Proposed Change to IT Purpose and Intent

[D. Ellis-Brown]

As some of you in the Central Florida Region already know, I am fairly vocal about the IT rules, the CRB and the advisory committee that provides inputs to the CRB. I have been competing in Improved Touring for over 20 years. During that time, IT has matured and I do believe that the Purpose and Intent, as presently documented, are neither accurate nor reflective of that maturation. Therefore I propose to submit a change to the “original” Purpose and Intent of Improved Touring that will better reflect the reality of the current cars being added, the normal automotive product and technological evolution, and to restate the original “low cost” philosophy of the category to a more realistic “Cost Containment” focus that will better serve both the current and future competitors of Improved Touring.



Over the last year or so, I believe that the original philosophy and the Purpose and Intent of the category “Improved Touring” as currently documented, has been compromised. While I understand and usually concur with many of the decisions of the CRB, I find that the current trend of specification change decisions are not in accordance with the currently documented Purpose and Intent of the Improved Touring category. Therefore, I propose that a “New Purpose and Intent and subsequent Notes ” needs to be established to:

Better reflect the current thinking of the CRB and it’s advisors and

To better accommodate the configurations of cars be added and

To put in place, a focus on “Cost Containment”.



Recommended New Statement of Purpose:


Purpose: “Improved Touring classes are intended to provide the membership with the opportunity to compete in cars offered for purchase in North America with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition. They will be prepared to the manufacturer’s specifications except for modifications permitted by these rules”.


Recommended New Statement of Intent:


Intent: “It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe racecar. It is also the intent of these rules to keep the costs of preparing, maintaining and competing a car in the Improved Touring category to a minimum. The class is intended to allow a variety of popular cars to be eligible; however, those (cars) determined by the Club to be outside of these parameters shall not be classified. Entrants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car, and competition adjustments, other than as outlined in section 9.1.3.C, will not allowed. Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, substituted or removed for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage”.

Rationale:

I believe that these revised changes would provide both the CRB and its advisory committee the latitude to add cars like those now included within the category of ITR and other future groupings. Without the revised wording, I also believe that the current trend in newer car inclusion is not compliant within the scope of the currently documented Purpose and Intent. I also strongly beleive that a new focus needs to be established on "containing the cost" of building, racing, and maintaining a car in the Improved Touring Category in an attempt to keep the costs of racing an IT car to an acceptable level. The current combined “Purpose / Intent” of improved touring is to allow a variety of popular, inexpensive cars to be eligible, prepared and race in the category. “ However, those (cars) determined by the Club to be outside of these parameters will not be classified”. I do not believe that the current actions and subsequent rule changes of the CRB or its advisory committee, comply with the existing “P&T” statements. I further do not believe that the current statement of “Purpose and Intent” is realistic based on the vehicles that are currently included within the 2009 version of the Improved Touring Category Specifications (ITCS). I also believe that a “Revised” purpose and intent of IT should focus on keeping the “costs low“ with regard to building, maintaining and racing of an IT car by restricting and limiting modifications.

While I admit that the terms “low cost and inexpensive” are rather nebulous and undefined. Common sense does not permit the majority of current IT competitors to believe that the most recent crop of cars being added is either “low cost or inexpensive”. I believe that with the creation of ITR along with the newer cars that have been added, and future models / engines that are being considered, only validates my claim that neither term is applicable.

Whether it is a Lexus or a Porsche, newer BMW’s, or an Acura RSX, I don’t believe that any of these cars, and the years that are eligible, can be considered either “low cost or inexpensive”. Also the cars that are being constructed now, are purpose built racing cars. They maybe used streetcars, but they are being constructed with all of the precision and safety of a car that would normally built for a professional series, and the current rule wording adds unnecessary costs to be construction and maintainence of said vehicles.

In addition, I also believe that a “New Philosophy” for IT needs to be adapted to govern the rule making process to focus on “cost containment” by providing rules that are supportive of the construction and the maintenance of a “cost effective” racecar. And if adapted, I further believe that new rules should be freely made that facilitate cost effectiveness and vehicle maintainability while not jeopardizing safety or disregarding the original philosophy and concept of the IT category.

I have not submitted my proposal to the CRB. I have submitted my proposal to the members and readers of CFR's publication "The Checker". I submit my proposal to the readers of this website for constructive discussion.
Thank you in advance for your consideration, and comments,
Sincerely, David Ellis-Brown

[shwah]

Um. So IT is broken because we let people choose between cars that you think are low cost and cars that you do not think are low cost?

I guess I would love to see some evidence of how this is damaging to IT. Do you have any data to support this?

[tnord]

holy fuckballs.



It is also the intent of these rules to keep the costs of preparing, maintaining and competing a car in the Improved Touring category to a minimum.

no way. is it that hard to predict the landslide of requests to allow X stock part be replaced by X aftermarket part in the name of lower cost of maintenance? under the new statements, they'd probably be justified. i don't like this one bit.

[Xian]

How is limiting the types of cars classed going to restrict spending? If someone wants to build a top-notch 80's econo-box there isn't anything stop them. Heck, the cost to build an RSX isn't much more than the cost to build a CRX.

Change requests like this absolutely smack of some level of self-interest... what car/class do you race? What's the prep level?

Christian

[jjjanos]

No.

This is the first step to production-like irrelevancy.
AKA...keep out the newer cars so that my 30+ year-old car remains competitive.

Also the cars that are being constructed now, are purpose built racing cars. They maybe used streetcars, but they are being constructed with all of the precision and safety of a car that would normally built for a professional series,...

As well they should be. That's the standard towards which we all should aspire.


...and the current rule wording adds unnecessary costs to be construction and maintainence of said vehicles.

Please provide specific examples.

[Knestis]

I feel like I'm not really getting the point of some of what you're describing David. What specifically are you trying to prevent or allow with the change?

The one thing I can say confidently, though (and it's been suggested already): There's NO way that we can write anything about costs into the rules and have it make sense, because there's NO way that rules can influence what any given racer might spend. That's as close to a "natural law of racing" as they come, to my way of thinking.

But again, maybe I'm confused. How about some examples of what the proposed language fixes...?

K

EDIT - I've read it again. Is it really about keeping out new cars that cost more (e.g., an ITC New Beetle that requires a $3000 donor)...?

[Greg Amy]

Huh. And here I was, thinking of proposing a rule to ditch the 4-years-plus-1 rule...:shrug:

[Jeremy Billiel]

umm... NO.

[lateapex911]

LOL.

Lots of problems with the idea, if I even understand it correctly.

It appears that he wants the CRB (ITAC) to put a limit on cars that are classed, and he hints at rule changes as well, to limit expenditure.

I don't see an issue. I watched a top notch race last summer at the IT Fest between a 25 yr old car and a 8 yr old car. The new car won, by 2 seconds. I also watched a 22 yr old car clean up over much newer cars. As a matter of fact, "new" and (I assume) expensive cars haven't really cleaned up in any class.

That's a sign that the classification process is working. Old and new are on the same footing.

Now, where is the problem? Obviously, the category provides many low cost and competitive options. There is no real NEED to buy the latest and greatest if you want to be the fastest.

The category provides options of newer models as well...but hey, if you don't want to spend the money, DON'T! It appears that the writer is confusing the opportunity to spend lots of money with the need to...but that need just doesn't exist.

I find the proposal vague, lacking reasoning, and without concrete examples.

[JoshS]

It appears that the writer is confusing the opportunity to spend lots of money with the need to...but that need just doesn't exist.

Very well said!

[Xian]

David,

Was that your prior request in the April 2008 Fastrack for alternate Gear Ratios for the Jetta and an open allowance for Fuel Injectors? If so, was it also an idea to help keep build and running costs low?

Christian

[PSherm]

Another needlesss answere to a needless question nobody asked? :shrug:

[JeffYoung]

David, I appreciate the thought you put into that. It's clear you have considered this for some time.

However, it's just not entirely clear to me what it is you are asking for. As Kirk stated, regardless of the initial price of a chassis, there is no real way to control costs on a race car build. Spec Miata should provide you with a prime example of how with even very limited prep rules, costs cannot be contained.

What criteria would you propose for determining that a car is too expensive to be classified?

Do you have any support amongst IT racers for this proposal? It frankly came out of the blue, which is fine, but as a practical matter I don't see how the ITAC can consider a change to the fundamental statemet of purpose for IT based on a single request.

Let us know your further thoughts on this.

[tom91ita]

are you saying that ITR should not exist? i am not sure i understand the comment regarding not classifying cars


...determined by the Club to be outside of these parameters shall not be classified

can you give specific examples of cars that should not be classified within each class? or is it that ITR should not exist?

i am also having a hard time understanding the average post rate of less than one per year from someone that is "vocal" (join date of 2005 and this is the 3rd post?)

looking forward to your comments & clarifications.

[iambhooper]

look, i race ITC because thats what i fell into and what i can afford... i have no problem with people building what they like and what they can afford... if that's ITD or ITR, as long as they can drive and i can drive it's fine with me.

in fact, i even plan on building one of those ITR RSX's one day. i'm aware of the cost, and believe me.. that car will have a lot more miles on it by the time it ses the track, than it does now.

the rules are fine as is.

hoop

[GKR_17]

ITR isn't expensive... Ben just picked up a 968 for $500! Let in the V8's - that'll bring the average ITR build price down.

Sure IT was cheap (for racing anyway) 15 or 20 years ago, but that's just because very few were trying anywhere near as hard as they are today. The same is true for spec miata, just on a shorter timescale.

The only way to truly limit costs is with a claimer rule, and I can't image that would be very poplular.

[GKR_17]

I'm sure most of you have heard how you make a small fortune in racing right?

[Knestis]

I'm sure most of you have heard how you make a small fortune in racing right?

Yup. Be the product of the right sperm - Piquet, Rosberg, etc.

K

[RexRacer19]

My thoughts, in no particular order.

1) Inflation stinks.
2) You can not legislate the cost of racing.
3) When grassroots and inexpensive classes become popular, the amount of money people are willing to spend to get to the pointy end goes up with it. (see also Spec Miata, and the emerging NASA Spec E30 series)
4) IT currently has several classes that allow cars to be built on various budgets and be competitive.
5) Why would we want to exclude someone from racing IT because they want to be spendy about it?

[tom91ita]

there is a very nice ITC / ITB CRX for sale on site. this car cost ~ $25,000 for its original build.

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25178

i have no idea where the "Best" built IT car could end up, cost wise. but whether or not we do is up to us. again, there is no guarantee that we can be competitive if we don't spend $$ on new tires every year/race, etc.

but for a lot of us, that is just fine. i have fun doing my best on the track with what i have decided is my limit of spending.

[mtownneon]

Personally I haven't found IT to be broken. It is still an affordable way to go road racing. It allows competitors enough room to find combinations that fit their wants and budget constraints while still allowing them be competitive.

The Production classes went down the road David is proposing and look where they are now?

And I have a real problem with this statement:


[They maybe used streetcars, but they are being constructed with all of the precision and safety of a car that would normally built for a professional series,


What's wrong with that? Particularly from a safety perspective, I want to see cars that are as well built as possible. Containing costs in safety is a very wrong headed thing.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Sure IT was cheap (for racing anyway) 15 or 20 years ago, but that's just because very few were trying anywhere near as hard as they are today. The same is true for spec miata, just on a shorter timescale.



Quoted to make sure we didn't miss it. 100% true.

...and the only way you can make a small fortune in racing, is if you start with a big one.

If a $100K Wombat fit into ITA, it would get classed. If a $1K Stinger fit into ITR, it would get classed. As long as it doesn't upset the balance of the class, it is a matter of personal preference.

As far as what wouldn't get classed - anything outside the performance parameters of ITR. A recent example would be the 350Z. At 270hp, it would be a 3800lb car. Doesn't make sense.

I too appreciate the 10,000 foot vision and effort David has made here, but its important to understand why some people spend money on their cars. Most of our clients require us to do restoration-quality builds for them. Bare chassis on a rotisserie, fresh paint inside and out, new parts all throughout like trannys and crate engines, high end data acq, $1K head-restraing seats, top-of-the-line cages...these cares aren't neccessarily FASTER, they are just very pretty, very reliable and a known quantity. It really doesn't take all that much to spend $40k on a spec Miata at this desired build level - when you pay someone else to do it. I often think people don't quite get the numbers when they think, "oh, I built my Wombat for $12K and he spent $45K on his, there is no way I can win". Again, you have to understand what the big money is going to at the prep shops...it's a lot of labor money for new EVERYTHING, paint and body and some high end safety and data gear.

Add to this kind of build the dedication to data and test days (anyone can have this and it is NOT managable in the ITCS - and probably is the single biggest reason fast guys are fast) and you have some VERY fast and reliable cars that lead to the perception that you have to spend a gazillion dollars to win. It just takes a moment to understand why something DOES costs something, not why it SHOULDN'T.

[lateapex911]

All excellent points, Andy-

I guy I knew built his first car, an ITS RX-7. He decided to sell. He ran fast in it, but never won in the NE. He asked a pretty astronomical amount for a car that, to my eye, lacked "pedigree". It didn't have a string of wins, his "track records" were set in test days on his own lapt timer, etc.

He justified his price by saying: "That's a $75K car!"...because he figured that's how much money he put into it. Sure, put 4 different damper sets, a dozen spring sets, multiple sway bar solutions, one header after another, and you can find lots of ways to spend money...

...but that can be done on a $50 tub.

We (the ITAC) got a letter from a competitor who was upset with the fact that we had added weight to his car in the great reorg. "You just made my freshly rebuilt by God's own Motorsports Company to the tune of $32K car worth a quarter of that". (I sent him a check immediately, but weirdly he never cashed it, car has gone on to win some big races)......well, sure, if you pay God A couple hundred an hour to lick the undercoating off, it's gonna cost more...

Contrast that to another friend, who took his street Rabbit, parked it in his unheated dirt floor 1 bay doorless garage, and over a cold Connecticut winter, stripped, caged, and built a ITC car that won more races than you could shake a stick at....in ITC fields that back then were in the 15 -20 car counts..

There are lots of paths to winning, but, skill, brains, testing, and perserverience are all major parts of the equation, and the cost of the donor car has little to do with any of them.

[tom91ita]

would hollow titanium bolts fall into the realm of what should not be allowed due to costs?

http://www.yoyodyneti.com/ProductInfo.aspx?productid=12.55FH

fasteners are "free" but perhaps they are banned due to performing an alternate function.

[Jeremy Billiel]

would hollow titanium bolts fall into the realm of what should not be allowed due to costs?

http://www.yoyodyneti.com/ProductInfo.aspx?productid=12.55FH

fasteners are "free" but perhaps they are banned due to performing an alternate function.

It's a fastener. It doesn't appear like its performing any additional function to me! :D

[lawtonglenn]

Wow!

Think how much weight we could save if we used
hollow titanium bolts all around!!!!!

Also, I figured out how to take out 40 lbs...just
deflate each tire by 10 lbs !!!!

:D:D:D

[JeffYoung]

Yup, great point. It takes a while to understand how much effort goes in a top prep ITS car (and I am still not there yet). I remember running around my first year in 04 thinking damn, all these guys are beating me with money. Uh, no. Steve Eckerich and Kent and the Parrishes and the VSteenburgs were beating me with work. Work costs money.

You learn that, a whole lot of the complaints about $50k IT cars and $30k SMs goes away.


Quoted to make sure we didn't miss it. 100% true.

...and the only way you can make a small fortune in racing, is if you start with a big one.

If a $100K Wombat fit into ITA, it would get classed. If a $1K Stinger fit into ITR, it would get classed. As long as it doesn't upset the balance of the class, it is a matter of personal preference.

As far as what wouldn't get classed - anything outside the performance parameters of ITR. A recent example would be the 350Z. At 270hp, it would be a 3800lb car. Doesn't make sense.

I too appreciate the 10,000 foot vision and effort David has made here, but its important to understand why some people spend money on their cars. Most of our clients require us to do restoration-quality builds for them. Bare chassis on a rotisserie, fresh paint inside and out, new parts all throughout like trannys and crate engines, high end data acq, $1K head-restraing seats, top-of-the-line cages...these cares aren't neccessarily FASTER, they are just very pretty, very reliable and a known quantity. It really doesn't take all that much to spend $40k on a spec Miata at this desired build level - when you pay someone else to do it. I often think people don't quite get the numbers when they think, "oh, I built my Wombat for $12K and he spent $45K on his, there is no way I can win". Again, you have to understand what the big money is going to at the prep shops...it's a lot of labor money for new EVERYTHING, paint and body and some high end safety and data gear.

Add to this kind of build the dedication to data and test days (anyone can have this and it is NOT managable in the ITCS - and probably is the single biggest reason fast guys are fast) and you have some VERY fast and reliable cars that lead to the perception that you have to spend a gazillion dollars to win. It just takes a moment to understand why something DOES costs something, not why it SHOULDN'T.

[lateapex911]

You know what would be cool?? The Magnum PI Ferrari in IT! I wonder what class that would fit into...hmmmm...:)

OK, on edit, the 80 - 82 seem like good candidates, as they are pre 4 valve. With a 25% power factor, and 50 for mid engine and 50 for brakes (just for giggles) they would be 3110 lb ITR cars. Schweeeeeet!

[JeffYoung]

R car, run the numbers. 308s never made more than 240 hp I think, and they don't make much torque. Car fits.........S2 Esprit probably does too (160 hp but light), and maybe the Maserati Merak with the 200 hp V6.

On Edit:

308 GTS/B -- 240 hp (carbed)
308 GTSi (2 valve) - 215 (Bosch K-Jetronic, is that mechanical?)
308 GTSi (4 valve) -245 hp.

[Knestis]

Dayum - youse guys are messed UP.

K

[lateapex911]

That's why I chose the injected version (mechanical)...it fits better.

I'd LOVE to see one running against a Mustang, LOL.

[JeffYoung]

I just think Kirk is too damn snobby to see his World Challenge level prep ITB Golf on track with some ratty, smoking, on fire Eye-talian psuedo "supercar!"

[jrvisual]

What about the Dino 246 GT: 175 HP?

Saw one of those on ebay about 8 months ago that had a engine bay fire. Sold for under 5K i believe.

[Ron Earp]

R car, run the numbers. 308s never made more than 240 hp I think, and they don't make much torque. Car fits.........S2 Esprit probably does too (160 hp but light), and maybe the Maserati Merak with the 200 hp V6.

On Edit:

308 GTS/B -- 240 hp (carbed)
308 GTSi (2 valve) - 215 (Bosch K-Jetronic, is that mechanical?)
308 GTSi (4 valve) -245 hp.

Just because the car fits doesn't mean it'll be classed. These things have V8s!!!!! What are you thinking?!?!?!?!

[JeffYoung]

Even I think that is caaaarazeee. Those cars are $100k now? Imagine what parts would cost.

Now a 308, that's rational.


What about the Dino 246 GT: 175 HP?

Saw one of those on ebay about 8 months ago that had a engine bay fire. Sold for under 5K i believe.

[tnord]

new MX5 in ITR at a light weight beating up on early 80's Ferrari's.

sounds freakin awesome. class it!!!

[Xian]

I just think Kirk is too damn snobby to see his World Challenge level prep ITB Golf on track with some ratty, smoking, on fire Eye-talian psuedo "supercar!"

Jeff made teh funnies! Seriously got an LOL out of that one. :happy204:

Personally, I'd friggin love to see an old school 308 out there in ITR. Honestly that may have just turned into my ITR no-budget "dream car". :sigh:

[GKR_17]

The Elise could be eligible next year...

[GKR_17]

And yes, bring on the 308! Now the Dino, I might just cry if we let someone butcher that into IT specs.

[JoshS]

The Elise could be eligible next year...

It would have to weigh more than its GVW based on the process. It really isn't a good fit, unfortunately.

[lateapex911]

Hey Ben! (Benspeed) stop the 968 build!!!!

If you build it (308) we'll class it!

AND provide a glue on official Magnum PI upper lip cover unit!

[Ron Earp]

Hey Ben! (Benspeed) stop the 968 build!!!!

If you build it (308) we'll class it!

AND provide a glue on official Magnum PI upper lip cover unit!

Hey Jake!

How about you class those Pony cars instead and I'll build you a Knight Rider clone.

Just imagine, a late model MX5 beating up on 80s Pony cars. Perfect AND it could actually happen.....

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hey Jake!

How about you class those Pony cars instead and I'll build you a Knight Rider clone.

Just imagine, a late model MX5 beating up on 80s Pony cars. Perfect AND it could actually happen.....

'Cept that MX-5 is gonna be an ITS car me thinks.

[tnord]

'Cept that MX-5 is gonna be an ITS car me thinks.


nnnnnooooooooo!!!!!!!

[lateapex911]

David Ellis Brown can't be happy about the direction of his thread, methinks!


(He comes in wanting consensus on excessive costs, gets rebuffed, and is now looking at a total backfire with Corvettes and Ferraris getting classed! :p )

Ron, your man is in da house, throw some heat under his ass and lets see him get it done!

[D. Ellis-Brown]

XIAN--My prior request to add gears to the Jetta, and the allowance to change injectors has nothing to do with my current Proposal. They are not related.

[D. Ellis-Brown]

Kirk.... I thought that I had command of the king's english, I must be wrong........ No where am I suggesting restricting any car from being included in IT!..... The ITAC has added, and will add new cars... great.... add whatever.... it makes no difference..... I beleive words mean something.... in the current "Purpose" are the words..."low cost".... correct, what does that mean?.... When IT was established, the initial cars identified were low cost, econo-boxes, correct?.... The term is no longer applicable to the purpose of IT, correct?.... Then why not remove it? .Period.... Now for the intent.... I have two significant interests.... 1. a general statement that permits, allows, modifications to the stock vehicle that do not alter performance. Example-- change and add switches, replace relays for switches, change/ alter both the location & configuration of the fuse panels, remove all un-necessary wiring, permit reinforced jacking panels under the car to faciltate "enduro" pit stops, and to reduce some of the damage that is being done to the bottom of the "sheet metal" frames from floor jacks not being placed on the right spots, and damaging welds , etc, etc, I could go on, but I hope that makes some of my points. 2. I am recommending adding rules guidance to the ITAC,, by including a statement within the Intent, to think about rules that are being considered to consider "cost containment" as a factor in the rules change process of IT.... Before a rule is made, does it add cost, to the category, but adds little or no value. , or would a change help reduce costs, say maintenance costs, such as the electrical issues that I mentioned above..... Think about the newer cars that are being added..... there is alot of stuff in the cars that have value in the salvage market, could be sold on e-Bay, that do not add value to the IT car, but the say of the item could help offset some of the construction costs for the car. Many standard options, cruise control, expensive switch assemblies, GPS systems, etc.... that are not identified in any shape form or description within the current rules. Does the CRB or ITAC want to address each item on a model by model basis, or begin to "think outside of the box" and permit general modifications that do not "alter performance" Kirk, sorry for the long reply, but from looking at some of the reponses, that do not deserve a civil reply, I felt I should respond to your note. Sincerely, David E-B

[Xian]

XIAN--My prior request to add gears to the Jetta, and the allowance to change injectors has nothing to do with my current Proposal. They are not related.

Exactly. They seem to be at odds with each other. I guess I was just thinking that there would be more internal cost consistency from someone looking to change the intent and purpose of IT and try to "contain costs". :shrug:

Christian

[Knestis]

.... in the current "Purpose" are the words..."low cost".... correct, what does that mean?.... When IT was established, the initial cars identified were low cost, econo-boxes, correct?....

In hindsight, those econoboxes of the '70s and '80s look cheap but the first person to build an ITS e30 BMW did it with a car that was thousands of dollars at the time. That said, you get no argument from me that since we can't actually control costs, there's really no logical place for it in the IT intent statement. Strike that clause - I'm with you 100%.


... I have two significant interests.... 1. a general statement that permits, allows, modifications to the stock vehicle that do not alter performance. Example-- change and add switches, replace relays for switches, change/ alter both the location & configuration of the fuse panels, remove all un-necessary wiring, permit reinforced jacking panels under the car to faciltate "enduro" pit stops, and to reduce some of the damage that is being done to the bottom of the "sheet metal" frames from floor jacks not being placed on the right spots...Here, we are about 180* out, position-wise. Every single thing you mention is both a performance enhancement and a cost item when preparing a car. I'm not saying that none of them might make sense but they each have to be considered in isolation, on their individual merits.


2. I am recommending adding rules guidance to the ITAC,, by including a statement within the Intent, to think about rules that are being considered to consider "cost containment" as a factor in the rules change process of IT.... Before a rule is made, does it add cost, to the category, but adds little or no value. I daresay that we already DO this, generally speaking, although I don't recall the revenue side of the equation coming up in any real conversation about policy. I sure as heck DID take full advantage of that side of the equation when I built (then rebuilt) the Golf, offloading a lot of potentially useless crap on the 'vortex particularly... The same will apply only moreso for new cars and I guess you're right that at some point we'll have to specifically allow the removal of, say, nav systems to make it OK to do so. Cruise control is already outta here.

But "remove anything not required for racing" is a WAY slippery slope - at least in my opinion, and to a great degree as demonstrated by ITAC recommendations in the past year.**

I appreciate the explanation because, as I indicated, I wasn't sure I was following. There's a core to what you propose that I actually think the ITAC is already largely on board with, but equally, I think what you propose overreaches a bit.

Thanks

K

** EDIT - those weren't your words but paraphrase a request that we did receive this year, that I think mirrors what you are proposing here.

[Greg Amy]

'Cept that MX-5 is gonna be an ITS car me thinks.
Ugh. Here we go again.


nnnnnooooooooo!!!!!!!
Indeed. Can't wait to see the "recommended weight" on the car...

GA, wondering what's in store for ITB...

[RexRacer19]

GA, wondering what's in store for ITB...

World domination? :)

[Ron Earp]

'Cept that MX-5 is gonna be an ITS car me thinks.

Wait, you mean the new MX5 car? 2L 170 stock hp? At what weight? Gonna have to be a good bit heavier than the current crop of top performers in ITS to account for it's suspension and brake advantages over the old school stuff currently in the class.

R

[lateapex911]

Kirk.... I thought that I had command of the king's english, I must be wrong........ No where am I suggesting restricting any car from being included in IT!..... The ITAC has added, and will add new cars... great.... add whatever.... it makes no difference..... I beleive words mean something.... in the current "Purpose" are the words..."low cost".... correct, what does that mean?.... When IT was established, the initial cars identified were low cost, econo-boxes, correct?.... The term is no longer applicable to the purpose of IT, correct?.... Then why not remove it? .Period....

Ahh, now it's getting clearer.

I can see the word as being...well, meh. But, I certainly think that IT, relative to other production car categories, strives to limit modifications (and thereby costs, remembering that costs can be non financial). As an example, Touring requires (generally speaking) expensive buy ins initially, then requires balance and blueprints, and, as the suspension rules are limited, hugely expensive dampers end up being used. Prod has cars with billet cranks, custom molded bodywork, etc, etc. IT, relatively speaking is simpler and in most cases, carries less cost.

But I wouldn't lose any sleep over ditching the phrase from the ITCS..it's certainly not defensable.


Now for the intent.... I have two significant interests.... 1. a general statement that permits, allows, modifications to the stock vehicle that do not alter performance. .....

Many of your suggestions are already possible to some extent. The GPS units though might deserve mention in the ITCS. I see them as "radios", but their treatment is not discussed.


2. I am recommending adding rules guidance to the ITAC,, by including a statement within the Intent, to think about rules that are being considered to consider "cost containment" as a factor in the rules change process of IT....

In ITAC discussions cost is certainly considered. For example, in the ECU debates, one member of the ITAC was wildly against the open concept. It was explained to him that the current rule was inequitable, but he was convinced that $20K Bosch ECUs would become the standard. before the next meeting, he made some calls, approached some racers at teh track, and did some research. He reurned a changed man. He found that by allowign an open solution huge cost savings could be realized for many racers, while leveling the playing field. And I'd also submit that "cost" is considered in other forms by the ITAC. Rules changes have costs associated with them that aren't financial, and that's always a consideration. And, an allowance that can save one racer can cost others. I assure you that we are aware, and it is a directive.

[JoshS]

Cruise control is already outta here.

Citation, please?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ugh. Here we go again.


Indeed. Can't wait to see the "recommended weight" on the car...

GA, wondering what's in store for ITB...

Greg,

Seriously, what could you possible have to bitch about on this? Run the process. Understand what they weigh. Tell me where it best fits. To me, it's gonna be a porky ITS car. Like 2790lbs porkey. It would be about 2440 in ITR...and I can tell you that it won't get to 2260lbs without driver.

On edit: It's not even eligible until 2011. Curb weight is 2500ish, you are going to have to run the hardtop...not a ton of weight to take out. Our GAC car is not light...

[lateapex911]

Citation, please?
pg 332
"External throttle linkage is open"

I swear there used to be a cruise control comment, but I can't find it now. However, the allowance to modify or change seems to cover it.

[JoshS]

pg 332
"External throttle linkage is open"

I swear there used to be a cruise control comment, but I can't find it now. However, the allowance to modify or change seems to cover it.

Well, it's hardly the same thing. I agree that maybe if a car had an external cruise control servo connected to the throttle body, then the linkage between that servo and the throttle body could be disconnected.

But I don't think that the "throttle linkage is open" statement allows the removal of servos, control units (electronic or otherwise), column-mounted control stalks, and the like, yet a lot of people on this forum seem to feel that "cruise control may be removed" and therefore, all of those other components may also be removed. I just see no such allowance.

[Knestis]

Citation, please?

Damn. You'd think I'd learn.

I'm used to models for which some come NOT equipped with cruise control. There is NO specific allowance to remove it.

Maybe my wife is right about me getting senile.

K

[lateapex911]

Well, it's hardly the same thing. I agree that maybe if a car had an external cruise control servo connected to the throttle body, then the linkage between that servo and the throttle body could be disconnected.

But I don't think that the "throttle linkage is open" statement allows the removal of servos, control units (electronic or otherwise), column-mounted control stalks, and the like, yet a lot of people on this forum seem to feel that "cruise control may be removed" and therefore, all of those other components may also be removed. I just see no such allowance.

I'd never considered removing the column mounted lever...unless it was an option. I'd think that a servo attached to the throttle linkage would be fair game though. Control units...I never considered removing that either.

I'm really not terribly familiar with anything but old school CC systems though, I'll admit.

[JoshS]

I'd never considered removing the column mounted lever...unless it was an option. I'd think that a servo attached to the throttle linkage would be fair game though. Control units...I never considered removing that either.

I'm really not terribly familiar with anything but old school CC systems though, I'll admit.

Just to give an indication of how things work nowadays ... as an example, my car, a '99 BMW:

The only physical item dedicated to the non-optional cruise control is a column-mounted control lever. The actual cruise function is controlled by the main engine ECU, and it does its magic by electrically actuating the throttle body.

The throttle body has a cable connected to the gas pedal like any more traditional unit, but it also has, all in the same unit, a motor. The motor can open the throttle (cruise control), or close it (traction control), overriding the throttle cable.

Even more modern cars (like any BMW 2001 or newer) have fully electric throttle bodies with no cable at all.

[lateapex911]

Not much to remove...or sell ....there!