumpkin). Why not a diff cooler?

Fuel testing.... Well, I'll be polite and leave that one alone. I think every knows why the rule got created, but it didn't get very well thought out before being implemented such that nothing that will burn in the car will actually pass. There's no good solution on that one.


Matt

[/b]

I like the one's about the diff cooler & exhaust!! :114:






So if you have a baby face you don't have to worry about burns? No head sock required but you better have them on your feet. [/b]



This is good too. :P Some of these make no sense at all LOL!

Keep up the good work guys is is some funny S%#@!!

[zracre]

the fact that there is a difference with stock cams vs. "stock" cams. And the fact that we have such open rules and self policing. I just got back from a roundy round race in orlando where I crewed and did a pit stop (on the front straight!) and watched them tear down the top 3 to the block.

the biggest question I am always asked...so you race cars? cool how much do you win....then the explanation of the piece of wood...

[BMW RACER]

Here's a good one. At Willow Springs I came into the pit lane after qualifying and stopped in the hot pits while my crew guy checked tire temps and pressures, while he was doing his thing I took my helmet and gloves off. I got guff from the tech guy when I pulled into impound for taking my helmet off! My crew guy doesn't have to wear a helmet when he's outside the car in the pitlane yet I do when I'm inside the car ?!?!

[Ron Earp]

Some of these are funny. In SM you are allowed to update backdate to the non-power rack - just like in IT. The only difference is the 'conversion allowance' - but it's still like IT in that there were cars with manual racks, so it's potato/potahto.
[/b]

Okay, I have a 4v 240sx and none of those had manual racks. Ron has a JH and no JHs had power steering. How come I can't use a manual rack, we both race in ITS?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Okay, I have a 4v 240sx and none of those had manual racks. Ron has a JH and no JHs had power steering. How come I can't use a manual rack, we both race in ITS? [/b] It's a SS based class.

Biggest pet peave: Drivers who "know" others are cheating and will only bitch and complain instead of policing their own patch. Grow a pair or STFU. Rule issue? I would love to see an open hood/trunk policy in impound like in Solo.

[JoshS]

It's a SS based class.

Biggest pet peave: Drivers who "know" others are cheating and will only bitch and complain instead of policing their own patch. Grow a pair or STFU. Rule issue? I would love to see an open hood/trunk policy in impound like in Solo.
[/b]
I have the same pet peeve. On the open hood/trunk policy, I wrote a letter to that effect earlier this year (and including pulling a wheel off too), and was pleased to see the request for member input on that in the latest fastrack. So everyone, write your letters! I don't see how we're supposed to self-police without being able to see anyone else's equipment, so I'd really like to see this happen. As you say, it has worked great forever in Solo.

[Hotshoe]

Well,

.... I think we should be able to relocate the battery. I don't think that the design of some of these cars that we modify into racers make "Safe" sense.

.... Take for instance the new Miata. The Battery is setting right in front of the engine ....... Duh

.... A set standard (like a certain box mounted a specific way) makes better sense. I have seen batteries on the track ...... Now is that safe????

.... And that Washer Bottle....... Let's get a grip ...... lol Can you imagine what Newbs think .....

.... Should I throw in Port matching for Rotories? ........ Whah


.... Rick Thompson

[JoshS]

.... And that Washer Bottle....... Let's get a grip ...... lol Can you imagine what Newbs think .....
[/b]

I just don't see that as an issue for "newbs." More often than not, a newb either buys/rents a built car, or builds his own by starting with a street car (i.e., it already has a washer bottle, so it's not hard to keep it.) Besides, they really are useful ... I always keep some fluid in mine just in case I get mud thrown up, and I have used it more than a couple of times.

As I go through my current build, the only rules that strike me as silly are:
- Can't remove amps/speakers/antennas, but the rest of the interior gets to go
- Tremendous amount of wiring required for things that are removed
- Can't remove emissions stuff except for a few explicit items (EGR, cats)
- No guidelines for window nets. Doesn't even explain what it's for. Could have a VERY small one and it would be legal. (Seriously, does anyone know how to pick the right size net?)

But generally speaking, I think the IT ruleset is pretty great!

[Chris F]

No lightened flywheel? In a racecar? Blasphemy!

Hi, I'm Chris, and I don't have an IT-legal car... Is there a troll smiley icon in here?

[Joe Harlan]

SFI seat belts= 2years
FIA belts = 5 years?
Belts by the same manufacture but different labels? do they just make them better in the land of FIA?

As far as PS VS None PS goes the issue is the car was classed with the power steering pump as a consideration...Most Japanese pumps use 7 to 9 HP on the dyno.....

[RSTPerformance]

The lack of an impoound ALL and open hoods/doors/trunck etc. rule after each session...

How can we "self police" things if we never see the cars other than when we are lapping them on the track? :biggrinsanta:

Raymond

[JLawton]

I hope you guys realize that Kirk's blood pressure has gone up 40 points because of this discussion!!

[Ron Earp]

No, he's doing fine. There is a new Kirk on the block and he's turned in his rules nerd card - saw it myself!

:biggrinsanta:

R

[dj10]

I hope you guys realize that Kirk's blood pressure has gone up 40 points because of this discussion!! [/b]



ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!! :OLA:



These are with out a doubt some of the greatest posts I've ever seen. I would never have guessed we had so many comedians. :biggrinsanta:


Why in NASA do you have to replace the window net every 2 years? Maybe they have more exhaust pipes going through their window nets than SCCA does?

[Knestis]

Seriously - you crazy kids go for it. I'm AOK.

So far, Joe's the only one who's found rules that actually rise to the level of "stoopid" in my book - the balaclava and SFI label dumbness. We have collectively been lulled into a happy place where fire protection is required only because it's a rule, not because anyone really expects to catch on fire. And SFI is a trade organization - nothing more.

Add to that list the complete lack of any requirement for eye protection. That's a stupid rule.

The rest are simply manifestations of our individual fantasies about what a "real race car" is supposed to look like.

(He said, with appropriate academic detachment because from here on out, IT is one more case study in creep that he expects to support his existing hypotheses about influences causing road racing classes to wither and die.)

K

[planet6racing]

Can this discussion be the last involving washer bottles? I mean, seriously, there are people up in arms over a 1 pound plastic container that no rule in the ITCS or GCR says you can remove? Accept it and move on, geez...

My biggest pet peave: people who don't read/know the GCR. I'm not saying you have to love every rule, but at least know them. I'm especially hard on my students when they take their GCR quiz. Most of them don't even know where in the GCR to look!!

[Doc Bro]

Okay So I've got to add it just because stirring the pot is fun and it's soooooo beaten to death....here goes....

You can have a totally aftermarket ECU but it must fit in the stock case....

There I did it...

FLAME AWAY!!!


:D

R

[its66]

Okay So I've got to add it just because stirring the pot is fun and it's soooooo beaten to death....here goes....

You can have a totally aftermarket ECU but it must fit in the stock case....

There I did it...

FLAME AWAY!!!
:D

R
[/b]

:happy204: :happy204: :happy204:

[ddewhurst]

How about we fast forward eliminating the IT class. Why wait for RULES CREEP to take over by year 2030 making IT & Production cars the same let's open the rules today by cassing all IT cars in Production & you people will have just what your looking for. Hmmmm...... or will you.

Ron don't like my Have Fun ;) therefore how about,

Hapy Holidays :biggrinsanta:

David

[Z3_GoCar]

How about we fast forward eliminating the IT class. Why wait for RULES CREEP to take over by year 2030 making IT & Production cars the same let's open the rules today by cassing all IT cars in Production & you people will have just what your looking for. Hmmmm...... or will you.

Ron don't like my Have Fun ;) therefore how about,

Hapy Holidays :biggrinsanta:

David
[/b]

Before that happens, we'd have to make those crazy Prod guys put their windshields back on their roadsters and get them off of racing slicks and on to DOT rubber :lol:

I'm turning a new leaf, no more complaining about the rules, no matter how crazy they might be. They are what they are, I'm just glad to not have to deal with NASCAR type rules that it depends on who you are, if they do or don't apply to you. I'll just figure out where I fit based on how much I can spend to get legal.

James

[bldn10]

My No. 1 pet peeve - we a have rule that is fairly clear and then someone in Topeka says it says something totally different.
No. 2 - many if not most drivers agree w/ it, not because it makes sense, but because it benefits them.

Really, most of these seemingly stupid rules are quite logical when you read them in the context of the class philosophy. Note these terms in the ITCS: "low cost cars," "limited modifications," "restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car," "inexpensive cars." The gist is that IT is a stock-based class and the default rule is that they stay stock except as "useful and necessary" to make a safe and decent car for racing. I.e. they remain primarily stock cars - they are not intended to be, as someone mentioned, "real race cars." They have washer bottles simply because they came w/ washer bottles and there is no compelling reason why they should be removed. Many of the exceptions have been necessary to level the playing field among different cars. The issues more and more people are having w/ the rules really have more to do w/ the underlying philosophy than the rules themselves. Now, sure, you can start pointing to one rule and say that if that is allowed then this other mod should be allowed, but most of those are themselves failures to keep the rules w/i the philosophy. That's what drives rules creep. At some point we either have to change our attitude, change the philosophy, or change classes.

That said, I sure would like jack plates/points.

[shwah]

Okay So I've got to add it just because stirring the pot is fun and it's soooooo beaten to death....here goes....

You can have a totally aftermarket ECU but it must fit in the stock case....

There I did it...

FLAME AWAY!!!
:D

R
[/b]

Yeah. Allowing a totally different ECU is one of the more stupid rules in my opinion also. :P

[dj10]

Really, most of these seemingly stupid rules are quite logical when you read them in the context of the class philosophy. Note these terms in the ITCS: "low cost cars," "limited modifications," "restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car," "inexpensive cars." The gist is that IT is a stock-based class and the default rule is that they stay stock except as "useful and necessary" to make a safe and decent car for racing. I.e. they remain primarily stock cars - they are not intended to be, as someone mentioned, "real race cars." They have washer bottles simply because they came w/ washer bottles and there is no compelling reason why they should be removed.
That said, I sure would like jack plates/points. [/b]

Bill, hehe, now your blowing smoke up my skirt.

You state that "restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car," but then say, they are not intended to be, as someone mentioned, "real race cars." Which was me that said that.

1. My washer bottle would never function because of all the shit that flys up on my sand blasted windshield would never mix with washer solvent or water! Use you washer bottle after someone blows synthetic oil on your windshield.

2. My not a real race car is illegal for the street and I can only run it on enclosed courses so whether you like it or not, it's a race car.

3. The Moroso oil catch tank was in it's place when I bought the damn car and it weights a hell of a lot more than the windshield bottle, thus I'm penalizing myself with the weight difference.

4. The oil catch tank is much more functional and more of a safety item the the washer bottle ever will be or ever was.

5. My car came with a lot of shit like seats passanger, rear seats and a hell of a lot more that I was allowed to remove and your going to tell me I have to keep the washer bottle because the car came with it!!!!!!!!??????????

6. Windshield washer bottles and jack plates and common sense items! One should be done away with and the other you should have. :snow_cool:



For one and for all, if you need jack plates, put them on and tell them Dan said it was OK. :cavallo:

[Greg Amy]

To paraphrase Adrian Cronauer: you guys are more in need of a race season to start than anyone in history...

[planet6racing]

Bill, hehe, now your blowing smoke up my skirt.

You state that "restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car," but then say, they are not intended to be, as someone mentioned, "real race cars." Which was me that said that.

1. My washer bottle would never function because of all the shit that flys up on my sand blasted windshield would never mix with washer solvent or water! Use you washer bottle after someone blows synthetic oil on your windshield.

2. My not a real race car is illegal for the street and I can only run it on enclosed courses so whether you like it or not, it's a race car.

3. The Moroso oil catch tank was in it's place when I bought the damn car and it weights a hell of a lot more than the windshield bottle, thus I'm penalizing myself with the weight difference.

4. The oil catch tank is much more functional and more of a safety item the the washer bottle ever will be or ever was.

5. My car came with a lot of shit like seats passanger, rear seats and a hell of a lot more that I was allowed to remove and your going to tell me I have to keep the washer bottle because the car came with it!!!!!!!!??????????

6. Windshield washer bottles and jack plates and common sense items! One should be done away with and the other you should have. :snow_cool:



[/b]

Have you written a letter to the CRB asking for a rule change regarding the washer bottle?

[Joe Harlan]

Seriously - you crazy kids go for it. I'm AOK.

So far, Joe's the only one who's found rules that actually rise to the level of "stoopid" in my book - the balaclava and SFI label dumbness. We have collectively been lulled into a happy place where fire protection is required only because it's a rule, not because anyone really expects to catch on fire. And SFI is a trade organization - nothing more.

Add to that list the complete lack of any requirement for eye protection. That's a stupid rule.

The rest are simply manifestations of our individual fantasies about what a "real race car" is supposed to look like.

(He said, with appropriate academic detachment because from here on out, IT is one more case study in creep that he expects to support his existing hypotheses about influences causing road racing classes to wither and die.)

K
[/b]

What do I win?

cause I have more? Why allow cars without fuelcells and with full carpet...(ss/touring) have a hand held fire extingisher and reqiure a full system in a GT1 car?

Cages....bolt in for SS/IT and the weld in full tilt boogie cage required for prod....Most IT/SS cars weigh more and are more likely to actally use the cage.

Why not have safety rules for the club instead of the class.

[charrbq]

I think he's referring to this verbiage:

In any automobile where allowed removal of rear seats, upholstery, etc., creates an opening between the driver/passenger compartment and an exposed gas tank, fuel cell, or part thereof, a metal bulkhead which completely fills such opening shall be installed (See GCR 9.3.26.1.)

This is from 9.1.3 E in the IT portion of the GCR. In Civic/CRX's the removal of the interior panels or rear seats causes the fuel filler neck to become "exposed"...

Christian
[/b]
That's the one. Andy probably didn't notice it when he was penciling in his personal corrections.

[dj10]

Have you written a letter to the CRB asking for a rule change regarding the washer bottle? [/b]

Bill, in all honesty I have not. I was really hoping that common sense would prevail and that someone in the CRB would look at the waterbottle issue and just take out his or her's eraser........and that would be the end of it. The ECU rule was worth typing a letter. The waterbottle issue so so abstract from reality that no one in their right mind would ever consider to DQ or protest a racer for not having one. :114:

[charrbq]

Infrared radiation. While thin sheet metal may not be able to stop a propagating flame for long, it will do a damn fine job of blocking radiating heat from melting the fuel lines...

Try taking a thinnest piece of sheet metal and putting it in front of your face while you stand next to a campfire and you'll see what I mean.
[/b]
I agree, but there are no exposed fuel lines, only the filler pipe for the tank. I agree the metal would help, but the rule allows for me to keep the plastic side panel in its place to shield the filler pipe. I suppose it has some value, but I wouldn't want to rely on it, just abide by it.

[dickita15]

Why allow cars without fuelcells and with full carpet...(ss/touring) have a hand held fire extingisher and reqiure a full system in a GT1 car?

[/b]
that one is easy, because more fires are caused by poorly constructed plumbing to fuel cell than by a factory installation.

[Joe Harlan]

that one is easy, because more fires are caused by poorly constructed plumbing to fuel cell than by a factory installation.
[/b]Bingo, so rather that treat the flu they check your prostrate!

Also if you go by that reasoning the fire system would be required as soon as you install an optional cell in an IT car?

[Andy Bettencourt]

That's the one. Andy probably didn't notice it when he was penciling in his personal corrections. [/b]

What does 'presonal corrections' mean?

[greendot]

The guaranteed question while filling the tow vehicle.
How fast does it go? (Obviously a race car since it's on an open trailer).

My standard answer: It depends how long the straight is.

Response: deer in the headlights look. :D

[bldn10]

" My washer bottle would never function because of all the shit that flys up on my sand blasted windshield would never mix with washer solvent or water! Use you washer bottle after someone blows synthetic oil on your windshield."

Dan, you must have missed my point. Keeping the washer bottle has absolutely NOTHING to do w/ whether it has any function in an IT car. It is there solely because the car came w/ it and there is no rule saying you can remove it. There is no rule because it is certainly not necessary, nor perhaps even useful, to remove it in order to have a car suitable for racing.

All I am saying is that, rather than come up w/ B.S. reasons to deviate from the class philosophy over and over and item by item, just change the philosophy to fit what the will of the IT community is and let's get on w/ it.

[lateapex911]

I have no problem with dumb rules. I mean, I really don't care about the fact that I don't have to go an move my battery to a "safer" position, or that I would have to replace my overflow...er washer bottle with some overpriced alum gidget...

But...

Here's the kind I hate. Safety rule changes masquerading as rules to make racing "safer" when they really just put more money in the SFI's (or others) pockets. Like the new swap your belts every two years BS, because we're afraid that some dude in Florida is going to leave his belts exposed in daily thundrestorms and sun for 4.9 years, then race the car, hit a wall, and sue the club becuase the belts were degraded, and incresed his injury level...

Grrrr................

[dj10]

" My washer bottle would never function because of all the shit that flys up on my sand blasted windshield would never mix with washer solvent or water! Use you washer bottle after someone blows synthetic oil on your windshield."

Dan, you must have missed my point. Keeping the washer bottle has absolutely NOTHING to do w/ whether it has any function in an IT car. It is there solely because the car came w/ it and there is no rule saying you can remove it. There is no rule because it is certainly not necessary, nor perhaps even useful, to remove it in order to have a car suitable for racing.

All I am saying is that, rather than come up w/ B.S. reasons to deviate from the class philosophy over and over and item by item, just change the philosophy to fit what the will of the IT community is and let's get on w/ it.
[/b]



Sorry Bill if I did miss your point. What I've been trying to say, in a cynical manner, is that these rules should have never been addressed in any way shape of form for the get go. And not allowing anyone jack points, or making you put a piece of flammable plastic over your filler neck and some of the other crazy and non practical rules (ECU rule also) are not worth the gun powder it would take to blow them up. :D



While I'm ranting here, I might as well bring up the "NON SPECTATOR EVENT" BS! If anyone hasen't noticed there are some people, in the neighborhood of 25 million people and probably more, that sometime frequent various race tracks in the hope of catching a good race and if their sick, a good crash, if any crash is good. If anyone from any race tracks or the SCCA head honchos might read this, I just mignt be possible to cash in on these "NON SPECTATOR EVENTS" and fatten their wallets in doing so!!!!! So when any ask us what do we win, instead of saying a hunk of wood, there might be a response like, we get some of expenses covered. Has anyone noticed the BS Speedvision TV has on this winter? Bobsled racing, old movie re-runs, what the hell does this have to do with Racecars??? If anyone had any insight at all, Grassroots Motorsports would be cashing in on this slow time with some great club racing, nationals as well as IT. They advertisers would be more willing to adverstise, headers, tires, oil, greases, etc, etc, etc. on these races than on an old movie that probably everyone has seen 100 times. Racing is entertaining and entertainment and until someone else that has more clout than me figures this out, all that $ is going to other places and everyone including us raceers will continue to lose out year after year.

[charrbq]

I agree with part of what you're saying. Particularly the part about Speed TV. I fear it's only a matter of time before the most of us lose faith in hoping for a German Touring Car race or such only to see another rerun of Death Race 2000 or such and give up on Speed. Then we will only have to read about F1 and such. I would hope that a sponsor wouldn't pay much for advertising some of the crap they have on there now.

I agree with the need for spectators at our races, but if you don't know what's going on, you don't appreciate the racing. With the exception of only a few nation wide events, multiple classes are running simultaneously. The guy winning his class in a fight for his life could be a lap down to the leader. To the average guy in the stands, he's just in the way.

I've been told, and this was a long time ago, that the insurance on a spectator event was triple that of a regular secret club race. I can only imagine that it's worse now. Major races such as NASCAR, Champ Car, F1, etc. have one class on the track. The guy that comes in first is the winner from the fan's point of view. These races cost tons to put on, the entry fee is outrageous, and the sponsors are fighting for a piece of the action...at least on NASCAR. It would be nice, but there are few regions that could afford to make it happen.

The last time I heard the price of an IRL entry at TMS was ten years ago, and that was over $1000. That would pretty much put me back into autocrossing.

[gsbaker]

Here's the kind I hate. Safety rule changes masquerading as rules to make racing "safer" when they really just put more money in the SFI's (or others) pockets. Like the new swap your belts every two years BS, because we're afraid that some dude in Florida is going to leave his belts exposed in daily thundrestorms and sun for 4.9 years, then race the car, hit a wall, and sue the club becuase the belts were degraded, and incresed his injury level...

Grrrr................
[/b]
You ain't seen nothing yet, Jake. SFI just had it's meeting at PRI here in Orlando. Prepare to reach for your wallet.

[dj10]

Here's the kind I hate. Safety rule changes masquerading as rules to make racing "safer" when they really just put more money in the SFI's (or others) pockets. Like the new swap your belts every two years BS, because we're afraid that some dude in Florida is going to leave his belts exposed in daily thundrestorms and sun for 4.9 years, then race the car, hit a wall, and sue the club becuase the belts were degraded, and incresed his injury level...

Grrrr................
[/b]



Jake :023:



Some years ago I ran a Pro WC race. !st time very nevrous about going thru tech inspection. To make a long, short. The SCCA Tech came by, I opened the door for him to inspect, he slapped a sticker on my windshield without even looking to see if I had belts in the car and walked away, my mouth was still open some 10 mins latter. Pro racing treats you as if you know what you are doing when you get to that level. Club racing techs treat you like you don't know what you are doing & children that got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. BTW I'm a firm beliver of natural selection! B)





You ain't seen nothing yet, Jake. SFI just had it's meeting at PRI here in Orlando. Prepare to reach for your wallet. [/b]

Care to elaborate on this?

[Hotshoe]

I have no problem with dumb rules. I mean, I really don't care about the fact that I don't have to go an move my battery to a "safer" position, or that I would have to replace my overflow...er washer bottle with some overpriced alum gidget...
[/b]

Thanks Jake for singling me out but, while your at it, tell me why they let us put in a fuel cell? Safety. Andy has told me that you always look " Big Picture" BS!

Don't whiz down my back and then tell me it's raining..........

We were asked for our opinion and I gave one. Then you have to conjure up some smart remark about what I said. What is your problem with me. Out of all the people on this forum YOU start more $hit than anyone. Well, I would prefer you take me off your list of people to piss off. And if I must , I will assist you.

Rick Thompson

[dj10]

Thanks Jake for singling me out but, while your at it, tell me why they let us put in a fuel cell? Safety. Andy has told me that you always look " Big Picture" BS!

Don't whiz down my back and then tell me it's raining..........

We were asked for our opinion and I gave one. Then you have to conjure up some smart remark about what I said. What is your problem with me. Out of all the people on this forum YOU start more $hit than anyone. Well, I would prefer you take me off your list of people to piss off. And if I must , I will assist you.

Rick Thompson
[/b]

Rick, chill out. Am I missing something? I didn't see any mention you or your name in Jake's posts. :114:

[Hotshoe]

Am I missing something?
[/b]


I wish I knew what the problem is. I guess you need to ask Jake. I only made my comments,(without making no remarks about anyone elses comments) concerning the topic of this discussion.

I didn't know that we were going to be scrutinized.

[gsbaker]

Care to elaborate on this?[/b]
Just rumor, but apparently the least expensive H&N restraint was written out of the spec, and a new seat spec was adopted.

[leggwork]

I can't find the text of SFI 16.1 since I'm not a part of the trade association, but in the FIA 8853 standard for belts, they don't specify any material requirements, or require any aging tests on the belts - they only test the new belts to a certain performance level, so who knows how the belts will perform at the end of 5 years or what they're basing the 5 year rule on? They test the belts at 20 degrees F. The air force puts a 13 year life on pilot harnesses using similar materials. I'm sure the SFI spec is equally insufficient.

And another good one for the future rules - many FIA or SFI belts break when they are put through the SFI 38.1 sled tests...

cheers,
bruce



SFI seat belts= 2years
FIA belts = 5 years?
Belts by the same manufacture but different labels? do they just make them better in the land of FIA?

As far as PS VS None PS goes the issue is the car was classed with the power steering pump as a consideration...Most Japanese pumps use 7 to 9 HP on the dyno.....
[/b]

[lateapex911]

Thanks Jake for singling me out but, while your at it, tell me why they let us put in a fuel cell? Safety. Andy has told me that you always look " Big Picture" BS!

Don't whiz down my back and then tell me it's raining..........

We were asked for our opinion and I gave one. Then you have to conjure up some smart remark about what I said. What is your problem with me. Out of all the people on this forum YOU start more $hit than anyone. Well, I would prefer you take me off your list of people to piss off. And if I must , I will assist you.

Rick Thompson
[/b]

Rick, first, I have NO problem with you...I have no list of people to piss off, and I only take umbrage with two or three posters here...one troll who loves to bring up the BMW issue, and another named Mattberg, who kind of ticks me off because he does nothing but whine and tell people who volunteer their time what self serving wastes they are. I DO take big issues with that, adn I'm not afraid to say so.

But you? Umm..no way.

My comments weren't aimed at anyone, actually. I skimmed the 3 pages of comments, and read a couple of "repeats"...items that have been discussed before. I can't tell you who said what, and my comments were purely trying to illustrate a point...that I'm more concerned about an organization that goes around trumping safety (SFI) and then our club, which buys into the recommendation of that organization, through the opinions of it's President, who interestingly enough, serves as a member of our 3 person safety commitee.

Thats the kind of rule that kind of irks me. It smacks of a conflict of interest, and seems self serving.

Washer bottles? Not on my radar, that's all.

Please Rick, I had NO idea you would take offense...I have the highest regard for you. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

[gprodracer]

Rick,

Jakes just jealous 'cause us Florida boys are still racing, while his car is in a garage somewhere snowed in for 3 more months. Us "Florida dudes" belts wear out quicker 'cause we race 11 months a year! :P

Its all good people, this is a good topic. I've always thought that we should be able to move the batteries to a safer location after having (and having seen many others) worker uniforms destroyed by acid during "incident" clean up. BTW, I wrote several letters to that effect during the 90's, but was denied because the IT cars back then were much more like street cars than they are now. Pete Keane and his brother used to drive their car to the track the first 2 years I knew them.

Is this topic just IT rules? Prod cars can have fiberglass fenders, hoods, trunklids, and bumpers, but must have metal doors...just the metal skin though..WTF?

We all have to play by the rules, but some are way funnier than others.

Carry on!

Mark

[Rabbit07]

How about the VIN in two locations?

What the hell is wrong with one VIN tag? :bash_1_:

If your car has been repaired a number of times there may only be the dash VIN left of the original car.

[Hotshoe]

Rick, first, I have NO problem with you...I had NO idea you would take offense....
[/b]

Jake,

.... Thank You for the clarification. Sometimes I get a little defensive.

.... The feelings of respect are mutual. And I apologize for jumping to conclusions. I guess I'm spending to much time on my Elliptical ..... lol

.... I just wish common sense could prevail in some circumstances.....don't you?? ... lol

.. Rick Thompson

[CaptainWho]

I've been told, and this was a long time ago, that the insurance on a spectator event was triple that of a regular secret club race.
[/b]

I surely don't have any first-hand information, but that would surprise me, mainly because all of the Atlanta Region races, at least at Road Atlanta, are spectator events. The entry fee is around $10 per day IIRC. I rarely see many spectators (numbers in the few dozens or less) but I can't imagine it would be enough at $10 each to cover a tripled insurance premium. Of course, I could be totally wrong. It's happened plenty of times before. :D

[leggwork]

if they sign the waiver, then they are not "spectators" in the insurance sense. Maybe that is what they were doing at RA.
cheers,
bruce



I surely don't have any first-hand information, but that would surprise me, mainly because all of the Atlanta Region races, at least at Road Atlanta, are spectator events. The entry fee is around $10 per day IIRC. I rarely see many spectators (numbers in the few dozens or less) but I can't imagine it would be enough at $10 each to cover a tripled insurance premium. Of course, I could be totally wrong. It's happened plenty of times before. :D
[/b]

[tom_sprecher]

SCCA spectator events at Road Atlanta are $15 and you do sigh a waiver. The insurance premium for spectators at any given race is 1/4 to 1/6 of that for paticipants, is a constant and really not all that much.

Insurance for the drivers must be based on anticipated particpation numbers as it is higher for Regional races than for Nationals.

Sorry to get off subject so to bring it back I say we tweek the the "class philosophy". If the Wicked Witch of the Rules Creep turns IT into Prod in 25 years so be it. Have we had the same classes and rule sets in SCCA since its inception? Don't think so.

Plus, if you find that you're no longer in Kansas all you have to do is click your heels three times and say "there's no place like SS".

Well, gotta run. Its a beautiful day and I need to put the IT class stickers on the carbon fiber body panels and decide what ratios I'm gonna run in the Hewland. ;)

[charrbq]

Appreciate the spectator/insurance update. As I said, it was a long time ago when I got my info. I'm glad to see someone else is running a carbon fiber body part. I'm having a helluva time finding a stock hood to replace the bent one on my Honda. I figured that I might as well get a head start on going national. Oh, wait, ITC is one of those classes that's not going to be allowed to go national, because it's a dying class. How soon I forget. That's good...now I can save all that money and time that it would take preparing a national car to the ever changing rules. But now I have to find a stock hood. Ever the bother!

[gprodracer]

Chris

:OLA:
:023: :023: :023:
:biggrinsanta: :biggrinsanta:
:lol: :lol:
:happy204:

B)

Mark

[Andy Bettencourt]

Mark and Chris, FWIW: The ITAC is trying to figure out ways to bolster ITB and ITC numbers. Heck - even Kirk asked in a couple forums for some new car classifications - poof - no responses.

Have any suggestions? Bueller? Bueller?

[Knestis]

I haven't received any emails in response to requests in the Toyota and Nissan forums, either - except for one asking if I thought the MR2 should be a B car.

To my mind, all this does is reinforce something that i already believe about the member request process for listing new cars.

** Prospective members don't know that the system exists, and just wonder why the car they are interested in isn't in the book.

** New members don't understand or are potentially intimidated by the process - a possibility not helped by the wacky crap asked for by the VTS forms (windshield angle??).

** Current entrants have little incentive (or an active DIS-incentive) to request that new cars be added to their class - there seems to be a reluctance among the majority of SCCA Club racers to do anything that doesn't put their own competitive interests first. Go figure.

** The exception to the previous hypothesis occurs when a fan of Brand X sees an alternative chassis aging into IT, and sees it as "better" than existing options (e.g., the newest legal generation of Integra in A, new BMW 323 in S).

** There are also some chicken-egg/Catch 22 influences that confound the situation. If a car gets listed at what is perceived to be an advantageous weight, it will get built. If it gets listed at a weight that's perceived as leaving it uncompetitive, nobody wants to build one. If a car IS listed at a weight that gives it an actual edge, it contributes to performance creep (not rules creep) by becoming the mutation that helps the class evolve to be faster. I don't envy the ITAC on this dynamic, not one little bit.

This raises the B/C issue to one that can probably only be addressed strategically, by folks who don't have vested interests at the class level. My plan, when I posted looking for Toyota/Nissan options (low hanging ITB/ITC fruit) was to mooch the necessary info off of someone with brand knowledge, and submit the requests myself. Of course, I DO have a vested interest in B but it manifests itself as wanting more entries in the class - I'm weird like that - but my enthusiasm is damped by the time required to chase down the information.

The ITAC has enough stuff on its plate so can't get as proactive as they might want, to address this issue. If we could streamline the application process by mandating submission of ONLY the data that the ITAC requires, that would help.

K

[JohnRW]

Since I like putting specific numbers to discussions when they come up...

The TOTAL difference in insurance and sanction fee costs between a 'non-spectator Regional or National' and a 'spectator Regional or National' is $250. The costs are listed on the SCCA insurance rate sheets/sanction forms, both of which are on-line. No difference in sanction fees, just the liability insurance.

That $250 is a 'total' number. Not dependant on the number of spectators. Not dependant on the number of cars. Not dependant on the phase of the moon. "All in, all done". $250. Sold.

Clarity is a rare commodity. Just providing a small gift for the holiday season. You all owe me a beer.

[gsbaker]

You all owe me a beer.[/b]
Done. Name your poison. :114:

[dj10]

Since I like putting specific numbers to discussions when they come up...

The TOTAL difference in insurance and sanction fee costs between a 'non-spectator Regional or National' and a 'spectator Regional or National' is $250. The costs are listed on the SCCA insurance rate sheets/sanction forms, both of which are on-line. No difference in sanction fees, just the liability insurance.

That $250 is a 'total' number. Not dependant on the number of spectators. Not dependant on the number of cars. Not dependant on the phase of the moon. "All in, all done". $250. Sold.

Clarity is a rare commodity. Just providing a small gift for the holiday season. You all owe me a beer. [/b]

I can't believe any of the tracks and car related businesses (and even non car related) out there are not taking advantage of this, doing a little cable marketing and take advantage of the bigger regionals and making some damn money?!? Someone start the "Grassroots Motorsports Network" and but the best races on TV and sell TV ads to cover costs. Hell I've only been in ITS for 2 yrs now but I've been in more and better races than any time I've raced previously. Other than a few cheaters here in other classes who just walk away from the field (LOL and no one protests them), I've seen some very good racing. Someone with some insight to this business and with more money that I have, could do very well I would think. I'm also a proponent on the IT Pro series in the SE. I can't for the life of me understand why this is not spreading? Maybe everyone is happy with the hunk of wood they win?

JohnRW, I'll buy you one if I ever see you @ WGI.

[Z3_GoCar]

Mark and Chris, FWIW: The ITAC is trying to figure out ways to bolster ITB and ITC numbers. Heck - even Kirk asked in a couple forums for some new car classifications - poof - no responses.

Have any suggestions? Bueller? Bueller?
[/b]

How about moving the heavy and uncompetitive four cylinder BMW's down to ITB along with the first Gen Rx-7's and MR-2's. Seems like there's a lot of chassis that are floundering in ITA as tweeners because they came stock with wheels that are too wide, don't make the hp gains that they should, and can't get down to their process weight. At least it's a suggestion, and I'm not Bueller.

James

[JIgou]

Since I like putting specific numbers to discussions when they come up...

The TOTAL difference in insurance and sanction fee costs between a 'non-spectator Regional or National' and a 'spectator Regional or National' is $250. The costs are listed on the SCCA insurance rate sheets/sanction forms, both of which are on-line. No difference in sanction fees, just the liability insurance.

That $250 is a 'total' number. Not dependant on the number of spectators. Not dependant on the number of cars. Not dependant on the phase of the moon. "All in, all done". $250. Sold.

Clarity is a rare commodity. Just providing a small gift for the holiday season. You all owe me a beer.
[/b]

As John said, it's not much in the overall scheme of things.

Our race group buys the spectator insurance for every event not so much because of the thousands of spectators crowding the gates from 7 a.m. on (OK, so it's probably more like 6....people....trickling in all day) but because the spectator insurance gives us a little bit more CYA leverage with regard to the minor waivers and all of the issues that can come up with them. On top of that, our particular facility happens to have a dragstrip that is separate from the racetrack so the spectator insurance does the CYA for us in case some drag racers wander over towards the "good" side of the racetrack. :P

Jarrod

[JoshS]

To my mind, all this does is reinforce something that i already believe about the member request process for listing new cars.

** Prospective members don't know that the system exists, and just wonder why the car they are interested in isn't in the book.
[/b]
You brought up a lot of tough issues, but this one is an easy one. Put a little note at the bottom of each of the spec line pages saying, "If your car isn't listed, see section XXXX" or something. At least then it's where they are looking, instead of buried in the text.

[leggwork]

this might be this low only because the turnout of spectators and claims in recent years have been so low that they do not really worry about from an insurance perspective. If spectator events were actively promoted, it might change.
cheers,
bruce



Since I like putting specific numbers to discussions when they come up...

The TOTAL difference in insurance and sanction fee costs between a 'non-spectator Regional or National' and a 'spectator Regional or National' is $250. The costs are listed on the SCCA insurance rate sheets/sanction forms, both of which are on-line. No difference in sanction fees, just the liability insurance.

That $250 is a 'total' number. Not dependant on the number of spectators. Not dependant on the number of cars. Not dependant on the phase of the moon. "All in, all done". $250. Sold.

Clarity is a rare commodity. Just providing a small gift for the holiday season. You all owe me a beer.
[/b]

[charrbq]

Besides the frustration of doing the research on the introduction of new cars into ITB/ITC only to have it shot down by various committees, it's hard to come up with cars that wouldn't be too competive for the classes. Of course, it's only human nature to not want to invite new, potentially faster cars to race in your group after you've spent a ton of time and money developing something you think might win once in a while.

Our problems come from the same thing that's happened to the older/slower production cars. They just don't build cars for us any more and the parts are hard to find. You'll never convince me that it costs no more to build an Integra than I've spent on my Civic, but I have no problem believing it's a lot easier. The time and development of the carberator alone has taken me years.

Most people that have put as much work as I have, and as many have, to get to the top of their heap, don't want to see something a class up moved down so as to increase their numbers. It's a natural fear. And no one in a higher class, that finds themselves non competitive, wants to get moved down to a lower class at a greater weight and find themselves in the same boat.

It takes too long to do anything to adjust performance/class structure in order to save some cars. When I drove my Civic Si in ITA, the rumor was that we were going to get moved down to ITB to be competitive. It took years to happen, and by that time, a ton of cars had disappeared. That's only an example, and I realize the rules have changed, but it's not much faster. The only thing that seems consistant, is that anytime something starts winning, it gets stuck with a ton of weight, and if you complain long and hard enough, you might get your weight lowered to a number that's impossible to attain...but your class doesn't change.

Maybe it's a good thing to run ITC. We're considered to be dying, so we don't get screwed with as much. Lord only knows I wouldn't want to have the same thing happen to ITC that's happened to G and H Production.

We now return you to your regular forum...Stupid Rules.

One I've never fully understood, even though the theory is that the members don't want it. Leaving the battery in the stock location, no matter where that is in the car, rather than moving it into the passenger compartment where it could be shielded. I know I'll catch hell by the people that are afraid of a battery exploding next to them, but many of those are the same people who are afraid to run a fuel cell with all that gas located right behind them.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Chris, you are wrong on the timing. When things 'didn't' happen, it's becasue there was no process in place. Right now, if the process shows its a B car, its going to be a B car. Example - NA Mini Cooper. There is a Civic variant that should be getting moved as well.

It shouldn't take more than 1 or 2 con-calls to get something done that isn't a tweener. In B, anything between 100-115 stock hp should shuffle right in.

[lateapex911]

The only thing that seems consistant, is that anytime something starts winning, it gets stuck with a ton of weight, and if you complain long and hard enough, you might get your weight lowered to a number that's impossible to attain...but your class doesn't change.

. [/b]

???

Chris, thats a pretty broad statement, and I'm not in agreement. Could you please cite as amny examples and the timing of them? Thanks.

[greendot]

I think this falls into the stupid rules arena (better than my previous anecdote), but not as a funny stupid rule.
From another thread here:



The rumor is that a proposal was made to reduce the allowable Fz load value (upper neck tension) from 3,000N to 2,500N. This would "decertify" the Leatt brace, which was "certified" in late October. [/b]

A 60 day certification? THAT'S STUPID.

Or politics as usual. Oh, I forgot, Gary said no politics involved. :D :bash_1_: :blink:

[Andy Bettencourt]

The only thing that seems consistant, is that anytime something starts winning, it gets stuck with a ton of weight, and if you complain long and hard enough, you might get your weight lowered to a number that's impossible to attain...but your class doesn't change.
[/b]

Come on Chris... We have lowered weights on cars that had not been through the process - as we have raised some - all AS THEY HAVE BEEN put through the process. Some people say they can make weight, some say they can't. The process is applied the same to all cars. Winning cars get no weight based on on-track results. This ain't Prod.

Edit - Jake beat me to the punch.

[Knestis]

...it's only human nature to not want to invite new, potentially faster cars to race in your group after you've spent a ton of time and money developing something you think might win once in a while. ...

Most people that have put as much work as I have, and as many have, to get to the top of their heap, don't want to see something a class up moved down so as to increase their numbers. It's a natural fear. ...

Maybe it's a good thing to run ITC. We're considered to be dying, so we don't get screwed with as much. Lord only knows I wouldn't want to have the same thing happen to ITC that's happened to G and H Production. ...
[/b]
I don't think that I've messed with your context too much by cutting out some stuff, but holler at me if you think I did, Chris...

...but with respect, part of the reason classes get small and die is protectionism. If I fight like hell to keep new cars out of my class (this is a bunch tougher in IT than it's historically been for other categories), then I'll eventually be racing myself and fighting to save the class. (Sure, there's a little hyperbole there but NOT MUCH when you look at participation numbers in the years before any given class got killed or absorbed.)

No, I don't want something to get overdog'd into B but I recognize that without new blood, I won't have a class to race in down the road. I have enough faith in the current system to know that we are pretty safe - far safer than ever before - from getting a ringer plopped into our midst.

Further, it's just good for the entire category and the Club Racing program to preserve some slower classes. It might cost essentially the same to outfit an ITA Integra and an ITC Civic, but it costs significantly more over the duration of a season to run the faster one.

K

[gprodracer]

OK,
A clarification, among other things. I applauded Chris's post because of several posts on the last thread about IT going National, implying that ITC/ITB were "dying classes". Please don't ask me to go back and research/quote anyone. It's not that big of a deal. I didn't aim my post at anyone, or name names, so I'm surprised at all the responses.
I don't own an IT car anymore, but I drive in them several times a year, and my heart will always be with IT because I started there, and had/have a blast when I get the opportunity to race them. It is..bar none.. the greatest entry level (no slam on the full bore IT efforts) racing class ever created.
People are naturally going to be territorial, especially when they've spent years developing their cars, and an overdog gets re-classified (again, no specifics here) into their class, but I'm with Kirk when he says he wants the competition on the track with him. Honestly, I'm not familiar with the process for getting a new car classified for any class, but I am familiar with the frustration of trying to get some spec lines changed. Again, this was only in reference to the car I was driving at the time, so my interest was just that..my interest. That being said...This topic was Stupid Rules...I didn't mean for my post of smileys to drag us off an excellent topic!
Please carry on!

Mark

[gprodracer]

Upon further thought on the classification process....
Please excuse me if these are dumb, or beat to death questions..
1) Has every car in all the IT spec lines been put through the IT formula equation? (for my own personal racecar, the Nissan 210 has the same min. weight in ITC and G Prod, full prep. 1900 lbs.)
2) If so, can there be any weight % added to a class above (IE: ITA to ITB adding X number of pounds) to encourage more overall participation in all the classes, or would this be more trouble tha it's worth?
3) Since I'll be the first to say I don't know what the formula criteria for each class is, there are a few (not many) newer cars that may fit into the ITC range..Does the ITAC wait until each specific car is requested, or do they research cars that may fit on their own, and use the formula to classify them?

I'm sure these questions have been asked many times before, but this board is attracting a bunch of new members all the time, many unaware of the processes involved. Bear with me as I attempt to learn and help the process.
Thanks,
Mark

[Andy Bettencourt]

Upon further thought on the classification process....
Please excuse me if these are dumb, or beat to death questions..[/b]

Excellent questions.


1) Has every car in all the IT spec lines been put through the IT formula equation? (for my own personal racecar, the Nissan 210 has the same min. weight in ITC and G Prod, full prep. 1900 lbs.)[/b]
Every car has been looked at. There are still 'hanging chads' however. Some cars we just don't know enough about to work over. Example: ITA Chevy Monza V6. 110 stock HP is ITB territory. But this vintage (79-80) had a smogged-up, POS stock system. Could this car see huge gains? I think so but there is no way we should be creating a potential overdog for a car nobody really races because we don't have the info. If someone sent in some detailed info educating the ITAC and the CRB, then a 'process' workout would be considered after verification.

Where enough info seemed possible, we didn't touch cars that were outside 100lbs of their process weight. If we did a HUGE amount of cars would have had to be corrected. This was a 'walk, don't run' effort so as not to put the whole category on its ear. Cars over 100lbs outside their process weight were 'corrected' up or down. It was not a coincidence that the cars that gained weight were considered overdogs and the cars that lost weight were considered underdogs.

2) If so, can there be any weight % added to a class above (IE: ITA to ITB adding X number of pounds) to encourage more overall participation in all the classes, or would this be more trouble tha it's worth?[/b]

The process can work for any car - for any class. Example: The ITA SE-R. (Close estimates) 1820lbs in ITR, 2105lbs in ITS, 2490lbs in ITA, 2975 in ITB...etc. Most cars 'fit' well in the class you think they do. Some tweeners certainly exist. More trouble to run an ITA car at ITB weight? Your call.

3) Since I'll be the first to say I don't know what the formula criteria for each class is, there are a few (not many) newer cars that may fit into the ITC range..Does the ITAC wait until each specific car is requested, or do they research cars that may fit on their own, and use the formula to classify them?[/b]

As has been pointed out by Kirk, a flaw in the system is that the ITAC/CRB typically wait until a classification request comes in to make a move. The problem for ITB and ITC is that not much of todays technology fits the performance envelope of those classes. The NA Mini at 115 stock hp is a good ITB fit (IMHO) but then check out the instant resistance from some on that car (see other thread). ITC is even tougher still. Kirl has asked for some suggestions of new cars for ITB and ITC with limited to no response. Are there no cars or is there no demand?

I think there are just not many cars. Club racing and IT need ITB and ITC. Costs are perceived to be much lower than ITR and ITS and now the resurgent and expanding ITA. You can spend big bucks on any car but a top ITC and ITB car can be bought for south of $7500, easy. There needs to be a place newbie perceive to be 'entry level' in terms of $$$ I think.

I'm sure these questions have been asked many times before, but this board is attracting a bunch of new members all the time, many unaware of the processes involved. Bear with me as I attempt to learn and help the process.
Thanks,
Mark
[/b]

And we thank you for your help!!! We appreciate it.

[cherokee]

I think there are just not many cars. Club racing and IT need ITB and ITC. Costs are perceived to be much lower than ITR and ITS and now the resurgent and expanding ITA. You can spend big bucks on any car but a top ITC and ITB car can be bought for south of $7500, easy. There needs to be a place newbie perceive to be 'entry level' in terms of $$$ I think.
[/b]

This is the problem, as of today there are very few newer cars that fit into B and C. But that is today, if gas hits north of $3 a gallon we may see new small sporty cars again with some small engines. I am not holding my breath, but it would be nice.

[charrbq]

Okay, I'm going to go for a wimpy defense of my statements. I got a little carried away last night when I posted as I was way too busy to be on the internet. The same continues for today, so the defense is going to be weak.

I apologize for the weight gain and loss statement. I don't have the ready info to back that up, only what I've heard from other drivers in other classes. Sorry to sound a little like Mattberg on that one.

I agree that not wanting other cars in my class is not a smart thing when the class is getting weaker. But the Mini Cooper example is an excellent one. Perhaps the thinking in B and C is we just want to be left alone. I can't answer that, it's only a conjecture. Perhaps, like our cars, we are old and slow. I've heard that excuse used and implied before.

In regard to the example of the A Civic getting put into B...I stand by what I said. True, the process has changed, and I have no idea how many requests are sent by the general racing public to get a car's class changed. The only thing, other than personal history, I have to go by is what I read in Fastrack. Those requests are all too often responded by, "Thanks for your input, but the car is competitive where it is classed". There may not be room for a complete explanation, but that one seems pretty cold.
When I tried to get my car into B from A where it would have a chance, I was told that there was a process through the ITAC board...by the board members. I was not alone in my request as there were at least seven other drivers of similar cars that were simultaneously going through the process in some manner. I personally contacted each of the members of the ITAC by phone and in person with my plea, race statistics, and performance numbers. I wrote letters to the various boards and to other competitors that I thought would be concerned. At one time, Fastrack informed us that the car would be moved to B the following year. It didn't happen, and I received a letter to inform me, "Thanks for your input, but the car is competitive where it is classed."
It, like so many in ITC are old and gone now. There are a bunch of good cars listed to play in ITC, but they've been absorbed into the junk yards of lore. Detroit, Japan, Europe, and anywhere else that makes cars doesn't make anything so crude and slow as is required to be in ITC. Asking the membership what they would like to see put in the class is a cross between admitting defeat and self serving.

Past time to go, I've got way to much to do.

[zracre]

cars like the mx3 1600 could go to C the beetle is there so should the same other cars with the same drivetrain...nissan sentra (it may already be there but it will still be too slow((sohc)) an assortment of 3 cylinder geo/daiatsu (sp?) type econoboxes etc.

as for stupid rules i'm sure it has been listed...if your car came standard with a radio it can be removed...but not the speakers!

[cherokee]

Is there a new Beetle running out there? I would love to see some pics of one.

[fiat124girl]

Okay, so back to the original post. The funniest thing that Jude and I have ever seen was years ago in Topeka Jude totally destroyed his ring and pinion on the ITC Fiat 124. It detonated close to the pits so with what momentum he had he rolled through the pits and up the hill to the paddock. Gravity took hold and the car stopped rolling about halfway up the hill. Since he needed to wait for a tow and he could not put the car in gear he took the steering wheel off and used it as a wheel chock to hold the car.

Well, after the race was done, about 25 minutes later, Jude got back in the car and waited for a tow. He could not get the steering wheel out from under the tire until the car was pulled forward a bit.

Keep in mind that the car is sitting on a hill. The tow vehicle pulled up and the gentleman driving asked where his steering wheel was. Jude said that it was holding the car on the hill. The guy asked why he just didn't put the car in gear. Jude explained that the rear end was now non-existent and therefore the transmission would not hold the car. The guy then said that he could not by the safety rules tow a car without a steering wheel.

Jude said that he could not get the steering wheel until he was pulled forward a bit to get the weight of the car off of the steering wheel. The guy again said that he was not allowed to hook up to a car that did not have a steering wheel so please get your steering wheel and then I will tow you. This inane conversation went on for too long until I showed up with our tow vehicle and hooked up to the Fiat and pulled it back to the paddock.

We got in trouble for that too.....

[lateapex911]

I apologize for the weight gain and loss statement. I don't have the ready info to back that up, only what I've heard from other drivers in other classes. Sorry to sound a little like Mattberg on that one.

[/b] Cool, the adds and subtractions have been very systematic, and have NOT been the result of "My car is too heavy" or "He is too fast, give him weight". Without getting too deep in history, the clasification process was, at one time, done without the aid of a process, and it was done by what is currently called the CRB...and they had WAY too much to do...so things were a bit out of sync. Initially, the ITAC tested the waters by actually moving cars down a class where it felt it was appropriate, by utilizing a not really recognized option in the rulebook. Next, the PCA process went before the membership, was supported, and approved, and then began the realignment process. Of course cars were given weight breaks they (it turns out, in hindsight) just couldn't quite make, and others gained weight that brought protests from those who felt that their superior car crafting and racecraft were being punished. But it's been very systematic, and I'd wager most who have some institutional memory feel it's a better world today than it was as little as 2 -3 years ago.



I agree that not wanting other cars in my class is not a smart thing when the class is getting weaker. But the Mini Cooper example is an excellent one. Perhaps the thinking in B and C is we just want to be left alone. I can't answer that, it's only a conjecture. Perhaps, like our cars, we are old and slow. I've heard that excuse used and implied before.
[/b]

Things haven't been NOT been put in B or C because of objections from the drivers....but rather because the cars that have been brought before the ITAC to be classified haven't FIT the C or B classes often.



In regard to the example of the A Civic getting put into B...I stand by what I said. True, the process has changed, and I have no idea how many requests are sent by the general racing public to get a car's class changed. The only thing, other than personal history, I have to go by is what I read in Fastrack. Those requests are all too often responded by, "Thanks for your input, but the car is competitive where it is classed". There may not be room for a complete explanation, but that one seems pretty cold.
[/b]

yes, I can see that it does, and I agree. But it's often thebest answer, as another explanation would run way too long, and wind up in the same place. There are times that we table something for more research, and I think you've seen at least 4 ITAC guys on here soliciting opinions and reading the minds of the IT community.



When I tried to get my car into B from A where it would have a chance, I was told that there was a process through the ITAC board...by the board members. I was not alone in my request as there were at least seven other drivers of similar cars that were simultaneously going through the process in some manner. I personally contacted each of the members of the ITAC by phone and in person with my plea, race statistics, and performance numbers. I wrote letters to the various boards and to other competitors that I thought would be concerned. At one time, Fastrack informed us that the car would be moved to B the following year. It didn't happen, and I received a letter to inform me, "Thanks for your input, but the car is competitive where it is classed."
[/b]

Keep in mind that the structure needs to break things into 4 boxes, from a wide range of capabilities, and make them race well together. Some cars are just "tweeners". My car is one that many consider such. Some say it's a fine B car on thinner wheels and a bit of weight, others think thats "Crazy"! But the A to B move is problematic.....the ITAC needs to see a CLEAR need to as it can create a situation where racers across the country need to junk 3 sets of wheels and buy 3 more sets. Or worse, certain cars can wind up needing a complete recage.


It, like so many in ITC are old and gone now. There are a bunch of good cars listed to play in ITC, but they've been absorbed into the junk yards of lore. Detroit, Japan, Europe, and anywhere else that makes cars doesn't make anything so crude and slow as is required to be in ITC. Asking the membership what they would like to see put in the class is a cross between admitting defeat and self serving.

Past time to go, I've got way to much to do. [/b]

Your last comment confuses me. Many say that the ITAC should be proactive and class cars without requests being made. But when the topic was brought up...by a non ITAC member, by the way,.... you call it "self serving" and an "Admission of failure"?

Hardly! The simple fact of the matter is that the majority of new or wanna be racers are, guess what...younger.....and they just don't remember the 80s when the GTI was the fasted and coolest car and 1200 Civics where everywhere. No, they remember an Eclipse as being OK, but slow in the non turbo form. I just don't think there's that much desire from many to race in ITC. Sure we can argue rationally that it's ONLY 2 or 3 seconds a lap slower than B, and that it's a lot of great racing for very little money, but lets face it...we're racers...and racing isn't rational!



cars like the mx3 1600 could go to C the beetle is there so should the same other cars with the same drivetrain...nissan sentra (it may already be there but it will still be too slow((sohc)) an assortment of 3 cylinder geo/daiatsu (sp?) type econoboxes etc.

as for stupid rules i'm sure it has been listed...if your car came standard with a radio it can be removed...but not the speakers! [/b]

If we ditched the 5 year rule, the Honda Fit would be a great fit..

And on the speakers thing, that should hit Fastrack soon, it's been cleared up.

[charrbq]

Sorry, Jake, I thought Kirk was a member of the ITAC. My bad. I try to watch who I insult and usually take pride in how I do it. :D

[Knestis]

Kirk is not official in any way.

I need to put that in my sig line.

K

[lateapex911]

Sorry, Jake, I thought Kirk was a member of the ITAC. My bad. I try to watch who I insult and usually take pride in how I do it. :D [/b]

Can't blame you...I tend to think of kirk as the "10th man" on the ITAc, LOL. Kind of like the guy sitting on your shoulder whispering, "Are you sure you want to do that??"

[tnord]

Okay, so back to the original post. The funniest thing that Jude and I have ever seen was years ago in Topeka Jude totally destroyed his ring and pinion on the ITC Fiat 124. It detonated close to the pits so with what momentum he had he rolled through the pits and up the hill to the paddock. Gravity took hold and the car stopped rolling about halfway up the hill. Since he needed to wait for a tow and he could not put the car in gear he took the steering wheel off and used it as a wheel chock to hold the car.

Well, after the race was done, about 25 minutes later, Jude got back in the car and waited for a tow. He could not get the steering wheel out from under the tire until the car was pulled forward a bit.

Keep in mind that the car is sitting on a hill. The tow vehicle pulled up and the gentleman driving asked where his steering wheel was. Jude said that it was holding the car on the hill. The guy asked why he just didn't put the car in gear. Jude explained that the rear end was now non-existent and therefore the transmission would not hold the car. The guy then said that he could not by the safety rules tow a car without a steering wheel.

Jude said that he could not get the steering wheel until he was pulled forward a bit to get the weight of the car off of the steering wheel. The guy again said that he was not allowed to hook up to a car that did not have a steering wheel so please get your steering wheel and then I will tow you. This inane conversation went on for too long until I showed up with our tow vehicle and hooked up to the Fiat and pulled it back to the paddock.

We got in trouble for that too.....
[/b]


that's way too funny. i'll have to ask you guys about that next year over some brew. :snow_cool:

[Spinnetti]

I don't object much to the ruleset except that it keeps changing, upping cost with every change.

1. Alternate ECU - this should never have been allowed, and saying it has to be in the stock case is even dumber. I call this the "Honda rule".

2. Coilovers. these are totally out of the stated spirit of IT. Should have allowed alternate springs and thats it. No adjusters and the creep that followed.

3. I do wish I could relocate the battery. Had a fire after a crash due to mine getting crushed/dead shorted in the nose of the car.

4. The ever increasingly crazy safety rules. I've been doing it long enough that I've spent a small fortune on cage mods, race suits, helmets, window nets, seat belts etc.. Let me be responsible for my own safety (to some limit anyway).. We have more restrictive rules than many other forms of motorsport that go a lot faster, and with little evidence that its needed from an actuarial standpoint. If safety is so important, let people build as crazy a roll cage as they want.

I've said it before, but I prefer the philosophy of having the class intent to make a given car as fast as possible, not by adding go fast stuff, but just by removing the useless stuff (thus light as possible). Beyond that, the basic IT motor rules and springs/shocks/bars/bushings/wheels/tires and thats about it.. I think Cal club has done this with old Corollas and RX-7's if memory serves..

Oh, PS... I hate having to pull my car apart for others to inspect. I don't mind "open hood, open trunk", and when I was more actively racing, all the guys in winner impound generally did anyway. I don't care if others cheat on the little stuff; anybody who protests that may be within rights and spirit, but are just poor losers in my mind ("Vexatious protest"). I only car about the big stuff, and even then I don't really care. If you gotta go that far for a win, have at it. All the more sweet when I beat you.

[gsbaker]

Kirk is not official in any way.

K
[/b]
Oh c'mon, Kirk. I'm sure you are an official something. :)

[wm577]

you mean I can't disable my Power steering? crap.. I didn't even know I was cheeting! :blink:

[BudMan]

Okay, so back to the original post. The funniest thing that Jude and I have ever seen was years ago in Topeka Jude totally destroyed his ring and pinion on the ITC Fiat 124. It detonated close to the pits so with what momentum he had he rolled through the pits and up the hill to the paddock. Gravity took hold and the car stopped rolling about halfway up the hill. Since he needed to wait for a tow and he could not put the car in gear he took the steering wheel off and used it as a wheel chock to hold the car.

Well, after the race was done, about 25 minutes later, Jude got back in the car and waited for a tow. He could not get the steering wheel out from under the tire until the car was pulled forward a bit.

Keep in mind that the car is sitting on a hill. The tow vehicle pulled up and the gentleman driving asked where his steering wheel was. Jude said that it was holding the car on the hill. The guy asked why he just didn't put the car in gear. Jude explained that the rear end was now non-existent and therefore the transmission would not hold the car. The guy then said that he could not by the safety rules tow a car without a steering wheel.

Jude said that he could not get the steering wheel until he was pulled forward a bit to get the weight of the car off of the steering wheel. The guy again said that he was not allowed to hook up to a car that did not have a steering wheel so please get your steering wheel and then I will tow you. This inane conversation went on for too long until I showed up with our tow vehicle and hooked up to the Fiat and pulled it back to the paddock.

We got in trouble for that too.....
[/b]

That's classic 'good rule gone bad' if I've ever heard one...

[dj10]

That's classic 'good rule gone bad' if I've ever heard one...


[/b]

ROTFLMAO!!!! The guy in the safety tow vehicle should not be allowed to operate or be near dangerous equipment. B)

[Jim Bourn]

ROTFLMAO!!!! The guy in the safety tow vehicle should not be allowed to operate or be near dangerous equipment. B)
[/b]
I know rules is rules but isn't the purpose of that stuffing within our heads supposed to be used to supplement rules when they cannot be applied to a given situation?

No one will ever be capable enough to write a rule to cover any and all possible situations.

[Greg Amy]

No one will ever be capable enough to write a rule to cover any and all possible situations.[/b]

Man, if there was ever a quote to grace the doorway of THIS place, that would be it...

[dlg208]

Mine falls under the category of irony.........(not stupid rules)

After being told I had to change the PCV valve I was using to a proper roll over valve by next race.

I told the tech guy "I'll just go back to the stock tank".

(I race an old ITB Pinto) :rolleyes:

BTW......I like the steering wheel/chock-block one.......That is priceless!

[tom91ita]

i'm going to install the windshield clips and had several people tell me 1" by 1/8" and 3 inches long. but that is not what the rules say. they say:

25mm by 3 mm by 75 mm long. now where in the good old US of A can you find the metric aluminum strapping?

i'm not going to comply but someone will no doubt refer me to the section of how it does not a minimum of .......

i'll add it to my list of items for the 12 step program for cheaters....

[JoshS]

i'm going to install the windshield clips and had several people tell me 1" by 1/8" and 3 inches long. but that is not what the rules say. they say:

25mm by 3 mm by 75 mm long. now where in the good old US of A can you find the metric aluminum strapping?
[/b]

Where does it say that? Here's what I see in the '07 GCR:


9.3.53. WINDSHIELD CLIPS/REAR WINDOW STRAPS

Windshield safety clips and rear window safety straps shall be installed on all closed cars (except Showroom Stock, Spec Miata, Touring and Improved Touring).

Three (3) clips (3 inch x 1 inch x 1/8 inch) shall be bolted or riveted to the body at the top of the windshield.

Two (2) clips (3 inch x 1 inch x 1/8 inch) shall be bolted or riveted to the cowl and extend over the bottom edge of the windshield. Clips shall be spaced a minimum of twelve (12) inches apart.

It is recommended that three (3) one (1) inch wide strips of steel or aluminum be installed behind the windshield to support it from collapsing inwards if it becomes damaged. The rear window shall be secured with two (2) metal straps (1 inch wide x 1/8 inch thick) bolted or riveted to the body at the top and bottom of the rear window.[/b]

[tom91ita]

Where does it say that? Here's what I see in the '07 GCR:
[/b]

on page 341 of the 2007 GCR under section 9.1.4


9. Three (3) metal safety clips (75mm x 25mm x 3mm) shall be bolted,
or riveted, to the body at the top of the windshield. Two (2) clips
(same dimensions as above) shall be bolted or riveted to the cowl
and extend over the bottom edge of the windshield. Clips must
be spaced at least three hundred millimeters 300mm (11.8”) apart.....[/b]

apparently when i searched, i started in a different section of the GCR and hit in a different place. the production requirement is


Windshield/Rear Windows - Closed Cars: Closed cars may
retain their original windshields, and shall fit windshield
retention clips per GCR Section 9.[/b]

i think you and i found different things in "Section 9." sort of proves the point, maybe! :lol:

[toddgreene]

Not necessarily a rule... It is hard to understand why a piece or rubber (or roll cage foam) on the apron can cause the equivalent of a full course caution in NASCAR, while a whole car can sit there the entire race in Road Racing???

Todd
Building 944 ITS

[benspeed]

Man, if there was ever a quote to grace the doorway of THIS place, that would be it...
[/b]

Can I say an AHMEN brother!

[CaptainWho]

It is hard to understand why a piece or rubber (or roll cage foam) on the apron can cause the equivalent of a full course caution in NASCAR, while a whole car can sit there the entire race in Road Racing???
[/b]

Wow, Todd, there are just so many ways of starting there and getting all surly and stuff. I'll refrain or I might get booted. :D

[RacerBill]

This is still my favorite:

9.1.3 Improved Touring Specifications

D. Authorized Modifications
8. Body/Structure
b.
"Where an air dam/spoiler is used, two total openings may be cut in the front valance to allow the passage of up to a three (3) inch diameter duct leading to each front brake/rotor assembly.

Where no air dam/spoiler is used, two total openings of a maximum size five (5) inches by seven (7) inches maybe cut in the front valance so that brake ducts can be added with a three (3) inch diameter hose leading to each front brake/rotor assembly."

From dictionary.com:

TOTAL

–adjective 1. constituting or comprising the whole; entire; whole: the total expenditure.
2. of or pertaining to the whole of something: the total effect of a play.
3. complete in extent or degree; absolute; unqualified; utter: a total failure.
4. involving all aspects, elements, participants, resources, etc.; unqualified; all-out: total war.
–noun 5. the total amount; sum; aggregate: a total of $200.
6. the whole; an entirety: the impressive total of Mozart's achievement.
–verb (used with object) 7. to bring to a total; add up.
8. to reach a total of; amount to.
9. Slang. to wreck or demolish completely: He totaled his new car in the accident.
–verb (used without object) 10. to amount (often fol. by to).

Personally, I like #9!

I guess that we can infer that the rule relates to the total number of openings, but still, who really talks that way! I vote for rules in a form that everyone can understand. How about a definition in the glossary of a "total opening".

[lateapex911]

Because, Bill, if it didn't specify "total" somebody would put in two per side, claiming that the rule didn't specify it clearly.

I wouldn't argue if there wasn't a comma or a parenthesis in there though.....

[bldn10]

This is OT I guess but this discussion reminds me of an experience I had the first time I sold a house. The buyer was getting a VA loan so the house had to be inspected to make sure it met VA specs. I got a list of deficiencies among which was the absence of a proper lock on the back screen door. I asked if the VA even required a screen door and was told no. So, I said, "Fine, I'll just take the damn thing off and throw it in the garbage. Happy now?" :bash_1_: On second thought I guess it means that we aren't the only ones w/ stupid rules.

[RacerBill]

Because, Bill, if it didn't specify "total" somebody would put in two per side, claiming that the rule didn't specify it clearly.

I wouldn't argue if there wasn't a comma or a parenthesis in there though.....
[/b]

I agree that the word 'total' needs to be there. But I would have put it in a slightly different place, like 'a total of two openings.....' This is one of the reasons I hated English in elementary and high school!

[Prince Makaha]

How about a gallery of pictures showing the bizarre interpertations of the rules being applied to the cars.

Have both legal and illegal and you can allow the audience to guess "legal or illegal".

[ddewhurst]

***How about a gallery of pictures showing the bizarre interpertations of the rules being applied to the cars.
Have both legal and illegal and you can allow the audience to guess "legal or illegal".***

Prince, do you believe anyone who posts on this site would have anything illegal on their car? :o

Have Fun ;)
David

[Prince Makaha]

11 years later, a response.

Do you believe I would ask anybody to show pics of their own ridiculous interpretations?

No, I was asking about things they have seen (not done) during their time racing.