Jacking Points

[mbuskuhl]

Are you in favor of adding a rule to permit jacking points? The rule would need to be written so it's only purpose was to allow the addition of jacking points. The number of jacking points, style, location, and exact verbiage would be discussed if there was a common consensus that these are a necessary item.

Andy recently wrote that the ITAC was divided on this issue which means no recommendation goes to the CRB. I am curious if that was a dead even 50/50 vote and what the IT drivers on this forum feel.

Let the voting begin.

[dickita15]

I voted yes. I do believe we should allow them but you do have to write the rule carefully. I will say that I gave up waiting so as while building my new shell last winter I build them in to my cage.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Write the rule, then tear it apart, then re-write it. THEN vote.

We all WANT jacking points, that isn't the problem or the issue. And so far, both Mark and Dick have found a way to legally do it without the allowance...so....................

[greendot]

And so far, both Mark and Dick have found a way to legally do it without the allowance...so....................
[/b]

I'm not very creative in rules interpretations, but if I can do it without an allowance it seems that it must be easier than folks are letting on.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's not hard at all. Guys who do it run a bar with a pad from the cage to the floor. If you don't weld it to the floor, it isn't considered an attachment point. Then when you jack up on the floorpan, you are really utilizing the pad and you won't get any compression of said pan.

[MMiskoe]

Yes, the rules do have ways that it can be done, but none are particularly effecient, practical or safe. This is the trouble.

Last summer when my letter got shot down the first time I asked how it was expected to do it w/in the current rules. We had a good discussion about how it was deemed that the current rules have enough loopholes to allow jack points.

The design premis is to utilize a 'foot' that comes down from the door bar to the floor to support the floor pan. All very well & good on the right side. However when this is applied to the left side of the car, it adds a member that intrudes on the driver space. When I asked if this was a good idea to do so, those present admitted that it was a dangerous way to build a car. NASCAR bars & their associated door gutting is soley to get the roll cage as far from the driver as possible.

Yes, the rules currently allow it, but not in a safe & conveniet way. The rules also allow us to repair damaged body work so should it be expected to just weld in new floor pans every winter? Most of what was changed with the ECU rule could have been done previously, but not easily.

This seems like such a no-brainer especially when you consider that it is one of the few modifications that extends its usefullness to the crew members, who are also being insured by SCCA.

Matt

[Bill Miller]

It's not hard at all. Guys who do it run a bar with a pad from the cage to the floor. If you don't weld it to the floor, it isn't considered an attachment point. Then when you jack up on the floorpan, you are really utilizing the pad and you won't get any compression of said pan.
[/b]

And if you elect not to repair that rust hole in the floor pan, you can extend that bar down through the hole. :023:

[RSTPerformance]

I deleted post as it added no value.

I do however support a rule change to allow jacking points, good luck Matt.

Raymond

[tom91ita]

my cage is a bolt in and will likely have the bottom plate "reinforced" to better protect the bolts that fasten the cage to my car over the winter.

i do not want the heads of the bolts to be damaged due to driving over curbs or getting hit by my jack....

[ScotMac]

my cage is a bolt in and will likely have the bottom plate "reinforced" to better protect the bolts that fasten the cage to my car over the winter.

i do not want the heads of the bolts to be damaged due to driving over curbs or getting hit by my jack....
[/b]

Right. My cage is bolt. I jack on the bolts anyway, because i don't have any other good jack points. Not great for the jack or the bolts. I recently welded it in, but still haven't taken out the bolts!! :bash_1_:

[Matt Rowe]

I must be doing something wrong. Years now with the same car jacking it in the paddock and the shop. No matter if it's me or a crew member or family. They line the jack up with the bright orange arrow on the side of the car and lift. Never bent the car yet.

I don't see the need for the rule. All I see is another rule that someone can torture into what they want.

I guess if someone could explain to me why a specific car does not have a suitable jack point it would help but I have a hard time believing that. Anybody have a picture of an undercarriage that is unjackable?

[Bob Roth]

Yes

[RacerBill]

Yes, both sides of my Shelby's frames are very weak.

[Matt Rowe]

Bill, I own one of those cars. There are perfectly good jacking points on it. No need for anything more.

[dickita15]

Yes I found a way to make a jack point but only because I was doing a new cage. I ran the forward cage pad down the rocker on to the floor and then added a plate on the underside of the floor so that the cage mount is welded and bolted.
It is certainly not in the best place for weight distribution but it works. I really could not see a way to do it with my old cage.
Matt is right the foot idea is a problem on the driver’s side.
On my car the factory jack point were really not made for this type of abuse. They are made of tin foil origami and situated to do one wheel at a time. The frame rails are pretty inboard so they are hard to reach plus they bend when you jack on them.

[tom91ita]

I must be doing something wrong. Years now with the same car jacking it in the paddock and the shop. No matter if it's me or a crew member or family. They line the jack up with the bright orange arrow on the side of the car and lift. Never bent the car yet.

I don't see the need for the rule. All I see is another rule that someone can torture into what they want.

I guess if someone could explain to me why a specific car does not have a suitable jack point it would help but I have a hard time believing that. Anybody have a picture of an undercarriage that is unjackable?
[/b]

my honda has a very thin piece of metal for a jack support point on the sides by the rocker panels. over the years, these have bent and now the plastic rocker panels have been damaged/broken.

jacking at the track paddock where the grass/ground is not perfectly level also is part of the issue since things are more likely going to shift, etc. even when you chock tires.

if i am jacking on the front cross member or the rear of the car, not an issue (except having to drive on blocks in front to get the jack under). but frequently i want to jack up from the side to rotate tires front to back.

[mbuskuhl]

We all WANT jacking points, that isn't the problem or the issue. And so far, both Mark and Dick have found a way to legally do it without the allowance...so....................
[/b]

I got the impression not everyone WANTS jacking points when you said the ITAC was divided on the issue. What I did for jacking points you may or may not feel is legal, I know others think it is outside the scope of the current rules. Why do we need to twist a current rule to get a mediocre and legally questionable result?

It's clear from this survey we all want jacking points, now we need to identify how many, location, method of attachment and form. So, discussion should now shift to try and get a consensus on these items before we try and write a rule.

I'd like to see a jacking point on each side of the car and 4 jack stand pads. Jacking points and pads may be a plate, tube, or a combination of both (plate on end of tube). Plates probably do not need to be any bigger than 5" x 5" x 1/4" or 25"sq/in. Attachment may be to the cage or floorboard, but not both (that would create an additional cage mounting point). Tubes may penetrate the floorboard. What do the rest of you want out of jacking points/pads?

Miskoe, will you post the rule you wrote? Anyone else write a proposed rule already?

Here is an old discussion on these http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=6162 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6162)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Here is Matt's text:


Thanks,
Matt Miskoe
NER #42 ITS Nissan 300zx

Draft text for ITCS

Jack points may be added to the car provided they fall within the following requirements:

- Two locations only per car may be added, one on each side or one on each end of the car.
- Added jack points may not be used to create any additional roll cage attachment point, ballast location or chassis stiffness, intentional or otherwise.
- Each jack point may be fabricated out of no more than 64 square inches of material welded to the chassis, with no edge dimension longer than 10”. Material to be used may not be thicker than 3/16”.
- Reinforcing of existing chassis seams/intersections may be used, provided that the materials used are in accordance with the above statement and length of reinforcement is no grater than 10”.
- The use of additional roll cage member(s) located within the profile of the door opening that makes contact with the body work, but is not affixed to the body work may be added for the use of jacking the car.
[/b]

[tom_sprecher]

Write the rule, then tear it apart, then re-write it. THEN vote.
[/b]

Jacking Plates:
1. A total of two jacking plates shall be allowed to be attached to the bottom of the car. Each jacking plate shall be at least .080 thick if welded and 3/16” thick (with appropriate backing plates) if bolted. There shall be a minimum of three (3) bolts per jacking plate if bolted.
2. Each jacking plate shall not be greater than 100 square inches and shall be no greater than twelve (12) inches or less than two (2) inches on a side.
3. Whenever possible, jacking plates shall extend onto a vertical section of the structure (such as a rocker box).
4. The jacking plate may be multi-angled but must not exceed these dimensions in a flat plane.

Seems that if the rule is good enough for roll cage mounting pads it should be OK for jacking plates as far as additional functionality is concerned. All you need is a plate to distribute the stress over a larger area. I am in the process of fabbing up a floor jack saddle that effectively does the same thing. I'd much rather have some plates welded up under the rockers.

[lateapex911]

You have two options to get this into the rule book IMO...

1 - Call the SCCA law firm and explain the safety hazard. 90% of accidents are in the padock, and obviosly this is a major safety issue that goes far beyond a simple cut finger when the car falls.


Raymond [/b]

Raymond please provide the source and facts for this statement, I'd be interested to know the actual numbers and injuries. Just a link will be fine, you don't have to go to the trouble of copying and pasting....I'm sure you found thin info somewhere on the web.........right?

[Matt Rowe]

Here is Matt's text:

Draft text for ITCS

Jack points may be added to the car provided they fall within the following requirements:

- Two locations only per car may be added, one on each side or one on each end of the car.
- Added jack points may not be used to create any additional roll cage attachment point, ballast location or chassis stiffness, intentional or otherwise.
- Each jack point may be fabricated out of no more than 64 square inches of material welded to the chassis, with no edge dimension longer than 10”. Material to be used may not be thicker than 3/16”.
- Reinforcing of existing chassis seams/intersections may be used, provided that the materials used are in accordance with the above statement and length of reinforcement is no grater than 10”.
- The use of additional roll cage member(s) located within the profile of the door opening that makes contact with the body work, but is not affixed to the body work may be added for the use of jacking the car.[/b]
The second statement in that rule violates Greg Amy's second commandment of rules, thou shall not say what you can't do for fear that people will assume everything else is allowed.

But seriously I could take that wording an effectively create a nice subframe tie, er jacking point. Now the rule says no chassis stiffening is allowed but we have had endless debates before where two groups will disagree abouth the effects of legal modifications.

Again, all I see is another rule to be tortured and an unconvincing argument that people can't safely jack up their car.

Are we really playing the safety card for a rule change?

[77ITA]

I'm mad because I can't jack up my Neon by the core support. Can we have seam welding in IT please? It's much safer when jacking the car. Please, think of the children! :P

I'm not on board with this one at all. It's not that I'm against jacking points per say, but I certainly don't recognize the need.

If you can't find a suitable place to jack up a high volume production car you're probably doing something wrong. Floor pan bending? Car falling on your friends and family? Don't jack there. :rolleyes:

There is just no need to re-write the rules if a few particular cars are difficult to jack or support. It's not a new problem and easily solved by welding up "custom" jack stands or a fancy head for your hydraulic jack.

Cheaper, easier, and no rule change required. People have been doing that for years with no issues.

[ScotMac]

The second statement in that rule violates Greg Amy's second commandment of rules, thou shall not say what you can't do for fear that people will assume everything else is allowed.

But seriously I could take that wording an effectively create a nice subframe tie, er jacking point. Now the rule says no chassis stiffening is allowed but we have had endless debates before where two groups will disagree abouth the effects of legal modifications.

Again, all I see is another rule to be tortured and an unconvincing argument that people can't safely jack up their car.

Are we really playing the safety card for a rule change?
[/b]

Though i voted "yes", i agree that this rule would have to written VERY CAREFULLY to ensure that it doesn't allow "tube-frame" additions.

[RSTPerformance]

Raymond please provide the source and facts for this statement, I'd be interested to know the actual numbers and injuries. Just a link will be fine, you don't have to go to the trouble of copying and pasting....I'm sure you found thin info somewhere on the web.........right?
[/b]
jake I deleted my post as it added no value, i appologize what i said earlier was a joke and was typed on anger. I am not sure how many accidents occurr in the padock vs on the tack nor is it relavent. I will say thou that jaking points would or could be a safety item especially for enduros.

Raymond "I hope things change around here"Blethen

[gran racing]

I'd possibly buy into the whole jacking points for enduros, but not for sprint races. Come on now, I had an absolutely horrible car to jack up due to rust issues on my former Prelude. Even with that, I never had an issue jacking it up although it was in a different location (front cross beam and rear). It's just not necessary - that being the case, why F%@# with the rules and add just one more thing for us to "play" with?

[mbuskuhl]

Tear it apart.


Four (4) or less jacking points may be added for the purpose of safely raising or lowering a vehicle. Jacking points may be added with either a plate or tube. If using a plate, it must attach to the floorboard of a vehicle by welding and/or the use of bolts. The plate may be constructed out of material no greater than 1/4" thick with a maximum size of 64 square inches and no one side longer than 10 inches in length. Jacking points constructed out of a tube must use the same diameter and thickness of the vehicles roll cage and may be no longer than 12 inches in length per jacking point. Tubes may only be attached and welded to the vehicles roll cage. A hole the same size as the tube may be cut in the chasis to facilitate installation. Jacking points must be able to raise and lower a vehicle with the use of a floor jack.

[tom_sprecher]

I can see where if tubing were allowed that someone creative could have an advantage over another make of car but what's wrong with only allowing plate like on roll cage mounting pads?



Jacking Plates:
1. A total of two jacking plates shall be allowed to be attached to the bottom of the car. Each jacking plate shall be at least .080 thick if welded and 3/16” thick (with appropriate backing plates) if bolted. There shall be a minimum of three (3) bolts per jacking plate if bolted.
2. Each jacking plate shall not be greater than 100 square inches and shall be no greater than twelve (12) inches or less than two (2) inches on a side.
[/b]

I do not want to hijack this thread but it seems an appropriate time due to the example before us. Forgive me but I am unaware exactly how a rule is created, what the purpose of the ITAC is specifically and how much they influence the CRB. It is blatantly apparent members send requests to the CRB and hopefully after careful consideration the CRB either moves forward with the request or shoots it down.

What part does the ITAC play? It appears to be solely advisory. If that is the case I would hope the input you gain from the community here forms the basis of your advice to the CRB, unless of course you sort through race entry lists in each division and call the IT drivers in order to get their opinion. :blink:

To paraphrase a post in another thread I feel the ITAC (BoD and CRB, too) as volunteer representatives of the IT community at large your responsibility and obligation is to ultimately execute the will of the members you serve. As a member of that constituency I believe you all do an excellent job. I also strongly feel when people in that position see their role and unfortunately themselves as something more than that described above they can no longer effectively follow through with the duties they have been tasked with and should step down or be removed.

Back OT. Any material you add has a potential to provide additional stiffness but this advantage is not yours alone. Although this poll is a small sample it is obvious at present the vast majority is in favor of allowing jacking "points". With that in mind will the ITAC members on this forum forward this info to the remaining ITAC members and the CRB with the intent of recommending that a rule the majority can accept be drafted for inclusion in the next Fastrack?

Inquiring minds want to know. ;)

[lateapex911]

To sort of answer your question, Tom, the tree of command works like this:

We...(the ITAC...Improved Touring Advisory Commit..) have a website...actually a private forum, like this. All the letters get emailed to ITAC members, and posted on the site. We discuss. Sometimes we float ideas on the public thru various other forums such as this, or with trusted fellow racers. We post to our site: "This guys got a point", or "this guys an idiot", etc... then we have a con call on the 4th Monday night every month and go over the months letters. We either respond with a "no thanks" or a "yes, and here's how it gets done" or a "We need to think/research or wait for more info" response. (Essentially, a "Not recommended, "Recommended" or "Tabled". The CRB has liasons on the call, so we can discuss items with them, make our case, and hear their views. Then it goes to them, and they decide to support it or not, and in the case of rules changes, it goes to the BoD for a vote.

Generally, most of what we do gets moved thru the system without a hitch, but certain larger items go back and forth, or get put out for member comment. (The ECU rule is one).

Then there are self generated items. One recent one was, believe it or not, the ECU rule. Another is the VIN rule. That one has come up a couple of times, most recently in a letter from the esteemed Dr K, but has been turned down, narrowly, each time. Then after thinking about it more, an ITAC member brought it back up. We discussed it again, and those against have softened, so it is out for member comment.

Andy, Josh, Marshall, Bob, Stan. Peter, (and any other CRB or ITAC lurkers) correct me here if I stray, but I feel that the IT drivers have chosen IT for these reasons: -The ruleset
-The stability
- The relative parity
-The ability to drive the car THEY desire
-The competition (really that's a resut of the above)
The ruleset...not too much, not too little
So, when something comes up, those factors listed above are considered heavily. If something is considered borderline, or to have unforseen consequences, we will usually pass. Stability, and the popularity of the ruleset weigh heavily. The needs of the many always outweigh the needs of the few in our minds.

Once the ITAC decides, it makes it's recommendation to the CRB. There are instances where the CRB has indicated that something we've been discussing will be a non starter. Once the CRB gets it, they usually pass it, and it goes to the BoD for final vote. In general, the BoD, supports what we've sent them. Sometimes there is some pre vote discussion. I have called my BoD person to fill them in on something coming up thats unique, but, in general, the system has supported us. I don't know if the other ad hocs have the same experience or not, but it seems that the foundation work Darin et al have done has created a decent relationship with our bosses.

This specific recommendation was discussed, and the positives and negatives expressed here were the issues. In the end, it was a close call, and when it's that close, we err on the side of conservatism.

To further the thoughts here, it is safe to say that the ITAC is very instrumental in what IT is today, and that this website, and others, have played a significant role. Now, IT.com is not representative of every IT driver in the country, but I would wager my entire vast collection of real estate dna vehicles, (LOL) that without this site, and the internet in general, today's IT would be very very diferent. So, yes, we listen. That's not to say if 60% of the members responding or writing in want something that they will get it....it's not that clear cut, but the community IS listened to.

[mbuskuhl]

I can see where if tubing were allowed that someone creative could have an advantage over another make of car but what's wrong with only allowing plate like on roll cage mounting pads?

[/b]

The idea behind the tube is to tie into the cage rather than put a plate on the bottom side of the floorboard. Would simply welding a 8" x 8" x 1/4" plate to the floorboard in the center side area be enough? My floorboard is mutilated from using a jack there. With a maximum 12" long tube that can only attach to the cage, how do you see someone twisting that into something it should not be?

Good point you bring up on the ITAC, I think of them as what our elected members of congress are supposed to be, a voice of the people they represent.

[MMiskoe]

I kind of feel responsible for this little pandora's box so I'll give some insight into why I created it.

Every car I've used on the track is/was a nuicanse to jack up considering how often it needs to take place. Frame rails, floor pans, rocker seams all get magled. On one car we came very close to pinching brake & fuel lines during enduro stops. Basically I got sick of having to pick from one place, then put a jack stand under, then pick from another etc, or drive up on blocks or build special jigs for the floor jack. It just seemed so simple to weld a short pc of something stiff/hard to the rocker seam. So I did just that on one of my cars. Worked great, nothing bent, never fell off the jack etc. But it wasn't exactly legal so I figured I'd give a try at writing something that would work. In short, I was looking for a better way to do it legally.

My original letter to CRB/ITAC even went as far as pointing out some of the potential tortures and how they either were not allowed or didn't provide any competative advantage:

- ballast - by limiting how much material is added, there is limited balast that can be applied. Plus no IT car that I know of is light on the left side and ballast is allowed on the right.

- stiffening - by limiting the location to w/in the door opening and by limiting the longest dimension you can't really gain much. The roll cage creates an arch spanning this area and provides crap-loads more strength than a foot of any kind of steel will.

- suspension pick up stiffening - Item D in the IT book is pretty clear that one modification can't do some additional work that isn't allowed. Seems pretty clear to me that gussetting your rear crossmember pick up & calling it a jack point will get you shot down come protest time. (If not, I'm going to build me an 'engine stay rod' that ties the strut tops to the fire wall!)

I still maintain that the current rules do not allow any good solution for heavier cars w/ a long wheelbase. Light cars don't create the damaging forces that a heavy car does. I'm sure the door bar extension works great on a 1900# FWD car where 78% weight is up front. But a longer car has a balance point closer to the driver seat area, exactly where you don't want roll cage members intruding on the driver space.

Precedences have been set with recent changes that make it easier to do things that were previously difficult to do (15" wheels for 14" OE cars, NASCAR bars for passenger seats, spherical bearings, ECU's all come to mind). So I have limited ability to follow the compaint that rules are not made to make things easier and cheaper.

Perhaps the ITAC and CRB could share the items that they thought would happen if this rule were passed?

Matt

[RacerBill]

Bill, I own one of those cars. There are perfectly good jacking points on it. No need for anything more.
[/b]

Hi! Matt. Yes, there are 'perfectly good jacking points on it' as long as you are lucky enough to get a hold of a 'California' car that has never been soaked in road salt, and not a 'New York City' car that has sat for weeks on a pier in a salt water river, constantly soaking in salt air! It was probably my fault for not checking the stock jacking locations more carefully, but that's water over the dam. So, now I am trying to make my car safer. (Yes, I am playing the 'safety' card.)

BTW, I have written the CRB and received the stock 'rules adequate as written' answer. And I take from that answer that the PTB want us to read between the lines of the rules and come up with our own creative interpertations (ah, but not too creative, now). The trouble with that way of thinking is that besides making me interpert the rules, it allows other competitors, tech inspectors, stewards, etc. to interpret the rules in their own way. Here's an example of interpertation - rules permit repair, but not seam welding. So, if I repair the collapsing frame and weld all 6" of the edge of the added piece of metal, am I 'seam welding'?

I think that taking the interpertation out of the current rules is all that those in favor of a jacking plate rule are asking for.

Yes, the current rules do not specifically prohibit jacking plates (I agree with Greg that our rules should not prohibit items), but they are also not specifically allowed (If It Don' Say You Can, You Can't).

Hope I haven't ticked off too many of you. :D

[tom_sprecher]

Thank you Jake for the summary on what roles the ITAC, CRB and BoD play in the rule making process. In a nutshell you review all the letters received from members or self-generated and pass on to the CRB the requests you all agree with. They in turn do the same and pass it on to the BoD who in most cases gives it their stamp of approval.

Please understand that I do not make the following statements to be critical as I believe in the way the ITAC, CRB, BoD and yes even the rest of the SCCA conducts business given the universe in which you work. I respect what you do and am thankful for your service and the level of professionalism I have seen in most people I deal with at each level of the Club.

Unfortunately, except for the origination of the request itself, it sounds like there is little involvement from the rest of the community regarding rule change requests. Perhaps in many cases that may be for the better but when you keep receiving similar requests I would hope you ask how the majority feels on the subject. When I use the word "majority" I mean the folks here and on other forums who voice their opinions. Granted you may get a few responses that may seem a bit "overzealous" but if they didn't speak up how would you know? Also, I agree a select group of racing peers can provide valuable insight but I have found they rarely represent the masses and usually reflect my own personal preferences. Friends and close acquaintances tend to do that by definition.

Your analysis of why most people choose to race IT was interesting but did not include the reason I race IT and it has peaked my curiosity.

The poll currently shows better that 80% of the respondents favor jacking points. The responses reflect it could be a low dollar mod that would solve a problem many racers have for various reasons. Would the rule changes on custom ECU’s, larger tires/wheels, and even the VIN (for those who searched high and low and paid dearly for the right one) pass the same scrutiny?

At this point I feel a change in the rule regarding jacking points would be a good thing even though I am currently fabbing a custom jack saddle and if it works the whole issue will be a moot point. :birra:

If it doesn’t, well, let’s just say although I am new at the IT game I have been very observant while at the track (a trait I learned from my FC days) and have noticed that many racers don’t exactly follow the rules to the letter. To be more accurate I guess they reason if everyone blatantly breaks the rules who in their right mind would protest? Now that’s stability. :blink:

Kinda shoots the rule set all to hell don’t ya think? :(

[Andy Bettencourt]

Tom,

Sometimes the CRB and ITAC have to protect the racers from unintended concequenses. That is the big issue here. Some have expressed their desire to make something easier. Some have pointed out that we have all been getting along for years without a potentially abused allownance (one not easily undone I might add) and some have already found ways to do the same thing (jack saddle, cage 'feet', etc). Hell, some have suggested to me that if done improperly, these 'pads' could be the slipperiest surface under the car and almost unsuitable for a jacking point.

Matt and I have talked about this topic and he wrote one of the best letters we have ever received. You have read it earlier in the thread.

I will tell you that I don't perceive my job as an ITAC member to blindly carry members requests forward to the CRB. Ideas get voted on and pushed 'upward' if they fit many criteria the BoD has used to form our class.

[mbuskuhl]

Andy or other ITAC members,

Has the discussions here over the past few days and current vote count (80%+) in favor of this rule changed the previous opinion of the ITAC? Are they still divided or does this now have a chance at becoming proposed to the CRB? I know you mentioned a monthly phone call but also there was an ITAC only secret forum where issues are discussed.

Thanks.
Mark

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy or other ITAC members,

Has the discussions here over the past few days and current vote count (80%+) in favor of this rule changed the previous opinion of the ITAC? Are they still divided or does this now have a chance at becoming proposed to the CRB? I know you mentioned a monthly phone call but also there was an ITAC only secret forum where issues are discussed.

Thanks.
Mark [/b]

Only about 1/2 of the ITAC reads this board.

[tom_sprecher]

Andy,

I appreciate what you have said but it reminded me that I often come away from reading posts on this forum feeling there are some here that believe they possess a certain quality, characteristic or knowledge that sets them apart from the rest and it is their right to oversee the great unwashed masses in order to safeguard us from what we know not. They share a lot in common with the Libs in that respect. BTW, I can not recall you being guilty of this so please don't think this is aimed at you.

I appreciate your concern but do not feel the need for any kind of protection or help in deciding how to modify my car and resent that, although I know it was not aimed at me, someone else thinks they know better and need to take care of those who don't. Regarding unintended consequences life is full of them and they can either f' you up or you can take advantage of them depending on what decisions you make.

Maybe a little more credit is due. Through the decisions many of us have made playing the game of life we have managed to excel to the point that we can afford to road race as a hobby. Many choose more sophisticated and relatively more expensive classes to race in but a few choose IT instead. While not one of them yet I have learned the wealthy are that way because they don't spend all their money. This is why I chose IT.

Granted, we may not have spent decades racing SCCA and those who have definitely have a huge advantage but that does not mean we can not design and construct a jacking point that prevents the car from falling on us. In my case the five+ years it took to become an electrical and mechanical engineer and twenty+ years dealing in industrial machinery means I can. For the rest should the car happen to slip off the jack point I suggest you chalk it up to Darwin’s theory at work and not something you should be concerned about as it can just as easily happen without jack points.

I strongly support you for not “blindly carry members requests forward to the CRB” but at the same time you should not blindly ignore the desires of what appears to be an overwhelming majority of the members that responded to the small poll. Probability and statistics teaches that although a small sample is not the most accurate method to gauge opinion it can many times be rather representative of the bigger picture. It is this aspect that should have a little more weight with the ITAC and CRB and is the center of all I am asking.

Remember when passenger seats were required? I bet the arguments in getting that rule changed was about the same as that before us now. The process can be painful at times but progress usually is.

[mbuskuhl]

Only about 1/2 of the ITAC reads this board.
[/b]

Good information to know.

Any response to the questions posed in post #34?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Tom,

One of the great things that I have been part of overthe past year or so is the creation of ITR. I asked a few of very active forum members here to be part of the 'process'. If they so choose to identify themselves, I bet you it was a somewhat enlightening ordeal. Most of my input was 'don't forget this, and this could happen' kind of stuff. It was nice to involve other outside the ITAC to give them a peek inside how things work. I took the framework to the ITAC as a proposal and it went up from there.

The point is that we are not telling you how to build your racecar. Do I think YOU could build a nice jacking point? Sure. Do I think the average racer would end up with something less than safe? Maybe. As an example, take a look at 10 fuel cell installs the next time you are in the paddock and tell me what you think.

The issue isn't about safety however. It's about a NEED to change a rule and the opportunity it has to get tortured and taken advantage of. Especially when you there are a VARIETY of ways to do this currently. Weighing those factors against the 'I have no good place to jack my car up' requests is where we are stuck. Just because something is easier doesn't mean it is neccessarily the best thing for the class.

I hear your comments and I hope that you understand where I am coming from. And REMEMBER, I often come on here to present the 'other' side of the arguement to be fair to all the ITAC. We listen, but we don't just represent the racer, we represent the history of IT and the integrity of IT.




Good information to know.

Any response to the questions posed in post #34? [/b]

That IS the response. If only half read, how can they change their vote based on what is here?

[Bill Miller]

Anyone that doesn't understand where unintended consequences can take you needs to review how we ended up with an open ECU rule. That being said, I don't think that the folks that originally wrote the 'anything you can stuff in the stock housing' rule were anywhere near as diligent as today's ITAC. And IIRC, that rule change was never put out for member input.

I was one of the people involved in the ITR AdHoc group. I have to tell you, it was one of the best project teams that I have ever worked with. For the most part, the egos got left at the door, and we were pretty much all business and no BS. I think everyone that was involved should be proud of what was accomplished. I know I am.

Andy,

While I can certainly understand why some members of the ITAC may not want to participate here, this is too much of a window into the IT community for them not to at least read it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

While I can certainly understand why some members of the ITAC may not want to participate here, this is too much of a window into the IT community for them not to at least read it. [/b]

While I agree with you to a large extent Bill, I think you could argue that for every good idea we may bring to them from here, they also get to avoid the myriad of BS that burns people out.

[wbp]

Andy, I'm glad to hear that you feel you are free to support rules as you see the situation after you consider what you hear, and any other information you have. And that you don't feel you should just go with whatever seems to get the most "votes" on a forum.
And modifications to make jacking the car safe and non-damaging are totally free already, just so long as you make these mods to your jack and stands, not to the race car.
If I had a vote (and I don't) I would say no changes to the jack points on the car.

[mbuskuhl]

That IS the response. If only half read, how can they change their vote based on what is here?

[/b]

Andy,

Half of the ITAC has seen the discussion and votes, perhaps that has changed their opinion. I understand clearly you are against a jacking point rule and the rationale, that is fine, it does not mean that other ITAC members still maintain their original position. To the half that do not read this forum, perhaps the discussion on this thread has crossed over on to the ITAC private forum.

The jacking point issue is over it looks like, I'm going to take a wild guess and say we will not see a jacking point rule any time soon. Maybe that guess is wrong. It has been interesting though to learn more about the rules process and the ITAC's role as the thread has progressed. I do not agree though. MAZDASPEED did a survey and will do what it's customers want, we elect our government officials by majority vote, members in clubs usually vote on issues, but we do not move forward on a proposition supported by a small sampling of the IT community which clearly leans a particular way.

As Tom said so well, most of us had to achieve some type of success in life with good decisions to be able to do what we do. Surely 80% of those sampled couldn't be wrong. I did write a rule as you recommended but it was not torn apart, the invitation is still open to anyone... have it create a benefit not intended. Oh well, on to other business...


-Mark

[Andy Bettencourt]

It has been interesting though to learn more about the rules process and the ITAC's role as the thread has progressed. I do not agree though. MAZDASPEED did a survey and will do what it's customers want[/b]

Actually, MAZDASPEED has just asked the questions. They have yet to DO anything.




we elect our government officials by majority vote, members in clubs usually vote on issues, but we do not move forward on a proposition supported by a small sampling of the IT community which clearly leans a particular way.[/b]

To play devil's advocate once again, please understand that 50 people on IT.com (more than 75% I would guess haven't even weighed in with comments, just voted silently) does not represent the majority. Would you like us to move forward based on this or should we include the people we talk with at races? This board has tremendous value but it is not the end-all.


Surely 80% of those sampled couldn't be wrong. [/b]

Depends on the sample, no? And besides - this isn't a right or wrong issue.

We hear the request but again, the hook - as a few have pointed out - is that you can 'fix' your jacking problem a variety of different ways now. All without creating a rule that could get abused.

[MMiskoe]

Sorry, could not stay silent on this one.


the hook - as a few have pointed out - is that you can 'fix' your jacking problem a variety of different ways now.[/b]

And how does this relate to the items I mentioned earlier which have to do w/ making old mods easier to do or making repairs easier?

14" OE wheels can now run 15" because 15" tires are easier to find

ECU's are open because its easier than forcing new mods in the old box & wire harness

spherical bearings are OK now so no one has to go back and re-engineer their suspensions

threaded body struts are now OK simply because they are more common (therefore cheaper) than when IT originally got thunk up

Go ahead and overbore .040" so you can re-use that block that has a scored cylinder instead of sourcing a new block

Accusumps & windage trays are OK rather than making some cars just not worth the effort



Shall I continue? It's not hard. Many of the rules we have are aimed at making street cars better race cars. I just can't stomach that statement copied above considering some of the changes of the last couple of years & the way the original rule set was written.

Matt

[Andy Bettencourt]

Sorry, could not stay silent on this one.



And how does this relate to the items I mentioned earlier which have to do w/ making old mods easier to do or making repairs easier?

14" OE wheels can now run 15" because 15" tires are easier to find

ECU's are open because its easier than forcing new mods in the old box & wire harness

spherical bearings are OK now so no one has to go back and re-engineer their suspensions

threaded body struts are now OK simply because they are more common (therefore cheaper) than when IT originally got thunk up

Go ahead and overbore .040" so you can re-use that block that has a scored cylinder instead of sourcing a new block

Accusumps & windage trays are OK rather than making some cars just not worth the effort



Shall I continue? It's not hard. Many of the rules we have are aimed at making street cars better race cars. I just can't stomach that statement copied above considering some of the changes of the last couple of years & the way the original rule set was written.

Matt

[/b]

Because you can already do what you want to do Matt. Some don't see the 'need' outweighing the potential issues. It's really that simple for the guys who voted 'no' on your request.

[lateapex911]

Matt, interstingly, many of your examples are issues that have been affected by the passage of time. But hey, if anything, Jacks are lower and better and lighter since IT's inception. If anything, jacking has gotten easier.

I don't think your arguement, "Hey, look at all these things you guys have done that are much more questionable, so you should do this" hold much logic.

Regarding the "popular" vote, where's Kirk????

[Bill Miller]

Jake,

It's not about the jack, it's about how you're able to use it on the car. Jacking hasn't gotten easier, jacks have gotten better. And making a special saddle to jack the car from the side may not work if you need to jack the car from the front or the back.

And I don't think that Matt is saying that because 'questionable' things have been done in the past, is justification for anything. What he is saying, is that there have been changes made to the rules to make it easier to facilitate things. Talk about putting words in someone's mouth!


many of your examples are issues that have been affected by the passage of time[/b]

And I'm sorry, even after reading that several times, I have no idea what you're trying to say, or why it has any bearing on the topic at hand.

And really Andy, 'need outweighing potential issues'? Please explain how the 'need' for open ECUs w/ added sensors outweighed the potential issues.

[lateapex911]

And how does this relate to the items I mentioned earlier which have to do w/ making old mods easier to do or making repairs easier?

14" OE wheels can now run 15" because 15" tires are easier to find

ECU's are open because its easier than forcing new mods in the old box & wire harness[/b]

Actually, another reason cited by the ITAC is the fact that computing power doubles every 9 months or so, and that prices drop in half, so it has gotten to the point that ECUs are plentiful, and relatively cheap. ...and the asage of time saw an inequitable rule passed years ago...


threaded body struts are now OK simply because they are more common (therefore cheaper) than when IT originally got thunk up

Go ahead and overbore .040" so you can re-use that block that has a scored cylinder instead of sourcing a new ...
[/b]
and I'lll add: and possible rare considering some of the IT cars are over 20 years old..


block

I just can't stomach that statement copied above considering some of the changes of the last couple of years & the way the original rule set was written.

Matt

[/b]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. but many of his examples relate to items that have physically changed over the passage of time...and the ruleset has adapted as the keepers feel is necessary.

Look guys, it's not black and white. This thread has seen goood reasons for, and good reasons against.

I think the iTAC meets tonight, and if it's on the agenda, we'll find out what the current consensus is.

[mbuskuhl]

To play devil's advocate once again, please understand that 50 people on IT.com (more than 75% I would guess haven't even weighed in with comments, just voted silently) does not represent the majority. Would you like us to move forward based on this or should we include the people we talk with at races? This board has tremendous value but it is not the end-all.

[/b]

You've already alluded to the fact that whether there is a majority consensus or not, the ITAC will do what it wants. I find it interesting how the responses have changed... initially it was write a rule THEN vote... as the voting progressed we were told that majority opinion does not create law.... and now, the poll is not a good representative sample of the IT community.

Invitation still open to tear apart my rule, make it do the unintended....

[Andy Bettencourt]

And really Andy, 'need outweighing potential issues'? Please explain how the 'need' for open ECUs w/ added sensors outweighed the potential issues. [/b]

Bill,

The ECU rule is nothing like this issue. To put it simply, we had a bad rule, we needed to fix it - and given current technology it makes more sense to open it up than it did to shut it down (or leave it alone). The costs and seperation of haves and have-nots has been explained to death. I'm just not going to get into it again.

People keep citing the ECU rule as creep but it was driven by the advancement of technology and the ability to police stock stuff that can be reprogrammed without modification. We had to choose the 'smallest pile of crap' wrt this issue because its something we just can't leave alone and have the most parity possible - even measured in IT-granularity.






You've already alluded to the fact that whether there is a majority consensus or not, the ITAC will do what it wants. I find it interesting how the responses have changed... initially it was write a rule THEN vote... as the voting progressed we were told that majority opinion does not create law.... and now, the poll is not a good representative sample of the IT community.

Invitation still open to tear apart my rule, make it do the unintended.... [/b]

The point being for those who are voting to think about the rule from all angles before you vote. Not just a 'hey, I want that too' vote.

I don't think the responses have changed. The 'how it works' info is just hitting your desktop. Many here know how it works.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Wanted to reiterate something. If you feel strongly about something, keep writing letters. It wasn't so long ago that only 1 or 2 ITAC members were willing to send a recommendation to strike the VIN requirment...

[1stGenBoy]

Anyone that doesn't understand where unintended consequences can take you needs to review how we ended up with an open ECU rule. That being said, I don't think that the folks that originally wrote the 'anything you can stuff in the stock housing' rule were anywhere near as diligent as today's ITAC. And IIRC, that rule change was never put out for member input.

I was one of the people involved in the ITR AdHoc group. I have to tell you, it was one of the best project teams that I have ever worked with. For the most part, the egos got left at the door, and we were pretty much all business and no BS. I think everyone that was involved should be proud of what was accomplished. I know I am.

Andy,

While I can certainly understand why some members of the ITAC may not want to participate here, this is too much of a window into the IT community for them not to at least read it.
[/b]


FYI: I log in and check this forum as much as possible and do read and think about all the discussions. I choose not to post too much as I do not have the time to get into arguments and get flamed for posting my thoughts. I do think the ITAC has done a great job over the past few years ( I'm baised of course ) but when the leaders of the CRB and BOD tell us we really have are stuff together it's hard not to feel proud.
For those of you who want to get invloved and are interested in serving on the ITAC,send a letter of interest and a resume to the CRB. They keep the letters on file and when an opening in the ITAC comes up the letters are reviewed for possible canidates.

Bob Clark
#76 Cen-Div ITB
#76 Cen-Div GTL
SCCA ITAC Member

[tom_sprecher]

Are the CRB and ITAC members elected or appointed?
In either case how often and by whom?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Are the CRB and ITAC members elected or appointed?
In either case how often and by whom?

[/b]

I believe the CRB members are appointed by the BoD and the ITAC is appointed by the CRB. As with everything, the ITAC makes recommendations and the CRB approves/disapproves.

On the ITAC, we try and have representation from a variety of IT classes as well as representation from all over the country. Most of our volunteers as of late are very East-coast oriented...and while very qualified, we try and stay diverse.

As far as how often, when someone decides thay are done, a spot opens up. We may have at least one, maybe two for 2008 opening up. If anyone is interested, please submit your resume and note as to why you would like to volunteer to the CRB.

crb at scca.com

[Harvey]

FYI: I log in and check this forum as much as possible and do read and think about all the discussions. I choose not to post too much as I do not have the time to get into arguments and get flamed for posting my thoughts. I do think the ITAC has done a great job over the past few years ( I'm baised of course ) but when the leaders of the CRB and BOD tell us we really have are stuff together it's hard not to feel proud.
For those of you who want to get invloved and are interested in serving on the ITAC,send a letter of interest and a resume to the CRB. They keep the letters on file and when an opening in the ITAC comes up the letters are reviewed for possible canidates.

Bob Clark
#76 Cen-Div ITB
#76 Cen-Div GTL
SCCA ITAC Member
[/b]

I agree with Bob here. I log onto this site at least once a day and do take info into consideration. I have been a member for quite some time as you can see.

[mbuskuhl]

Good morning ITAC,

Did this topic make it in the phone conversation last night? If so, any summary?

Thanks.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Good morning ITAC,

Did this topic make it in the phone conversation last night? If so, any summary?

Thanks. [/b]

No it didn't. It's currently not an item that the ITAC as a group sees the value in given what can legally be done currently. I now that isn't what you want to hear, but it is what it is - for now.

[tom_sprecher]

Like the BoD I think the ITAC has done an excellent job with some of the challenges they have faced in the past few years. While I may not agree with all the decisions made and level of importance of certain factors like stability or the history and integrity of IT when making the rules I can respect it. Perhaps it is the open mindedness of inexperience or that I do not understand those aspects as well as some of you. Someday hopefully I will.

I also strongly feel you can not have the rule set voted on in a true democratic way. The reason for this is twofold. First, there has yet to be a successful government whose laws are formed in the same manner. And second, I feel a large percentage of this great country of ours is comprised of folks that fall somewhere between being an idiot and that of a moron. It is a serious fault of mine that I am trying to overcome and have come to the conclusion that drinking in excess is not the cure, yet.

Based on some of the responses on this thread it is safe to suppose that some here would prefer the ITAC from time to time as they see fit, but more often than less, bounce proposed rule changes off the rest of us if only to gauge public opinion but mostly to satisfy our need to feel included, respected and that our opinions are given due consideration.