Why it is not about washer bottles

[dickita15]

IT as well as all showroom stock rule sets operate on the principal that if it does not say you can you can not. (IIDNSYCYC). We start with a stock car and specific rules make allowances for the changes needed and wanted to make these vehicles effective race cars. This is a principal to the rules of IT racing.

Because of this there are things like washer bottles, horns and central doorlock systems that we cannot remove. In order to remove them we need to have a rule that says you can. They are just not deemed important enough to have a extra rule that says you can throw them away.

We have rules that allow removal of interior stuff, emissions stuff and radiator shrouds because at some point the group felt those were important enough to make a rule to take them out.

We also have things like door panels that were on the washer bottle group that were deemed important enough to move to the second group.

[Tom Blaney]

Dick

This is exactly why things like washer bottles and central locks should be part of that list of interior stuff etc that can be removed.

Things like washer bottles, stereo speakers, wiring, horns etc are junk items that do not make a race car, and if they get damaged or missing from a junker that is being used as a base for a new buildup they have to be "bought" which now wastes valuable money and resources because the "rules makers" were short sighted in their list of un-necessary items that should fall into the "interior list" above.

It is not that difficult a task to revise a list of extraneous parts to add such junk items that serve no fuctional purpose in a race car.

In showroom stock, the rules are written quite different in that the car (except for disconnect of air bags etc) must be able to pass DOT inspection, and therefore the car configuration is guided by what the manufacturer has installed as part of the "off the showroom floor" configuration.

What we need to keep in mind with this series of regional racing is that most racers have a limited budget, and with the rising costs of track and entry fees, the little extra effort by the AOC and the Comp Board to reduce the time and expense to build and maintain a regional race care is worth the effort. And please before you tell me that the cost of a washer bottle is minute compared to the overall build, it gets down to the concept of regional racing.

[planet6racing]

(not directed at Dick or Tom, but...)

If you don't write a letter, don't bitch about the rules. The GCR has a defined method for effecting a rule change and if you don't follow it, don't complain. If enough people feel that it is needed, the club will act (see ITR). However, don't expect the club to react to one letter (unless you own a Miata).

[gran racing]

... the "rules makers" were short sighted...[/b]

A little harsh Tom, no? You're also taking about how you define IT now. Wasn't it originally a place where old SS cars could have a home? There were & still are people who drive their cars to the track.

I'm a huge proponent of reducing costs / barriers into racing. The washer bottle subject is a joke. It's funny how this is even a discussion in terms of costs. A $10 junk yard washer bottle? :rolleyes: On the other hand, this is awesome news! The worst we're complaining about with IT is washer bottles. Now that's pretty freaking cool. While some others use their washer bottles as a catch can, I use it as a, well...washer bottle. There have been time where it has been a nice benefit to clean my windshield while out on the track.

We've discussed this before, but let's say we use the ink (GRC continues to grow) on washer bottles. What's next on the list? Although I'm not following it, there's another thread about the other "useless items that don't belong on our IT cars". If it's not a washer bottle, it will be something else.

[Ron Earp]

There were & still are people who drive their cars to the track.
[/b]

Interesting.

Are any of these people on the board? Does anyone know an IT racer that races routinely, and drives to the track?

I'm just interested to see what percentage of IT racers this group makes. I don't think I've ever seen anyone drive to the track in their IT car. Could drive my car to the track and do drive my car to the track are two different things for purposes of this dicsussion, as well as the phrase "I used to drive to the track".

How many IT racers now drive to the track in the car they race, race, and plan to continue the practice for 2007?

[Knestis]

... Things like washer bottles, stereo speakers, wiring, horns etc are junk items that do not make a race car...[/b]

And so it continues. Wheee! :026:

K

[gran racing]

I race against an ITB driver who drives their car to the track, and it's not just for local events. From NJ (I believe), Zephyr can be found at LRP, the Glen, MidO (including the NASA championships) driving his car to the track.

Kirk, don't you drive you car to the track?

I instruct with a couple show room stock, and touring drivers who drive their car to the track. Yeah, not IT.

[x-ring]

How many IT racers now drive to the track in the car they race, race, and plan to continue the practice for 2007?
[/b]

There's one in RMDiv with an ITA Nissan (Sentra, maybe?). He's been doing it as long as I've been around, so I suspect he's not going to change anytime soon.

[Racerlinn]

There were & still are people who drive their cars to the track.
[/b]
Where's that "raises hand" icon?
I drive it to ORP (formerly IRP) becasue the track is only about 15 miles from my house.
I also drive it to the dozen or so Solo events I run. Plus I drive it to work maybe once a week when the weather is nice.
And yes, it does have a washer bottle.
:114:

I know of a pair of ITA Neons that drive several hours to the track as well.

[greendot]

Interesting.

Does anyone know an IT racer that races routinely, and drives to the track?

[/b]

There is a Waterford racer that drives his IT7 car to the track, abut 45 minute ride for him. He also says he drives it during the week.


Now here's a note that I haven't seen ( but I sure as hell haven't read everything about washer bottles, nor do I want to), in the 2nd gen RX7. the washer bottle location makes it harder to route brake cooling ducts on the right side.
Just an observation, no reply required.

[Xian]

Kirk, don't you drive you car to the track?
[/b]
I've seen him drive his ITB Golf to the track...

Personally, I think the IT rules are plenty good at this point and if people keep up the with the idea of "a real race car doesn't have this" or "a real race car has got to have this" we're eventually going to end up driving Prod cars in a decade or two. :(

Christian, who sees where the line is drawn in the sand and is ok with leaving well enough alone.

[lateapex911]

"Ask any Formula car driver and he'll tell you that a "real race car" isn't made by Chevy or ford or even Porsche.

Think Lola, Reybard, etc.

Ask any formula car driver with wings and he'll tell you it's gotta have wings to be "real". it's all about your perspective....

[Conover]

Interesting.

Are any of these people on the board? Does anyone know an IT racer that races routinely, and drives to the track?

I'm just interested to see what percentage of IT racers this group makes. I don't think I've ever seen anyone drive to the track in their IT car. Could drive my car to the track and do drive my car to the track are two different things for purposes of this dicsussion, as well as the phrase "I used to drive to the track".

How many IT racers now drive to the track in the car they race, race, and plan to continue the practice for 2007?
[/b]
http://it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/packed1.jpg
That cracker still does that stuff too! The new Pablo even still has inspection, license plates, and insureance, and can be driven to and from the track or Dyno, or whatever.
http://it2.evaluand.com/gti/events05.php

[Knestis]

To be fair, we aren't currently RACING in completely street-legal form, since we took the catalytic converter off before the 13 Hours but yeah - you finish behind Pablo and you got beat by a street car, bay-bee!

I've driven to MOST of the races that I've done in the last three seasons, including my schools at Roebling, two hillclimbs, a pile of events at VIR, some at CMP... I drove home from the 2005 Summit 12 Hours, after our trailer got highjacked to move Mom's furniture or some silly thing. We ran four hours on the test day, practice, qualifying, and a 12 hour enduro. I had to put a big tie wrap on the rearmost exhaust hanger that had busted, and we did put on the full-tread Toyos, but that was it - 5 hours home to Greensboro, NC.

Point being, no matter what one's conception of a "real race" might be, most of the stuff people get all tweaky about does absolutely nothing to do with limiting on-track performance, safety, or economy...

But a lot of you know that at some level, and persist anyway.


... we're eventually going to end up driving Prod cars in a decade or two. ...[/b]

Hah. That's funny as hell. Your first guess, maybe...

(Cue spooky Ghost of Racing Future theme)

In 10 years, IT has merged with LP Production, with the general category rules just ever so slightly this side of the current LP Prod book, and stepped weight specs to make up the differences between the two - the gearbox rules foremost, because almost NOBODY is THAT freakin' dumb. "Real" production still exist but pressure from entrants of newer cars - and dwindling parts supply and skyrocketing costs - have relegated cars built to those rules as also-rans, relative to the LP Prod and "IT Prod" cars.

Part of the rationale for this move was to boost sagging participation in both categories, as a derivation of the current Touring rules has become the fastest growing category in Club Racing, after the introduction of T4 and T5 as regional-only classes started poaching IT entries like crazy. However, the bigger motivator is that the cars just aren't very different anymore.

Looking back at it, the critical juncture in the "evolution" of IT was marked by the departure of a couple of key members of the ITAC - one to a Ganassi GrandAm team management position, and the other to a vow of silence, celebacy, and ale-brewing with a fringe order of Trappist monks in the mountains near Spa Francorchamps. Their replacements led the "re-visioning" of the category to make the cars more exciting, through the addition of 17 new allowed modifications, eliminating what new SCCA President Matt Berg referred to in a press conference as "very, very stupid rules."

In other news, Berg announced that SCCA national headquarters will be moving to a 110-acre compound in the Ozark Mountains, and NASCAR has issued a press release indicating that it has reached an agreement to purchase the National Auto Sport Association...

This is your future - well, all but the last couple things - boys and girls. Just because I'm not going to try to talk you out of it, doesn't mean I'm going to be quiet about it as you fly the airplane into the ground.

K

[lateapex911]

T

In 10 years, IT has merged with LP Production, with the general category rules just ever so slightly this side of the current LP Prod book,
[/b]

You wouldn't be surprised then to hear that this discussion hasn't already taken place...and been shouted down...



Looking back at it, the critical juncture in the "evolution" of IT was marked by the departure of a couple of key members of the ITAC - one to a Ganassi GrandAm team management position, and the other to a vow of silence, celebacy, and ale-brewing with a fringe order of Trappist monks in the mountains near Spa Francorchamps. [/b]

Hmmmm....name so names! I'd love to see into the future, LOL


K

[Knestis]

Suffice to say you'll be getting a visit for a case, next time I'm in Belgium.

K

[lateapex911]

"Celebacy"??? Oh dear..........

I was hoping I'd be joining the Ganssis organization..better women, I wager, LOL.

[Knestis]

Celebacy, schmelebacy - that Trappist ale is REALLY good. You'll get over it.

K

[Bill Miller]

Celebacy, schmelebacy - that Trappist ale is REALLY good. You'll get over it.

K
[/b]

It's all about the Chimay baby!!! :026: :birra:

[PSherm]

It's all about the Chimay baby!!! :026: :birra:
[/b]

Eh... I'm more of an Orval guy myself (a beeeautiful abbey btw). But I am anxious to get to all the Westvleteren I've got aging in the cellar... :happy204: :birra:

[AntonioGG]

I like Orval too!

[jackedrabbit]

I plan on installing a radio in the GTI ITB I'm building. The tape deck just dosen't cut it. A pair of
Rockford Fosgate 12" subs should add just enough weigh in the back to keep the rear tires down. I have one of those DVD players thst folds down from the roof too... Yellow flags would be less borring being able to catch a few minutes of "Gone in 60 Seconds". (The original one of course)

[ITC Racer]

I know of several IT/SM cars that get driven to and from the track and drove my car to and from when I started out.

I like the original (and mostly current) intent of IT and worry about creeping too far down the slope. I do not want to race Prod and SS is too stock for me. Touring would be fun but too expensive for my budget.

[JoshS]

I like the original (and mostly current) intent of IT and worry about creeping too far down the slope. I do not want to race Prod and SS is too stock for me. Touring would be fun but too expensive for my budget.
[/b]
This comment baffles me, and I've heard it a bunch. The only significant differences between SS and T:

- T allows replacement shocks/struts
- T allows replacement differentials
- T allows ECU upgrades (same rules as IT)
- The CRB might give individual car allowances.
- The slowest T class has faster cars than the fastest SS class

So, SS is too stock, but T sounds fun? They are, for all practical purposes, the same thing.

[lateapex911]

It's interesting that Touring fixes some of what I see as problems with SS:

Due to the absolute stockness of SS, it can become a car of the month/year category. Kaching!$$$ Nice car today, worthless tomorrow.

And then theres the special shock/trunk kit stuff...

And ECU problems, like top speed limiters, etc.

So, by allowing shocks, ECUs, and individual car allowances, Touring has the potential to fix some of the SS issues. But Touring cars seem to be much more expensive right out of the box.

Of course, the allowances are a bit of a Pandoras box, but, sometimes I wonder if SS wouldn't be better off with the touring rules? Cheaper, and longer wearing? Tastes better, AND less filling???

[Bill Miller]

It's interesting that Touring fixes some of what I see as problems with SS:

Due to the absolute stockness of SS, it can become a car of the month/year category. Kaching!$$$ Nice car today, worthless tomorrow.

And then theres the special shock/trunk kit stuff...

And ECU problems, like top speed limiters, etc.

So, by allowing shocks, ECUs, and individual car allowances, Touring has the potential to fix some of the SS issues. But Touring cars seem to be much more expensive right out of the box.

Of course, the allowances are a bit of a Pandoras box, but, sometimes I wonder if SS wouldn't be better off with the touring rules? Cheaper, and longer wearing? Tastes better, AND less filling???
[/b]

Jake,

That's pretty much what SS was when they still had trunk kits.

[Daryl DeArman]

"Ask any Formula car driver and he'll tell you that a "real race car" isn't made by Chevy or ford or even Porsche.

Think Lola, Reybard, etc.

Ask any formula car driver with wings and he'll tell you it's gotta have wings to be "real". it's all about your perspective....
[/b]

Every once in a while a man bites a dog....

I race a formula car and whether it was when I raced a FF or a FV I felt there isn't a difference between a race car and a "real" race car. Any car that someone races is a race car. ALL of them have a list of compromises in their design. Some of them are just closer to cars you and I drive on the street than others. When an open wheel guy says real race cars have wings think of the cars that he is excluding from his elitist mind...When an open wheel guy says real race cars don't have fenders...he forgets that he is racing a car with a motor that originated in a tractor, a pinto or worse yet is air cooled and makes maybe 60HP. Some of them have H-Beams and swing axles, or spindles from a sprite.

Back on topic....

[charrbq]

A few years ago the powers that were tried to convert all SS into Touring and drop the SS rules. It was met with a huge clamor of negativity. Most of the complaints were from the SSB and SSC crowd made up of mostly Neon drivers that went into both classes that were now becoming one. I would suppose that the Chrysler Corp. bunch had some influence in the complaining, but that's only conjecture. Sooo, the powers that were retained SSB and SSC sorta as they were, but gave us T1 and later T2 for the guys with incredible amounts of bucks to afford the car of the year program that can be modified to run faster than AS and in the rarified air of GT1. They still talk of doing away with all of SS, and probably eventually will.

I wonder if it will ever happen to IT...in the way distant future, when the attempts will be made to move us into "limited prep" in order to go national racing or whatever. I hope not. It's all I can do to afford this "cheap" class of racing. :114:

[JoshS]

Actually just this year, the SEB tried to merge SSB and T3, and convert SSC to T4.

Combining SSB and T3 was shot down primarily because the manufacturers didn't want to combine their cars into one class. SSC to T4 was shot down primarily because the SSC drivers didn't want to have to fork out money for upgraded shocks, which can be a huge cost item on a showroom stock budget.

There were other concerns as well, of course. My opinion is that even if the SSB/T3 merge wasn't proposed (i.e., SSB->T4 and SSC->T5), the members still would have shot it down.

[charrbq]

Shot down...probably, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen in the near future, guns loaded or not. Just an opinion.

I still don't understand how a shock upgrade or such being expensive can be used in the same sentence with SS racing and "tight budget". A new car every couple of years to remain competitive is hardly what I'd call a tight budget. The only true advantage I can see to SS is that there just isn't as much that's allowed to be messed with (improved upon) as there is in Touring or even IT. Therefore, you don't spend as much time in the garage...or do you?

[Bill Miller]

Shot down...probably, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen in the near future, guns loaded or not. Just an opinion.[/b]

It was the mfg's that got it shot down, plain and simple. There was a copy of a letter floating around from Mr. Heinricy and his counterparts from some of the other mfg's (Mazda, Suburu, etc.) that pretty much strong-armed the BoD into scratching the idea. I later spoke w/ a Director, and he confirmed that it was the pressure from the mfg's that killed the idea.




I still don't understand how a shock upgrade or such being expensive can be used in the same sentence with SS racing and "tight budget". A new car every couple of years to remain competitive is hardly what I'd call a tight budget. The only true advantage I can see to SS is that there just isn't as much that's allowed to be messed with (improved upon) as there is in Touring or even IT. Therefore, you don't spend as much time in the garage...or do you?
[/b]

Thank you Chris! I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees it this way. The whole "It's SS, so we don't have to have big budgets to run the cars." is one of the biggest red herrings out there. If you don't believe that, just look at the cost of a top-tier Spec Miata. You don't hear much about prices for SS cars, because there's just not that large of a secondary market for them. But if people are spending $6k on a Sunbelt 'stock' SM motor, you can believe that people at the front of the SS grids are spending big $$$ on their cars (parts-bin blueprinting, etc.)

Merry Christmas everyone!

[lateapex911]

Agreed!

If you want to be a fast SS guy (Runoffs bound) I bet SS is pretty darn pricey.

Here's the steps:
Buy car: 25k?
Cage and misc gear: 2-3k
Blueprint motor 8k plus minus.
Wheels tires: 2-3k

rough total to get rolling: 37 -40K

Race for a year.

New car gets introduced in class. Welcome to the mid pack.

Car value???

Uggggg....8k?

Net cost for a year? 30K...plus expenses. Now that doesn't always happen, but if things don't go right, it can. Not to mention the possible write off.

At least in touring, from what I understand, the mechanism to avoid the "car of the year" syndrome exists, somewhat protecting the investment. In SS, you're praying they get the new classifications spot on, becasue if they don't, you are up the creek with no paddle, and the canoe is leaking.....and the water is cold...and filled with poisonous snakes, lol.

[JoshS]

Not as bad as you say. I built an SSC car (Mazda3) for the '05 season.

The car was $16K brand new and the motor was $4K. So it was already $13K under your estimate, to get rolling. It's resale value was better than your estimate too.

[lateapex911]

True, it can be done for less, of course, and it's not guaranteed that the car will become an also ran, but it can happen. The classing aspect can bite from time to time. Happens in Stock class autocrossing. Not often, but it does happen.

(Or, ask the guy who heard that they were doing away with SSC last year, sold his car before it was REALLY too late, then found out that they changed their mind. Ugg! LOL)

[charrbq]

Here&#39;s a good example of an SSB winner. The champion SSB Pontiac Solstice for 2006 had a hired driver that didn&#39;t own the car and was surrounded by GM mechanics at every possible moment. The car was as perfect and legal as the rules and GM would allow. The same scenario happened a couple of years ago with the same driver in a Cadillac CTS-V. I would imagine that the monetary investment in those two cars was in the area of Donald Trump land. Next year, all those eager to win guys will go out and buy two seater Pontiacs in hopes of winning a national championship. Trade those Miatas in for another $25,000 car that probably won&#39;t win again...unless you can trace you ancestory back to Chief Pontiac. But SS is a cheap class...more than touring...and much more than IT. <_<

[Bill Miller]

Not as bad as you say. I built an SSC car (Mazda3) for the &#39;05 season.

The car was $16K brand new and the motor was $4K. So it was already $13K under your estimate, to get rolling. It&#39;s resale value was better than your estimate too.
[/b]

Yes Josh, but you didn&#39;t include the cage/safety gear, or wheels/tires. And I&#39;ll give you the benefit of the doubt, say the car was $25k w/ everything. Where&#39;d you finish in the Division, and how&#39;d you do at the Runoffs?

[JoshS]

Me and two friends built identical cars, all for about that price ($25K is a lot less than Jake&#39;s estimate).

We finished 1-2-3 in the division, and finished 4th, 5th, and 13th at Runoffs (of 39 cars). If I hadn&#39;t had to miss the one cool qualifying day, I wouldn&#39;t have gotten caught up in first-turn mayhem, and I&#39;m sure I would have finished higher. After the first turn I found myself in 27th place, so I&#39;m happy enough with 13th.

Still, one of the reasons I&#39;m going to IT is because I&#39;ve realized that if you&#39;re just "a guy with a race car," who has a day job that&#39;s not car related, national club racing is a tough place to be if you&#39;re as competitive as I am. I don&#39;t have the time or the resources to compete with some of those teams. SSC is probably one of the few classes where "a guy with a race car" can win.

[charrbq]

;) Welcome to IT, where the racing is fun and competitive, and the cost is not how much have you got to spend, but how much do you want to spend.

[41hstock]

My biggest beef with stock classes are the ability for some cars to legally adjust camber while others cannot. Just make camber adjustment legal across the board. Saves cost on tires!!!

[lateapex911]

My biggest beef with stock classes are the ability for some cars to legally adjust camber while others cannot. Just make camber adjustment legal across the board. Saves cost on tires!!! [/b]

Ah...and therein lies the rub.

Making cambber adjustable would ,
-A- Decrease tire costs
or
-B- Increase performance
or
-C- Both of the above

"C" is correct, and when the B part is realized the sompetitive balance is upset. That can be good, or bad, but if the class setters have it right to begin with, then it&#39;s bad. And when you change an allowance like that for an entire category, the results will be a change in performance equity. Which could result in the need to adjust the classing.

So changes like that can be double edged swords.

[Bill Miller]

That&#39;s it Jake! Don&#39;t drive over the capability of the tires and it won&#39;t cost as much! :026: (yeah, the bouncing blue guy is cool!)

[BudMan]

Interesting.

Are any of these people on the board? Does anyone know an IT racer that races routinely, and drives to the track?

I&#39;m just interested to see what percentage of IT racers this group makes. I don&#39;t think I&#39;ve ever seen anyone drive to the track in their IT car. Could drive my car to the track and do drive my car to the track are two different things for purposes of this dicsussion, as well as the phrase "I used to drive to the track".

How many IT racers now drive to the track in the car they race, race, and plan to continue the practice for 2007?
[/b]

You asked, so I&#39;m answering. I do realize I&#39;m in the minority on this one.

fwiw - I drove my car to work today. I do this on average 2-5 days a month. It saves gas compared to the stupid big denali I have to tow with, and I enjoy the time in a car that was my daily driver for years. When I race, I tow the car, but that is really just preventative so I can haul extra tools, parts, and be prepared in case of an accident on the track.

I do in fact have a washer bottle that is functional. I plan to keep it that way. :D

btw - I also have power windows & mirrors. As ITR class grows, I understand these will be taken out for additional weight loss, but for 2006 ITE class, and for 2007 ITR - It&#39;s staying just like it is...and I&#39;m enjoying every minute of it. (Podium finish included).