An ITCS Re-Write

[Andy Bettencourt]

So to follow up on Greg's 'How to write a rule' thread, I am a firm believer in the concept of relying 100% on the 'if it doesn't say you can, then you can't' philosophy of the GCR. A brief looksie shows that it won't be hard to remove all of the "you can't do this" wording while still maintaining the integrity of the rule - as long as you live and die by the IIDSYCTYC foundation, which would be clearly spelled out in the intent section.

My question for you all lies in the Glossary. The shifter lever/knob debate brings me here. If a rule points to a 'part' (like a shift lever, or shift knob) should it be a requirment that that 'part' be defined in the glossary? It would to be a logical yes...but we don't want to GROW the GCR, we want to simplfy it - and hopefully shrink it. I think we can be the model ruleset for all of the SCCA. At what point do we rely on industry accepted terminology - if at all? Should the ITCS have it's own specific sub-glossary?

Comments are welcome on any and all points of this post. This whole thing may be a dumb idea - just provide some feedback.

[Greg Amy]

Obviously, you won't get any objections from me on this idea. However, you do bring up a very valid point about "common acceptance" of terms. In order for IIDSYCTYC to work it has to be coupled to a CULTURE where "weenie" or "clever" interpretations are not tolerated and common sense rules. We have to be willing to tell someone that their "clever" interpretations of the rules are not acceptable.

Splitters as air dams? Air as an acceptable material for suspension bushings? Levers and trusses as shift knobs? These are but a few examples. We love to love guys who come up with this clever wordsmithing, and we even admire it to a certain degree, but unless and until we stop tolerating it as acceptable practice then no amount of rules can ever stop it.

Unless we create an underlying culture that says "this is not right and we will not tolerate it" we are doomed to constantly re-writing rules to block (or, in many cases accommodate) this practice.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

So far we are traveling down the same road. What is the 'answer' to the latter issue? Does it all have to do with self-policing or can we write in into the rulebook?

[Greg Amy]

You cannot write culture into a rulebook; it has to come from various aspects of leadership, peer review/pressure, and community.

Is it possible to accomplish? Of course. Likely? Probably not. But, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. When you see something that you believe does not meet the spirit of the rules, bring it up. If the person rebuffs you, you should be willing to ante up and protest. Otherwise, you are tacitly "approving" that activity and way of thinking.

In the end, it may not be attainable, short of some kind of benevolent dictator (e.g., John Bishop and IMSA) and/or rigid intolerance and enforcement from the organization's hierarchy. - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

When you see something that you believe does not meet the spirit of the rules, bring it up. If the person rebuffs you, you should be willing to ante up and protest. Otherwise, you are tacitly "approving" that activity and way of thinking.
[/b]

And you as well (or better) than anyone should know that the 'spirit' of the rules doesn't really apply in the tech shed. So what is the blue-sky solution to our problem if we can't bank on intent or the spirit?

Better rules. But can we do it without a rulebook 1 foot thick...I think we can. I HOPE we can.

[wbp]

It seems to me that IIDSYCTYC can provide the basis for a stable, reasonably brief ruleset. Stability of rules helps make strong racing. I would like to see the IT rules based so strongly upon that principle that no detailed "shall nots" would be required. The effort needs to be made to make IIDSYCTYC so very clear that no racer, Scruitneer nor Steward can misunderstand the principle.
Glossary: I like them for any wording that may not be definative. Gearshift lever is definative and knob is close to definative. In IT we all have to have a shop manual available. It will help with some part definations and most would likely allow us to identify what is a gearshift lever. (American definations maybe not always useable on a British car manual though.) How about: If a part isn't in the shop manual, and it isn't in a part book, then it can't be on the car unless the rules say it can.
If it's rewritten, I would like to see Simple given a try. I would hope to see IT never get into the "It will make my car faster so make it legal" deal like Production tried. It ran me out of Production racing years ago, and it is hurting the efforts to keep it alive today.
Thanks for giving it a try. I do appreciate all the hard work that goes into our rulemaking.

[JohnRW]

The effort needs to be made to make IIDSYCTYC so very clear that no racer, Scruitneer nor Steward can misunderstand the principle[/b]

Old adage in my business: "Just when you thought you've made everything idiot-proof, somebody invents a better idiot."

[Greg Amy]

And you as well (or better) than anyone should know that the 'spirit' of the rules doesn't really apply in the tech shed.[/b]
BRAACK! Wrong answer. The reason "the spirit doesn't work in the Tech shed" is because we have a culture of tolerance for creative interpretation of the rules. We are significantly more apt to lean towards letting someone get away with such actions - at least initially - versus telling them to pack up their shit and go home.

In other words, we "approve" such action.

Culture cannot be legislated. It's not unlike the culture of a major corporation, such as Enron, tacitly allowing activities that may be somewhat justifiable by twisting the rules, but are clearly out of bounds of society. If the leadership condones such twisting, the minions will follow.


Better rules. But can we do it without a rulebook 1 foot thick...I think we can. I HOPE we can.[/b]
Wrong answer, Part Deaux.

Attitudes and culture cannot be legislated. Period.

[Andy Bettencourt]

BRAACK! Wrong answer. The reason "the spirit doesn't work in the Tech shed" is because we have a culture of tolerance for creative interpretation of the rules. We are significantly more apt to lean towards letting someone get away with such actions - at least initially - versus telling them to pack up their shit and go home.

In other words, we "approve" such action.

Culture cannot be legislated. It's not unlike the culture of a major corporation, such as Enron, tacitly allowing activities that may be somewhat justifiable by twisting the rules, but are clearly out of bounds of society. If the leadership condones such twisting, the minions will follow.


Wrong answer, Part Deaux.

Attitudes and culture cannot be legislated. Period.
[/b]

But you can't tell someone to pack up and go home when the rulebook 'says' something they can do and they do it - unless you are a singular judge and jury like you said in your 2nd post. Without common interpretations accross the Nation, we can't even get to a starting point.

I agree we need to discourage the actions - but without a common set of interpretations, I fail to see how it can happen. And that is where the rulebook needs to get a LOT better.

I hear you loud and clear, just trying to determine if the effort is futile or not....

[Greg Amy]

But you can't tell someone to pack up and go home when the rulebook 'says' something they can do and they do it...[/b]
That - right there - is why we are where we are. YES YOU CAN tell someone to pack up and go home when they show up with a cantilevered bar acting as a shift knob, and air acting as material for suspension bushings, and a splitter acting as an airdam, just as you can when they show up with high-compression pistons and illegal camshafts. You most CERTAINLY can. BUT, you are consciously choosing not to, in order to foster a sense of "community", "caring", "understanding", and/or "inclusion".

There are distinct differences between "misunderstanding" and conscious manipulation of the letter of the rules. Problem is, we lump both of those into the "inclusion" part. You've got to understand that with human nature there will always be the former, and that there will always be the latter. There is no real good way to compromise between the two, so either one has to suffer: either the "misunderstanders" have to be told to go home and fix their cars in order to exclude the "manipulators", or the manipulators have to be tolerated in order to include the misunderstanders.

We've actively and consciously chosen the latter tact. Are we willing to change that?

When I wrote the MT2 rules many moons ago (available here: http://www.it2.evaluand.com/mtcs.pdf) I specifically addressed that issue with the following verbiage:

These rules were written with clear intent and no hidden agenda, and the organizers Modified Touring 2 rules committee will not tolerate “creative interpretation” of the rules. A web site with specific competitors’ questions will be maintained; if any competitor has any question about what is and is not allowed, these should be directed to the rules committee for formal interpretation and publication. “Creative interpreters” run significant risk of having their modifications nullified without prior notification.

And, I meant it. I was fully prepared to tell a competitor to pack their stuff if they came up with some goofball "interpretation" of what the rules states. No weird-ass "shift knobs", no air as a material, none of that.

So, I ask again: are we willing to do that? If not, then I suggest nothing will change and in the end it will be incumbent upon you (both "Andy" you and other rulesmakers) to continually monitor the modifications that people are doing to their cars and continually "modify" the rules to address original intent.

Such as re-writing the shift knob rule so that people truly replace it with a shift knob.

Capiche?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Again, I am fully on board. What you have is a singular group of 2-3 'King's' of like mind who developed the rules - and are willing to enforce them. That fifedom does not exist in the SCCA. The enforcers did not write the rules, have different interpretations of what is legal and they number in the hundreds.

I love the wording for SURE...I wonder if we can adapt it into the ITCS in order to discourage - and then really hammer our local guys to get with the program...

[Knestis]

What Greg said.

We wouldn't be in this bind if the tech shed culture were such that the answer was, "I know damned well that ain't no shift knob, and you know damned well it ain't a shift knob. It IS clever but you've just lost your finishing position and points. Next."

To my knowledge, there's never been a comprehensive effort to make Regional enforcement consistent across the nation. That's where the time/energy should be spent. I've forgotten now who to attribute it to but the excellent point was made here that it's the enforcement of rules that matters, not the wording.


...If a part isn't in the shop manual, and it isn't in a part book, then it can't be on the car unless the rules say it can. ...[/b]

I submit that this is exactly inside-out - or is maybe just half of the solution - since it doesn't promote IIDSYCYC. I should really be (or include)...

If a part is in the shop manual or a parts book, then it must be on the car unless the rules specifically says it can be removed.

That said, I COMPLETELY support Andy's effort to get rid of the "you can'ts" - it won't fix everything but it will head off one way that rules get subverted.

K

[bldn10]

I think one problem w/ the current ruleset is that many people, obviously including some in Topeka, think that modern auto technology and the wide availability of aftermarket parts & mods is out of sync w/ the Class Philosophy. So, instead of just changing the C.P. they come up w/ all kinds of B.S. interpretations of the rules. Therefore, I suggest that before writing a word of new rules, let's think hard what we want the C.P. to be. I.e. how do we balance simplicity and economy w/ evolving technology while keeping older cars competitive (if that's what we want to do)? There is always an inherent desire to make our cars faster (and more complex/expensive)across the board and the rules need to be somewhat of a check on that.

[Rabbit07]

I believe that a glossary is really all that would be needed. The rules are the rules, no need for more of them. With a glossary the definitions are there, no interpretations, just hard definitions. From there it is up to the competitors and the scrutineers to take care of the rest. There is plenty of blatant cheating at both the regional and national level. If you take issue with how someone runs their program, right paper on it! I see “what I consider” illegal stuff on competitors cars all the time. The truth is I really couldn’t care most of the time. I usually will mention to that competitor that I know about it. From there I would only act if I felt it provided them a leg up. I have gone as far as mentioning things to the chief steward which has ended up with multiple cars in tech. Even if it makes the other competitors nervous is enough for me. I think clear glossary definitions would help remove the “what I consider” part?

[spnkzss]

i can understand and agree with the concept of tech taking more control like that, but I really have a problem with somthing like tech making a decision based on opinion. Tech needs to be something cut and dry. The stewards are the only ones that I know of that can make a decision on opinion and I don't really agree with that, but you have to have some of that, I guess.

[Knestis]

...I have gone as far as mentioning things to the chief steward which has ended up with multiple cars in tech. ...[/b]

How in the hell does that system work? :blink:

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

How in the hell does that system work? :blink:

K [/b]

"Hey Cheif of Tech", if you are deciding on anything to inspect in the IT classes today, I have heard a few guys grumbling about ballast placement on more than a few cars, you may check that out."

[Rabbit07]

I said Chief Steward, not Chief of Tech.

Other than that, Andy hit it on the head

On Edit: I don't want to wander off topic here, My point is just keep the ITCS the way it is, just clearly define the items it governs, ie glossary of terms.

[DavidM]

I don't think a rewrite would significantly improve the ruleset and, frankly, I'm opposed to large, wholesale, changes for a while. It seems to me that most of the rules "abuses" have been because of rules that weren't detailed enough. They allowed enough gray area for people to play in. I hate Motecs in the stock CPU box, but it's certainly legal based on how the rule was written. Now, if the rule had specifically stated that it only allowed reflashed stock chips or daughter chips then we wouldn't have a problem. I certainly don't want a 1 ft thick rule book, but, at the same time, rules need to be written in enough detail to say exactly what is allowed.

Leave the current rules alone, but make sure any new rules (or rule updates) have enough detail in them. The intent of a rule often comes up so I wonder if adding an "intent" descriptor to some of the rules would be beneficial. That way it at least gets written down and people aren't left speculating 10 years from now what the rules writers intended.

David

[ddewhurst]

9.1.3.D. Authorized Modifications

The following absolute written words of these absolute written rules authorized modification on all Improved Touring Catagory cars. Modifications SHALL not be made unless authorized within the absolute written words of the absolute written rules.

I could car less if the glossary gets to be one foot thick (or for additional, use Mr. Webster) but lets not continue to play with the existing rules that ain't broke.

Would someone like to take the above revised 9.1.3.D. Authorized Modification rule including Mr. Webster & use it to gauge the legality of the Mustang shift thing.

Have Fun ;)
David

[Doc Bro]

A simple question to ponder:

Is the rule book broken or is the diligence with which it is enforced broken?

I've seen 1 ITA NER protest in the last 3 seasons and I have only missed 2 races in the last 2 seasons. I've seen plenty of rules get written, modified, codified, and sanctified, yet little if any ACTUAL enforcement. We can't rely on tech to do our dirty work. Break out the slide ruler............

R

[mom'sZ]

I think the rule book is sort of broken. I think someone taking the time to rewrite it would be great and really needed. Would I want to do it... HECK NO!!! But from a guy's point of view who really wants to build a legal car, there are so many grey areas, you can't help but have to make a few interpretations. I always though the original writers were trying to promote ingenuity... really!! And where does a guy get help trying to figure out if something is cool or not? Pay $250 (or whatever it is) for a non binding whatever it's called from topeka? For each thing you don't understand? I don't think so. Come here and get your simple question turned into a pissing match between old rivals? Not so great either.
Boy, you guys want to make it easier for new guys to get into the sport? Well then give them a source of definitive binding advise on rules! Forget trying to legislate out overspending, in racing it ain't going to work. New guys realize racing is expensive. OK... rant over let's try to be constructive.
To answer Andy's original question (I think it was) do we add to the glossary to define every word mentioned in the rule set? Seems the glossary would need to be made huge? Might not really fit the definition of other classes. Use the dictionary? what Webster's ? which edition? The shop manual? well my late 70's japanese shop manual has some funky names for stuff that obviously lost something in the translation from japanese to english. (mixing chamber... what is a mixing chamber, look at picture... oh the throttle body) So that ain't going to cut it. How about if a rule mentions a term, it describes what that term is in the rule. shift knob is free. shift knob is the thing your hand grabs on the end of the shift lever. Shift lever is the thing that runs from the trans to the shift knob. It isn't going to be easy I admit. Maybe if something is 'free' it needs to be defined what that thing is. Maybe free is a bad term to use. (replace , modify) I like taking out what you can't do. I like sticking to IIDSYCTYC. I don't think that needs redefined. I like simple, I think simple rule set is part of what made IT so popular. I think if someone does rewrite the rule set, that person should be canonized. If not a total rewrite, I think a thorough cleaning up would be a great start.
oh sorry... edit to add my name Andrew Rowe

[spnkzss]

What about looking at this rule another way (which is how we got to the open ECU rule). Would it be easier to change the rule to state that the shifter is free above the floor. Do you get any advantage? In theory the a short shifter has to do with what is below the floor.

[Rabbit07]

In theory the a short shifter has to do with what is below the floor.
[/b]

Not true. If you change the height at either end you have changed the ratio.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Kirk will be able to say this better but a total re-do of the ITCS is NOT in order. What I want to do is take out all the "YOU CAN'TS" and have only "YOU CAN'S". Then we rely on the IIDSYCTYC. A good rule should be able to have that foundation, be simple and to the point. Any additional 'you can BUT...you can't' just open rules up to more scruitiny and creative interpretation - and grey cars and future codification of rules that were not intended etc.

[JoshS]

I love the wording for SURE...I wonder if we can adapt it into the ITCS in order to discourage - and then really hammer our local guys to get with the program...
[/b]
It won't work. You aren't going to get local tech people to treat IT cars differently than other categories.

[Z3_GoCar]

The only thing I've ever seen enforced at regionals are weight. Seriously, I doubt our tech crews even have the tools. At our last regional we had one run group with only seven cars. When our region is fighting to keep every racer we can, do you think we want to tell them not to come back?

James

[Knestis]

...a total re-do of the ITCS is NOT in order. What I want to do is take out all the "YOU CAN'TS" and have only "YOU CAN'S". Then we rely on the IIDSYCTYC. [/b]
I think that's a great goal and even though it won't solve all of the problems, it will be a help. A revised introduction, a la Greg's IT2 verbiage, would probably reinforce the effort. This is a great project and long overdue.

K

EDIT - what then happens at your local level, James is whatever your region WANTS to have happen. This just takes one set of opportunities for silliness out of the equation.

[JeffYoung]

Bad idea I think. Some of the "you cants" help make things clearer, and prevent overreaching on the you cans.

I don't see the ITCS as broken, at all. The "problem" we have is that people want to stretch the rules - we all do, we are racers. That gets reined in other ways. Culture of compliance is the primary means of doing so.

[esuvee]

I don't post a lot here but what's so broken about the rules? Rules interpretation is part of every competitive event in the world. Hell, it's part of daily life. When the rule says "any material" you can't send someone home for air bushings or they'll come back the next week with light foam. At what durometer do you call it a bushing? Which tech inspector has the magic "bushing finger" to say if it's OK? If it's a big hole in the rules then it needs to be fixed but putting the onus on the tech shed is only going to cause legitimate arguments.

As for the "motec rule disaster" (ooooooh, computers, oh no!). Some guys are good at shocks and springs, some guys are good at 0's and 1's. A computer geek will look at the rules and say "Oh, I'll build up a megasquirt and have full motec functionality for the price of an adjustable fuel pressure regulator, easy." Then he'll drop $5K on on shocks because he doesn't know better. A springs and bars guy will spend $500 on take apart bilsteins that, when tuned, out perform the geek's mega $ shock setup and then drop $5K on a motec. If they're both competitive people they'll pick up each other's craft and their cars will get faster and cheaper and they'll get smarter. Further, at the rate new cars are progressing unless we want to look like the prod groups in 15 years we will have to welcome both types of technology.

Nothing in the current IT rule set requires mega $$ to run 10/10ths. Most people here aren't familiar with fuel injection so it's scary but it's not expensive unless you want it to be, just like shocks and IT engines. Yes, it's more expensive than a stock ecu but we were in a legitimate bind with ECU enforcement issues and, as I see it, an open ecu rule is less expensive for me than a 'stock flashed chip only' rule.

For crying out loud, I bought a car that has been competitive with the Mosers (not since I've owned/driven it, though!) for less than $10K, I just don't see the problem. Even my $5K first CRX was an occasional 3rd place car and a ton of fun. When the whole first half of the field is in $40+K rides we probably went astray but I just don't see it happening with the current rules.

Alex

[Speed Raycer]

Here's a simple idea... reitterate (sp?) the IIDSYCYC rule after every rule section in bold. I'm amazed at how often people in the real world (the non IT.com world) don't know about or gloss over this rule.

[mowog]

The original intent of the glossary (over 10 years ago) was to define technical words not commonly found in a dictionary. Since it was originally submitted as a draft, there have been surprisingly (at least to me) few changes. It wouldn't be a bad idea to revamp it, but it is a VERY large task, and one that needs to be defined in advance - i.e what is the criteria now? Should the glossary be all words, most words, all but common words, only technical words, totally subjective???? Without a clear cut objective, and a volunteer, it probably isn't worth discussing a total rewrite. Instead, ideas for changes and additions would probably be a more obtainable goal.

my 2 cents....