Lexan windows.... Legal?

[SATURNRACER]

I know read the book but I saw an ITA car on a trailer with Lexan windows.......just wanting to know. All the windows were Lexan. :shrug:
O.B.

[JoshS]

I know read the book but I saw an ITA car on a trailer with Lexan windows.......just wanting to know. All the windows were Lexan. :shrug:
O.B.
Not legal.

[ekim952522000]

No they are not.

It's possible it was a ITE car which is kind of a "run what ya brung" class in most regions.

[SATURNRACER]

okay thanks it said ITA which is weird....wait I had a couple of beers oh heck who knows...
thanks
O.B.

[Gregg]

Perhaps they were the door windows (esp. driver's side) and removable? It's not too uncommon for transporting and keeping the interior from the elements.

[lateapex911]

The most aggressive but Ok use of lexan in an IT car would be an MR2 or similar car on a trailer. The door windows could be temporary just for keeping the elements out during towing, and the back window is allowed to be lexan if the cage bars pass through it and connect over the engine. (I think!)

If it's a hatchback etc, then the glass must remain stock, except for doors, of course, if they have the "Nascar" style door bars.

[joeg]

I use Lexan windows in the doors for transport.

It would be kind of aggressive to use lexan in the windshield or back glass.

[Speed Raycer]

There's an ITA prepped MR2 that I see at a lot of HPDE's at Gateway that has lexan all around. Never have seen it at an IT race though....

[tnord]

There's an ITA prepped MR2 that I see at a lot of HPDE's at Gateway that has lexan all around. Never have seen it at an IT race though....

:mental note:

if you know him, tell him he better not show up to any races i'm at with that crap in there.

[quadzjr]

I have no idea whom that person is, but he will also not be running in your class (ITA and certainly not SM). If someone were to show up with lexan all the way around like a production car build and register it as an ITB car I am sure he would get protested before the day is over.

[tnord]

I'm building a dedicated ITA car....so he is in my class.

[Ron Earp]

Raced with an ITR Porsche 911 in FL with full up Lexan and holes cut in it for air to escape. Definitely not legal though.

[shwah]

I'm building a dedicated ITA car....so he is in my class.


Was. He is in my class now.

[quadzjr]

Was. He is in my class now.

Which I will be in as well with my lexan rear window. :D Well behind you!

[JoshS]

Raced with an ITR Porsche 911 in FL with full up Lexan and holes cut in it for air to escape. Definitely not legal though.

Why does it seem like the Florida regions seem really casual with the IT rules?

[tnord]

Why does it seem like the Florida regions seem really casual with the IT rules?

history shows them to be very casual with SM rules as well.

[Knestis]

My conversations with some IT guys in FL suggest they have adopted "looser interpretations" as well...

KK

[Ron Earp]

Why does it seem like the Florida regions seem really casual with the IT rules?

I don't know if it is hearsay or if there is truth to it. Based on my limited knowledge of racing and conversing with racers it seems that things are a bit more, ahh, liberal with rule implementation down that way. But to each region its own I suppose.

[betamotorsports]

Each region's different. I've seen 2.8L Datsun 240Zs running in ITS and no one cared because the car/driver combination was very slow. It helped get the car count up.

[quadzjr]

Maybe you guys are just looking for excuses? :happy204: I know that I have seen some very lax rulings all over the SE.. We (Chip, Dave, and myself) just know that if someone is in front of us, they belong there, and we need to work on developing our car and driver to catch them. I have noticed that more of the people that run farther back in the cheated up widgets here and there mor so than the front runners.. but believe it or not that is not just in the florida regions.

Ron did you call out the 911 ITR for the lexan windows? I am not a driver as of yet, however that I bleive heaveily that the we should police our selves. So if you see something that may be fishy, why can't you go up there and ask/tell them about your concerns. They may not know.. they could just of bought an "IT ready just put gas and go car." and went through driver school and the novice permit not being any of the wiser. But having a conversation at the track about the implementation of the rules especially in the grey areas in the rule book (there is no grey area about lexan), is more fustrating than it is on here.

Damn tangets. Back to the Lexan windows

[spawpoet]

I don't know if it is hearsay or if there is truth to it. Based on my limited knowledge of racing and conversing with racers it seems that things are a bit more, ahh, liberal with rule implementation down that way. But to each region its own I suppose.


Is it with implementation (i.e. official rules interp. by the region), or simply the fact that many illegal cars aren't protested? I'm acquainted with the owner/builder of the Porsche you were referring to (he was at the driver's schools with my brother), and obviously the lexan windows aren't legal. I really doubt he realizes it though. From talking too him, he isn't well versed in the IT ruleset, and I wouldn't be completely shocked if he had never opened a GCR. I think he built his car, and then looked for which class he thought it fit in. Of course that doesn't exonerate him, but the real impetus is on his competitors to protest him if he's not playing by the rules.

[Andy Bettencourt]

...or simply the fact that many illegal cars aren't protested?

I would bet money on it.


I'm acquainted with the owner/builder of the Porsche you were referring to (he was at the driver's schools with my brother), and obviously the lexan windows aren't legal. I really doubt he realizes it though. From talking too him, he isn't well versed in the IT ruleset, and I wouldn't be completely shocked if he had never opened a GCR.

I think he built his car, and then looked for which class he thought it fit in. Of course that doesn't exonerate him, but the real impetus is on his competitors to protest him if he's not playing by the rules.

Ummm, I won't touch that one. Yikes.

[Duc]

Ron did you call out the 911 ITR for the lexan windows? I am not a driver as of yet, however that I bleive heaveily that the we should police our selves. So if you see something that may be fishy, why can't you go up there and ask/tell them about your concerns. They may not know.. they could just of bought an "IT ready just put gas and go car." and went through driver school and the novice permit not being any of the wiser. But having a conversation at the track about the implementation of the rules especially in the grey areas in the rule book (there is no grey area about lexan), is more fustrating than it is on here.


I know he was so told by a bunch of people.

[Ron Earp]

simply the fact that many illegal cars aren't protested?

I'm sure you are right about that.

For the car I mentioned in my post I didn't protest because:
a) He wasn't in my class
b) I was visiting Daytona for the first time, don't want to upset the natives
c) Natives didn't seem concerned

For sure if I, or any of our group of ITS racers in the SE showed up with Lexan windows, a 2.8L stroker motor, etc. then there would be a friendly chat and if not rectified I'd fully expect protests.

I assume this fellow has fixed his Porsche?

[JeffYoung]

Ron and I went down to Daytoner together, both saw that car, and were pretty amazed with it...(there some other things on it too). Ron's reasons for us not really worrying about it are the same as mine, but I suspect the builder/driver is a decent guy and someone local just needs to point out to him the issues with the car.

[tnord]

it's about implementation as well......last year they inspected a SM and found an illegal restrictor....but did nothing.

people have "runoffs motors" and "sebring motors."

[Knestis]

Since there's no mechanism for an "official" local interpretation of national rules, it's all about culture. Since we are self-policing, we get the legality that we're comfortable with - in whatever size organizational element (region, division, coast, what-evah).

K

[spawpoet]

I'm sure you are right about that.

For the car I mentioned in my post I didn't protest because:
a) He wasn't in my class
b) I was visiting Daytona for the first time, don't want to upset the natives
c) Natives didn't seem concerned

For sure if I, or any of our group of ITS racers in the SE showed up with Lexan windows, a 2.8L stroker motor, etc. then there would be a friendly chat and if not rectified I'd fully expect protests.

I assume this fellow has fixed his Porsche?

I dunno if his car is fixed yet or not. Like you, I didn't say anything to the guy cause I had no dog in the hunt. I figure unless it is my business then I should stay out of it. I don't know the guy outside of the driver school, but he was a nice enough guy. I don't think he was intentionally cheating to gain an advantage. He was just naive to the process. So much so that when I ran into him at a later Fl Region event, he was ironically complaining about the legality of other ITR cars. Cars which, from what I could tell, looked to be within the rules.

[quadzjr]

Is the car in question an silver 911 ITR car. By chance did he register and run at the event in sebring weekend and qualify like 39th? If so I didn't notice it, nor was I really looking.

[Speed Raycer]

:mental note:

if you know him, tell him he better not show up to any races i'm at with that crap in there.

Travis, I don't know him and like I've said, I've only seen at BMWCCA events at GIR. There were a few other mods that were clearly not IT legal, so my guess is that it's just an old A car that someone decided was more fun as a track day car.

[lateapex911]

I've heard the same thing about life in the lowest state...and the casual attitude is fine I guess, but it annoys me that lots' of "fast cars" that everyone is aware of somehow rarely materialize at the ARRCs.

I guess they just want to be the fish in their pond, but it would be cool to see how they stack up against a wider group.

[Bill Miller]

I dunno if his car is fixed yet or not. Like you, I didn't say anything to the guy cause I had no dog in the hunt. I figure unless it is my business then I should stay out of it. I don't know the guy outside of the driver school, but he was a nice enough guy. I don't think he was intentionally cheating to gain an advantage. He was just naive to the process. So much so that when I ran into him at a later Fl Region event, he was ironically complaining about the legality of other ITR cars. Cars which, from what I could tell, looked to be within the rules.

Isn't it the unwritten responsibility of the more experienced racers to help guide the newbies? I think in a case like this, it may even be better if someone with 'no dog in the hunt' to make a comment to the guy. It makes it a much more objective situation, rather than a confrontational one. Especially when someone that's in his class may not feel as kind-hearted.

There's certainly a way to approach the situation in a non-confrontational manner, so why not try to help the new guy out and help avoid a potential not-so-nice confrontation down the road?

I've read things in this thread that I find troubling. They are why some things may never change.

"I've got no dog in the hunt"
"1st time there, and didn't want to rial the natives"
"The Region has a 'liberal' interpretation of the rules"

It's the general mindset of "I don't care as long as it doesn't directly impact me and negatively affect my finishing position." It's like the guy that gets a ticket for 10mph over the limit on the highway, when he's previously either passed the cops doing that much or more, or has been stopped and let go in a similar situation. We all have heard the line "But everyone else is doing it."

I'm certainly not as well versed in policy issues as Dr. K (heck, I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn), but I'm sure he can comment on 'expected response' when the general implementation of policy deviates from the written statement of said policy, on a fairly regular basis, only to have the written statement version trotted out "when it suits them".

This doesn't mean that you can't take a pragmatic approach, and consider mitigating factors, but a more even, uniform implementation of policy is better in the long run, IMHO. As was stated earlier, you get the SCCA that you deserve. The fact that people perceive that a Region takes a 'liberal' interpretation of the rules, and that they don't feel bothered by this, speaks volumes.

Back to lurk mode.

BTW, nice to see you guys again.

[Greg Amy]

back To Lurk Mode.
He Lives!!!!!

[seckerich]

Florida has a little more of a "customer friendly" attitude towards their racers in my opinion. If it doesnt matter to the guys you race with, we don't care either. Why mess with a paying customer. Doesn't shake the foundation of SCCA outside Florida and if it is a problem the racers handle it among themself. While it may drive rules nerds crazy it sure seems to help turnout. Agree or disagree it seems to work.

[spawpoet]

Isn't it the unwritten responsibility of the more experienced racers to help guide the newbies? I think in a case like this, it may even be better if someone with 'no dog in the hunt' to make a comment to the guy. It makes it a much more objective situation, rather than a confrontational one. Especially when someone that's in his class may not feel as kind-hearted.

There's certainly a way to approach the situation in a non-confrontational manner, so why not try to help the new guy out and help avoid a potential not-so-nice confrontation down the road?

I've read things in this thread that I find troubling. They are why some things may never change.

"I've got no dog in the hunt"
"1st time there, and didn't want to rial the natives"
"The Region has a 'liberal' interpretation of the rules"

It's the general mindset of "I don't care as long as it doesn't directly impact me and negatively affect my finishing position." It's like the guy that gets a ticket for 10mph over the limit on the highway, when he's previously either passed the cops doing that much or more, or has been stopped and let go in a similar situation. We all have heard the line "But everyone else is doing it."

I'm certainly not as well versed in policy issues as Dr. K (heck, I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn), but I'm sure he can comment on 'expected response' when the general implementation of policy deviates from the written statement of said policy, on a fairly regular basis, only to have the written statement version trotted out "when it suits them".

This doesn't mean that you can't take a pragmatic approach, and consider mitigating factors, but a more even, uniform implementation of policy is better in the long run, IMHO. As was stated earlier, you get the SCCA that you deserve. The fact that people perceive that a Region takes a 'liberal' interpretation of the rules, and that they don't feel bothered by this, speaks volumes.

Back to lurk mode.

BTW, nice to see you guys again.


In total I don't disagree with what you are saying Bill, but that was OUR first ever event as well. We were there for my brothers school. This statment "Isn't it the unwritten responsibility of the more experienced racers to help guide the newbies?" applies to me only in that I am the newbie. I'm new to this too, and have very limited knowledge of the social side of an SCCA weekend. Sorry, but I don't want to be the new guy coming in acting like an a-hole, when I very well may not know what the heck I'm talking about.

There were two reasons I posted on this subject. First is because I feel alot of people on the board take for granted how much effort it takes a "rookie" to fully acclimate themselves to the culture and processes of the SCCA. I found the GCR very daunting at first, and it took me a long time to really wrap my brain completely around the way rules are implemented, applying them to our car (long tangential story), the protest process, getting a liscense, and just how everything is done in general. Reading here on the IT Forums has been invaluable in the process. You "greybeards" are a great resource. We didn't have anydody close to us who could really guide us thorough the process. Without IT.com I imagine it would have been that much more difficult. I think the guy with the Porsche had even less of a grip than we did on how things are done.

The second reason I posted is because we are going to be running down here (if we ever get our motor done!!!). I was concerened that the rumored lax attitude towards rules extended beyond the competitors who should be protesting when a car is non-compliant (which I agree is also an issue), and to the officials who SHOULD be interpreting and enforcing the rules the same way they are everywhere else in SCCAdom. TNORD's comment on the fact that nothing was done when a SM was found to have a non-compliant restrictor and that SM's have Sebring motors and Runoffs motors is a little disturbing to say the least.

[wbp]

The decision on the SM restrictor plate at the ARRC hinged upon the same point that the SM restrictor plate decision at the Runoffs did. And the decision in both cases was the same. So there is no Divisional difference represented there.
In the case of the CAI on the ITA Hondas at the ARRC, it was determined to be illegal even though they had run that way in another division for some years. The only divisional difference there was the willingness of someone to Protest at the ARRC.

[Ron Earp]

If it doesnt matter to the guys you race with, we don't care either. Doesn't shake the foundation of SCCA outside Florida and if it is a problem the racers handle it among themself. .

Since I was the one that made the comment about "not stirring up the natives" and "not in my class", I would like to point out that Steve's comment pretty much sums it up from my perspective.

I asked some questions about legality of a couple of things I saw and the responses were along the lines of "well, he's been running like that a long time" and "yeah, he has been told, he's new" and so on. So, if it is fine for the local folks in the region then it is fine for me. I have no problem with that.

Different strokes for different folks.

Ron

[Ed Funk]

You "greybeards"


Hey, I resemble that remark!:)

[spawpoet]

You "greybeards"


Hey, I resemble that remark!:)


Ed, it is meant completely and totally as a compliment. If this economy doesn't get any better, I'm going to resemble it without any of the built-in advantages of being a greybeard!!!

[lateapex911]

The decision on the SM restrictor plate at the ARRC hinged upon the same point that the SM restrictor plate decision at the Runoffs did. And the decision in both cases was the same. So there is no Divisional difference represented there.
In the case of the CAI on the ITA Hondas at the ARRC, it was determined to be illegal even though they had run that way in another division for some years. The only divisional difference there was the willingness of someone to Protest at the ARRC.

And, in THAT particular situation, it was brought to the attention of the competitors that were running the CAI that it was felt that the interpretation used to justify the CAI wasn't holding water, and that a protest was imminent if the CAI wasn't changed.

So, in my eyes, that was a cse where it was done "right". Item was spotted, Item was discussed with car owner, time was given, no change was made, protest was filed, protest upheld.

I really wish it didn't go down that way, in *my* perfect world, they would ahve removed it, and the Court ruling that had been sent in earlier would have come back supporting the removal, and the "uglyness" of the situation would have been avoided. but, it took time to draft teh request for the courts ruling after the discovery at teh IT -Fest, and the ruling didn't come back in time for the ARRCs.

Now, personally, I'm disappointed by the issues that are said to exist in FL, because I think it skews things, and causes doubt, and I'd really like more fast guys from the area to make the trip to the ARRCs. I certainly think the "soft" approach, where issues are spotted and mentioned to a driver, and time is given for him to resolve them is a good one. It's all about balance, and respect.

As a competitor, I don't want to be beating my fellow driver with anything but my skills in setting up and driving a legal car, whether that's for 1st or 5th. It's disrespectful to them to compete illegally.

[jimmyc]

In the case of the CAI on the ITA Hondas at the ARRC, it was determined to be illegal even though they had run that way in another division for some years. The only divisional difference there was the willingness of someone to Protest at the ARRC.

It seems that you are implying that them running it for some years makes it legal. And that is not correct.

It had just never been protested, even years prior at the ARRC.

[lateapex911]

And to distill it further,

The only difference was someone willing to protest......(and to be fair, the CAI cars owners felt that their "interpretation" was a legal one, and I actually have spoken with others, who were VERY high up in the Club Racing Dept, who sided with their interpretation.) That particular case was one where "reasonable men may differ", and it took awhile to shake out.

But, a backmarker would never see such a protest lodged against him, nobody's going to do that. That's the "culture" of the club Racing organism. In autocross, back in my day, the "culture" was different, and protests flew more regularly. We get what we sow.