A Poll Regarding the IT Rules Set

[Ron Earp]

I'm curious to see how many of the IT Forum members would like to change the IT rules set to drop some of the rather pointless rules requiring washer bottles, heater cores, and other "street car" items that seem to be vestiges from the dual purpose beginnings of IT.

When you vote on the poll I'd like for you to assume that it will be possible to simply remove these requirements from the rules set with no negative "unintended consequences". I am aware that there are those that feel we can't possibly remove these items from the IT rules set without destroying IT but to those folks I say "bullshit". It is my poll so vote with my boundary condition in mind :).

For the purposes of the poll assume we're talking about the following "dual purpose vestiges": washer bottle, heater core and HVAC system, wipers/wiper motors, headlights, and wiper bottle reservoir.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ron,

We all know the 'washer bottle' is the lightning rod for this topic. The issue in my mind is where you stop. I think if you are testing the waters for a letter, you would have to do that. Your idea of 'what doesn't belong in a racecar' will vary from mine, Jeff's, Jake's, Kirk's and on and on.

Take into account ANYONE who is anti-creep will throw a flag. The anti-creep crowd looks for a reason WHY to change a rule, not just a 'why not?'. Keep that in mind. Also think about what the resultant cars 'look' like on the outside. If IT and Prod cars start to 'look' the same, it adds to outsider confusion - which is an issue for some people.

Some questions for people who are about to answer the poll:

- You satisfied with the 7 items that Ron has listed or do you want to add more?
- We have letters telling us that dashboards, windshields (replace with lexan), all lights, or 'anything that doesn't add performance to the car' should all be removed because they don't constitute a 'racecar'.

I consider myself a hybrid ITAC guy. I try to be a forward thinker for future growth but I have to ask: is there a contingent of drivers who aren't building IT cars because they can't remove their washer bottles? I ask you - what compelling arguement is there to actually DO THIS?

[JeffYoung]

And I will continue to say that "because membership wants it" should be a good enough reason why for us on the ITAC, so long as it doesn't violate an IT core value (and yes I know that can vary from person to person but I think it does so less than most suspect): no moving suspension points, stock body panels, stock motor with limited mods, DOT tires, stock transmissions, etc.

[JeffYoung]

One other point, sorry for the double post.

I would answer this question YES. Not just because of the specific "you must keep the washer bottle" rule, but by the concept in play here that you have to keep "silly things" on an race car under the IT ruleset. Yes, I think that does drive some folks away from IT, in concept.


. I try to be a forward thinker for future growth but I have to ask: is there a contingent of drivers who aren't building IT cars because they can't remove their washer bottles?

[Ron Earp]

Andy,

Just take the poll for face value. I'm just interested to know if others wish to remove these items from their cars. Right now I'm not interested in "anti-creep", whys, ifs, and so on. I might be interested in those things in my next post....or letter. I do think Jeff is barking up the right tree though.

Actually it might be interesting if the ITAC doesn't participate in the poll.

Ron

[ddewhurst]

***washer bottle, heater core and HVAC system, wipers/wiper motors, headlights, and wiper bottle reservoir.***

***dashboards, windshields (replace with lexan), all lights, or 'anything that doesn't add performance to the car' should all be removed because they don't constitute a 'racecar'.***

Bill Miller, your list please.

& the list continues untill we have a _______________ (fill in the blank) class that already exists.

Dude, if it isn't broke why are you trying to fix it.

[JeffYoung]

I think "No ITAC" (for a while...lol) in this thread is a good idea. Let's see what this slice of membership says and go from there.

[Spinnetti]

I'm curious to see how many of the IT Forum members would like to change the IT rules set to drop some of the rather pointless rules requiring washer bottles, heater cores, and other "street car" items that seem to be vestiges from the dual purpose beginnings of IT.

When you vote on the poll I'd like for you to assume that it will be possible to simply remove these requirements from the rules set with no negative "unintended consequences". I am aware that there are those that feel we can't possibly remove these items from the IT rules set without destroying IT but to those folks I say "bullshit". It is my poll so vote with my boundary condition in mind :).

For the purposes of the poll assume we're talking about the following "dual purpose vestiges": washer bottle, heater core and HVAC system, wipers/wiper motors, headlights, and wiper bottle reservoir.

I couldn't agree more strongly! WHY should IT be penalized to run this crap. These are RACE cars! The days of driving your sports car to work, then the track were OVER years ago for anybody serious, not like it makes sense to driver car on the street with a full cage in it anyway. The key point I think some are missing is that removing stock junk you don't need DOESN'T COST ANYTHING. Everybody can do it!. Its not like the creep that I think was foolish which costs ALOT such as coilovers and ECU's for instance. For the anti-rules creep folks, why did you let those go? Although its just my preference, I like IT cars to look like street cars, at least from the outside. I wouldn't want to change any of that, but I say be allowed to remove those things mentioned, plus the dash. The rest of the car is empty now anyway thanks to previous rules creep - finish the job!

[Spinnetti]

And I will continue to say that "because membership wants it" should be a good enough reason why for us on the ITAC, so long as it doesn't violate an IT core value (and yes I know that can vary from person to person but I think it does so less than most suspect): no moving suspension points, stock body panels, stock motor with limited mods, DOT tires, stock transmissions, etc.

I second this too, IF it doesn't cost more money.. I like the idea of removing stuff though! From inception, I see IT as the means by which SCCA (which was (is?) a rich boys club) to let the "poor" people in, and has been hobbled all along. I think the core rules of very limited engine, suspension and chassis mods are really about perfect as is (except for the ECU and coilover creep), but why the concern about the rest? Why shouldn't our cars be a bit faster and better handling at no cost?

[RSI]

from my own story.

I have a car that I am having a hard time making weight legally.

Here is where we currently sit.
Take the car COMPLETELY apart to bare shell, bead blast to remove ALL sound deadening, then reinstall and still we would need to purchase aluminum shocks, and step up to all the LIGHTEST parts.

LIGHTEST means $$$$ I'm already 8k into this ITS build..which is fine, but for me to get to weight I need to spend another 4k on the lightest parts.

That's where we currently sit.
Or we could remove horns, hvac, all bottles, etc. Window regulators...which BTW I never understood why we HAVE to run glass.

Sure weight is an issue and the cost of going to plexi...but the idea of getting hit with lots of crackling glass is a little frightening.

Based on what has been discussed in the V2.0 process thread, someone stated that the point of IT was the have purpose built race cars, but from cars you would buy on the showroom floor. It was also said by an ITAC member that these cars are SUPPOSED to be trailers to each event.

So why all the dual purpose stuff?

Always seems confusing as to why I need horns on a race track and why when we are trying to keep $$$ down we get into having to spend $$$$ on lightweight parts but cannot remove more STOCK items.

Sorry if the above comes of frustrated...I just have a regular competitor in ITB that is making the jump to H-Production because he didnt read the rules and now he has to ADD all those items back into his car....so now he's out recruiting people to stop running in IT and run in Production...

I just kinda frustrated that my class of 8-9 ITB cars is now in the 3-4 whereas h-production is now 7-8.

[Bill Miller]

***washer bottle, heater core and HVAC system, wipers/wiper motors, headlights, and wiper bottle reservoir.***

***dashboards, windshields (replace with lexan), all lights, or 'anything that doesn't add performance to the car' should all be removed because they don't constitute a 'racecar'.***

Bill Miller, your list please.

& the list continues untill we have a _______________ (fill in the blank) class that already exists.

Dude, if it isn't broke why are you trying to fix it.

Sorry David, I'm pleading the 5th on this one. ;)

[Knestis]

I think "No ITAC" (for a while...lol) in this thread is a good idea. Let's see what this slice of membership says and go from there.

Fine with me. I'm about a day from officially not giving a damn anymore. Again. This, because I am all but positive that the category is on the brink of having WAY bigger issues than washer bottles.

Have at it, y'all.

K

[tom91ita]

...........Or we could remove horns, hvac, all bottles, etc. Window regulators...which BTW I never understood why we HAVE to run glass.

...................

Always seems confusing as to why I need horns on a race track and why when we are trying to keep $$$ down we get into having to spend $$$$ on lightweight parts but cannot remove more STOCK items.................

why can't you remove your window regulators? what glass are you referring to that we have to run? windshield and rear windows?

sorry, but i don't know what car you are building.

and on the subject of horns, since we have to have them, is it socially acceptable to use it during the race when overtaking?

[RSI]

Tom,
As for window regulators, the rule stating that if it doesnt say you can then you cant....I cannot remove window regulators or mechanisms or rear door glass etc.

At least that's based on the last 6-7 readings of the GCR.
Jonathan

[seckerich]

Be careful what you wish for, you will get it. Washer bottle, heater core no big deal. Most are just an empty piece of copper anyway. Start going past that and removing lights and you do get to production or ST. Now my Mazda needs that one piece hood to replace the lights. Now you need a $600 lexan windshield with the mandated inside supports for another $100 and it is so scratched you can no longer see. Let alone put wipers on for rain. A small vocal few would F**k up a football given enough posts. Some of you are too stupid to realize what you have and where you would take IT. Guess that is a no vote .:rolleyes: Sorry, I suck at politically correct tonight.

[Ron Earp]

Some of you are too stupid to realize what you have .

Ouch. At least I know where I stand now.

Windshields and glass rules weren't an option for removal in this particular poll, at least as I defined it in the beginning.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The point Ron is that you are drawing a new line in the sand. That line won't be far enough for someone after your line is the 'new' line. You can say 'just stop at my line'. Well maybe that is what should be done for your line.

Still waiting to hear a 'why'.

[playing devil's advocate]

[seckerich]

Ouch. At least I know where I stand now.

Windshields and glass rules weren't an option for removal in this particular poll, at least as I defined it in the beginning.

You are missing the point Ron. You are relatively new to this and have not witnessed the destruction of classes with well intentioned changes. A class evolves slowly with little changes that are "for the good" of the class. Then somehow another group wants more and the changes go into overdrive. Example:

Open ECU
Going National
Another new process when most are unsure of process V1
Then just a few posts up we get no dash,lights,windows, etc.


Get the picture, everone likes IT then procedes to F it up with too much change and it is no longer IT. You guys just started ITR which was a big deal in a "no new classes" SCCA, and now you want to just drive what was built off a cliff.

The washer bottle is more symbolic than substance in that it has always been that line in the sand. You have known me long enough to know that was not personal towards you, but more of a general statement. :D

PS. Missed you wusses in the rain today at Barber.:026:

[dickita15]

I still have not voted on this one as it has been running around in my head now for a couple of days. As someone who races an older car and a car that does not easily make weight the idea of throwing away some parts like headlight motors sounds good but the reason we have to keep them is not because the rule book say so it is because of a basic principal of IT. If it does not say you can then you cannot.
If your thought is to have a rule that says you can remove parts that are not required in order to build and race your car then this puts that principal in jeopardy.
This leaves you with the only option of itemizing what part are superfluous and I agree that we will not agree where to draw the line.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I should post this in every forum: There is NO NEW PROCESS. When Krik refers to V.2, he just means us re-writing what was already there in a much more concrete fashion making every effort to insert definitions and eliminate subjectivity. Other than the FWD adder going from a fixed number to a percentage, there are no major changes.

[Ron Earp]

This leaves you with the only option of itemizing what part are superfluous and I agree that we will not agree where to draw the line.

Sure, not everyone will agree exactly. But we might be able to compromise and come closer to what folks wish than we currently are. As seen here on this thread a couple of members went for items I didn't list - glass and horns. But I imagine if the membership were allowed to remove the other items they'd be happy, that is, the subset that wants to remove superfluous non-race car bits would be happy.

In the past I've heard arguments against removing some of the items listed. They are typically along the lines of "we can't stop there", "it'll be the tip of the iceberg", and "it is the core of IT". I question that line of reasoning. They mean to say that we can't make a rule that says "washer bottles and heater cores my be removed from IT cars" and fashion the rule so that is all that gets removed? That rule, that simple statement and allowance for removing two items on an IT car is going to destroy IT? Or,maybe that rule change not in itself is going to destroy IT but it is going to lead to the downfall of IT? Hmmm.

We race in a class that allows open ECUs, sectioning of strut housings, any shocks/struts, spherical bearings, and other expensive race parts but we have to keep the stock washer bottle and heater core. The scientist in me doesn't agree with a rules set with this non-congruence.

[Greg Amy]

"[I]n our constant club-racer quest to make our cars faster, safer and 'more reliable' we ha[ve] pushed for rule changes that simply accelerated the rate of entropy. Every class of production racing does this, of course, until it finally brings on its own demise." - Peter Egan

[Ron Earp]

"[i]n our constant club-racer quest to make our cars faster, safer and 'more reliable' we ha[ve] pushed for rule changes that simply accelerated the rate of entropy. Every class of production racing does this, of course, until it finally brings on its own demise." - Peter Egan

I think that quote was rather recent wasn't it? Seems I remember it from the last couple of years.

[Greg Amy]

I think that quote was rather recent wasn't it? Seems I remember it from the last couple of years.
Prolly; I read all his columns. And I had posted it on the Sandobx quotes earlier this summer.


I look upon this situation exactly how I look upon current political events: I say let 'em get what they're asking for, 'cause it's the only way they'll eventually realize it ain't what they really want.

Unlike politics, however, something like this isn't easily "un-done" with another election; it is usually resolved via forming a completely new category and letting the old one die off (e.g., GT, then Production, then Improved Touring, then maybe "Modified Touring" anyone...? How's "Showroom Stock" doing since they allowed all those changes...maybe we'll call it "Touring" instead...?) :shrug:

Go ahead, do it. But don't come a-cryin' when you get exactly what you're asking for...

[Knestis]

...Go ahead, do it. But don't come a-cryin' when you get exactly what you're asking for...

There it is.


When Krik refers to V.2, he just means us re-writing what was already there in a much more concrete fashion making every effort to insert definitions and eliminate subjectivity. ...I don't *think* that I coined that term, because it's not representative of how I see it.

K

[Bill Miller]

You are missing the point Ron. You are relatively new to this and have not witnessed the destruction of classes with well intentioned changes. A class evolves slowly with little changes that are "for the good" of the class. Then somehow another group wants more and the changes go into overdrive. Example:

Open ECU
Going National
Another new process when most are unsure of process V1
Then just a few posts up we get no dash,lights,windows, etc.


Get the picture, everone likes IT then procedes to F it up with too much change and it is no longer IT. You guys just started ITR which was a big deal in a "no new classes" SCCA, and now you want to just drive what was built off a cliff.

The washer bottle is more symbolic than substance in that it has always been that line in the sand. You have known me long enough to know that was not personal towards you, but more of a general statement. :D

PS. Missed you wusses in the rain today at Barber.:026:

Steve,

I'm going to throw the BS flag on that one. You know, as well as pretty much everyone else here, that the 'no new classes' thing refers to National classes (unless of course, the PtB want one). Topeka could pretty much care less what's done at the Regional level. Trotting that out, is a TOTAL red herring, and is really pretty weak.

I haven't voted in this poll, but if the ECU situation is any indication how things will go, I'm REALLY not comfortable w/ throwing all that other stuff out. To me, the ECU rule is a textbook example of how to dork it up.

[shwah]

I voted no within Ron's boundary conditions.

I have no problem whatsoever removing horns and washer bottles, and no problem replacing wires.

That is about as far as I would be comfortable.

[shwah]

I should post this in every forum: There is NO NEW PROCESS. When Krik refers to V.2, he just means us re-writing what was already there in a much more concrete fashion making every effort to insert definitions and eliminate subjectivity. Other than the FWD adder going from a fixed number to a percentage, there are no major changes.

I just assumed that there was a 'new process' because of the comments by ITAC about changes to fwd factors. Well that and the fact that some cars have changed classes at weights incongruent with the field, yet are 'about right to the process'.

[pfcs]

"I have no problem whatsoever removing horns and washer bottles, and no problem replacing wires"
Funny how that statement reflects how the conservative ruleset kept me in the corral. I'll confess-I replaced the heavy OE horn in my ITB Volvo with a very light early Beetle one; and when I built my hand-controlled Golf I re-located the ignition coil to where the washer bottle had been so I could reach it, but used a latex leg-bag in it's (now cramped) place. The dual use thinking has informed IT philosophy for many years and served us well. It has been why the class was so unbelievably popular (50+ ITB cars @Glenn one time=their own race group), a stock vehicle easily turned into a capable racecar. I'm grateful to have raced in the golden age of club racing and sad to see IT dissappearing into the mists of time. You guys don't get it-maybe that's not your fault-perhaps you had to have been there circa 1985. Trying to realign the cars to equalize them by weight-that's a good thing, but everything that recently preceded (remove pass seat, gut headliner, Nascar bars/gutted doors, and the big ludicrous one: open ECUs!) I consider obscene. But why should I care? It's over, the inmates have taken over the asylum. Camelot.
Those who forget are doomed to repeat the past. The original Cal Club IT rules (circa 82) were the 1963 production car rules.
phil

[RacerBowie]

I voted no, but only because there wasn't a FUCK NO option.

Seriously: LEAVE I T ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's get the stuff the ITAC sent through done, and then let's not touch it for 2 years.

[D. Ellis-Brown]

I'm sure that this is not a surprise to most who know me, but I support in concept the proposal that Ron Earp is presenting. Please do away with "Non Value Added Stuff". Washer Bottle, Horn, Heater Core, and the like. Permit those items that do not add value to "race cars" to be removed. I presented a similar concept a while back by proposing the removal of stuff that is "Non Value added", Ron the same folks chimed in and make the same statements to my recommendations also. Ron "Thank you" for getting the ball rolling.
By the way, No, I do not think that IT is "Broken", but it is time to remove some of the dings and dents and maybe touch up the paint, or at the least give it a good wax job. While I do not agree with all that the CRB, nor the ITAC have done, I beleive that they have tried their level best to keep IT at the top of the SCCA Class ladder for regional racing, and that is where I want it to stay. Thank You, David Ellis-Brown

[Greg Amy]

Please do away with "Non Value Added Stuff"...Permit those items that do not add value to "race cars" to be removed.
Way Coolness!

I suggest that the following list - by no means all-inclusive - add zero value to a "race car":

- Stock suspension links ("real" race cars have fully -adjustable suspension).
- Stock suspension pickup points (make them MacFaggot strut cars handle!)
- Stock brakes ("real" race cars have "racing brakes", using "racing rotors" and racing calipers".)
- Stock engines (ever seen a "real" race car with only 1/2-pt compression bump and stock crankshafts...? Me neither.)
- Stock transmissions (c'mon!! "Real" race cars have "Hewland" or "Tremec" or "Xtrac" molded in the case, and all the "real" race cars I watch on TV have sequential gearboxes.)
- Stock body panels (hey, carbon fiber's where it's at, baby! Plus, they're a s**t-ton cheaper than going to the local dealer to get replacement - and it makes it TONS easier for working on the "real" race cars!)
- 8-point cages (Hah! DTM cars have that ship-in-a-bottle thing going on. Anyone want to tell them they're not driving "real race cars"?)
- Stock chassis (GT got smart on that one a looong time ago. Crap, as long as we're adding points in the cage, what in the hell do we need that stock sheet metal for?? We can pretend, though, by making sure everyone uses the stock roof.)

I'm sure they're are comparable ideas out there, just waiting for the opportunity! Can't wait for the new ruleset based on this to come out...got my arc-welder ready to go!

GA, not-so-tongue-in-cheek with this one...

[spawpoet]

It's simply ridiculous that we can run a Motec, but can't remove the washer bottle. There are items that can be removed that everybody would agree would have NO negative impact on the IT rule set. In terms of rule set verbage, and interpretation of that verbage, remove is much simpler to control than replace, or substitute. There is a huge difference between the items Ron is talking about, and things like brakes, engines, and cage or suspension mounting points. The difference is black and white. IT is just a little more threatened by the ECU situation than the triviality of the items on this list.

[Greg Amy]

The difference is black and white.
As is the removal - or non-removal - of a washer bottle.

If we are to follow your logic to its conclusion - which is to say, anything lesser-tech than MoTEC should be allowed to be removed/changed - then I suggest my list is even lesser far-fetched than I initially imagined it...

:shrug:

And, trust me, if we go down this road you can be assured I've got a 25-yr list of things I've wanted to change in Improved Touring that I will submit in a heartbeat...the washer bottle will be the least of your concerns.

[Ron Earp]

It's simply ridiculous that we can run a Motec, but can't remove the washer bottle. There are items that can be removed that everybody would agree would have NO negative impact on the IT rule set.

You'd think that would be true.

But each time someone has brought this topic up somebody "goes Greg Amy" and starts talking about suspension points, cages, and a lot of things that weren't mentioned.

A=removal of washer bottles and heater cores
Z=moving of suspension points, throwing the IT engine rules in the trash, etc.

Why if someone brings up A opponents assume we'll go to Z? That is to say, if we do A then Z WILL happen?

[Knestis]

... There is a huge difference between the items Ron is talking about, and things like brakes, engines, and cage or suspension mounting points. ...

Not to Greg, there isn't. Why is his longer list of allowances wrong and Ron's shorter list right?

Why is Kirk's shorter list (the current status quo) wrong and Ron's longer one right?


...Why if someone brings up A opponents assume we'll go to Z? That is to say, if we do A then Z WILL happen?

Because the rules-makers can't be consistent if they approve your wish list and (for example) David's wish list that includes a few more things. David can - quite reasonably - say, "Ron got his. I just want mine. Tell me why, if someone brings up E, opponents assume we'll go to Z?"

K

[spawpoet]

Under my logic the ECU would be stock. What's black and white is the difference in allowing people to swap ECU's (I'm against) because it clearly ups the "build level" of a car vs. removing a washer bottle which in truth doesn't really raise the "build level" of the car. Ron's whole list is inconsequential to rules creep in a substantive manner. That's the operative concept here. I understand the fear of rules creep, but that list really doesn't threaten anything. Some of the things added within this thread could, but not what's on Ron's list

[Ron Earp]

Because the rules-makers can't be consistent if they approve your wish list and (for example) David's wish list that includes a few more things. David can - quite reasonably - say, "Ron got his. I just want mine. Tell me why, if someone brings up E, opponents assume we'll go to Z?"
K

Do we use a different ITAC or rules making process when we talk about washer bottles? We must.

Look, you've got no problem telling someone they can't run their AWD car. Why not telling someone "We've made all the allowance we are going to. You can remove washer bottles and heater cores but too bad on the other stuff."

[spawpoet]

Not to Greg, there isn't. Why is his longer list of allowances wrong and Ron's shorter list right?

Why is Kirk's shorter list (the current status quo) wrong and Ron's longer one right?



Because the rules-makers can't be consistent if they approve your wish list and (for example) David's wish list that includes a few more things. David can - quite reasonably - say, "Ron got his. I just want mine. Tell me why, if someone brings up E, opponents assume we'll go to Z?"

K

Kurt, I see a difference in a rule written with "remove" in it vs "replace". Apply "remove" to anything on Greg's list, and see if the car still works. What we are talking about is truly superfluous items and their removal. I understand what you are saying. Some guys want more than others, but I think there is a core group of items we can "remove" that in truth mean nothing.

[Knestis]

Never mind.

This comes up about twice a year and - I think because the tenure in IT of those involved in the conversation gets shorter each time - we slide a little closer to these things happening.

If I'm the only voice in the wilderness, don't let me stop you. But time WILL prove that the fear is well founded - I am absolutely positive. You'll just have to stay in the category 25+ years to see it happen, like I've seen it happen.

K

[spawpoet]

Never mind.

This comes up about twice a year and - I think because the tenure in IT of those involved in the conversation gets shorter each time - we slide a little closer to these things happening.

If I'm the only voice in the wilderness, don't let me stop you. But time WILL prove that the fear is well founded - I am absolutely positive. You'll just have to stay in the category 25+ years to see it happen, like I've seen it happen.

K


Kurt, the well founded fear is happening WITH the washer bottles etc. still in the cars! Open ECU's, coilovers, splitters etc. The guy's that are getting their way with their lists are the one's with lists like Greg. The problem arises when allowances are made to the systems that add to the performance of the car. I really ain't going to be upset if the washer bottle rule doesn't change. It's just a little silly that while we are holding this rule as so precious the fox is in the hen-house. That's all I'm saying.

[tom_sprecher]

:shrug:

Look, I'm not saying my car does or does not have all the stock components apparently 2/3rds of us that have read this thread would like to see removed because having bought a used race car, all I know about is what is on the car now. If it is missing something that it should not, I really don't care. Currently, I can not race as often as I would like and when I do, if someone protests me for some chicken shit vestigial street car part, I really don't care. I don't have the time, money or motivation to find out what is missing, then source and purchase it.

When asked, most of the guys I race with stated they felt the same way. We all agree that if you break a rule regarding the drive train, suspension or tires that's a different subject. Hell, some have the jacking plates I have wanted, but have not installed. I could not care less, even if I am 60# over weight.

[Knestis]

Kurt, the well founded fear is happening WITH the washer bottles etc. still in the cars! Open ECU's, coilovers, splitters etc. The guy's that are getting their way with their lists are the one's with lists like Greg. The problem arises when allowances are made to the systems that add to the performance of the car. I really ain't going to be upset if the washer bottle rule doesn't change. It's just a little silly that while we are holding this rule as so precious the fox is in the hen-house. That's all I'm saying.

You've got mixed examples here...

Splitters didn't result from a rule change. Coilovers are a completely sensible allowance - for anyone like myself who dealt with custom-wound springs to fit stock struts back in the "good ol' days," and they do not in and of themselves result in a substantial increase in cost or complexity - quite the opposite, in fact. (I've paid as little as $15 shipped for a pair of used 2.25" springs in useful ratings.) We've been around and around with the open ECU allowance and I'm of the opinion that this particular horse was out of the barn the minute we let anyone do ANYTHING to their stock ECUs.

Remember that YOU are the defense against "interpretation creep," whereby racers push the limits on the rules-as-written with their cleverness (a la splitters). If racers don't protest incremental changes that sneak out beyond the wording of the rules, they have only themselves to blame. The ITAC has steadfastly resisted the allowance of additional technology in struts/shocks. We can't get substantially cheaper there unless we mandated stock parts, and even then... Similarly, short of requiring unmodified ECUs, there's no satisfactory solution on that front.

I run no airdam at all, off-the-shelf KONI sports revalved for the big rates we use, and a retail chip poked into the socket in my otherwise stock ECU. We get by, have a good time, and don't feel compelled to spend thousands more on other options. None of those things are killing IT...

...and neither would the allowance to remove washer bottles. But I ask again: Explain to me how we rationally tell one driver he can have his favorite allowance but not another? I'll do a little test if Ron will participate:

Ron - "We've made all the allowance we are going to. You can remove all of the stuff described in the ITCS, but too bad on the washer bottles and heater cores."

Is that rationale enough to convince you that we've done the right thing? You'll happily stop lobbying for those two additional allowance? No - of course not. So WHY would YOUR two things be special but someone else's NOT...? Because - not to put too fine a point on it - you care about what makes sense to you and your interests. The ITAC is charged with looking out for the whole category, rather than any one member's - or even a group of members' - interests. And given conflicting interests and different desires re: new allowances to throw stuff away, it's been standard practice to leave things the way they are.

BTW, for those of you who might have missed it, here's what the ITCS would look like if we'd recommended favorably (and the board had voted to pass) every member requeset for a new allowance during 2008. This is one year of change.

http://it2.evaluand.com/downloads/Bizaro%20World%20ITCS%202008.pdf

Some of course thought this looked totally AOK. Do all of us...?

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

BTW, for those of you who might have missed it, here's what the ITCS would look like if we'd recommended favorably (and the board had voted to pass) every member requeset for a new allowance during 2008. This is one year of change.

http://it2.evaluand.com/downloads/Bizaro%20World%20ITCS%202008.pdf

Some of course thought this looked totally AOK. Do all of us...?

K

Add these for 2009:

Allow 6.5" wheels for Beetle in ITC
Allow 7" wheels in ITB
Open up all ECU sensors
Allow non-stock front fender on ITC Civic
Classify a year of car that only came with an auto to allow higher hp in UD/BD
Allow an updated transmission from a year of car that is not IT eligible yet (2009)
Alternate rear brake allowance due to lack of availability
Allow remote reservoir shocks

[spawpoet]

How can allowing coilovers be a sensible allowance, where the removal of washer bottles is not? I'm not saying allowing coilovers isn't the better way, but it sure seems more threatening than a washer bottle. At the end of the day it's up to the rules makers judgment as to what is threatening or not. If we are scared of washer bottles, why don't we just cap the rules exactly as they are right now and not ever change another rule. That is completely congruent with the argument against the removal of these petty items.

[Knestis]

... why don't we just cap the rules exactly as they are right now and not ever change another rule. That is completely congruent with the argument against the removal of these petty items.

That's pretty much the ITAC's general position, absent any *really* compelling reason for a change.

K

[spawpoet]

That's pretty much the ITAC's general position, absent any *really* compelling reason for a change.

K


That I can buy. Trust me. My preference is to keep IT as cheap and easy as possible to compete in, and I'd rather have an ITAC resistant to change, than one that embraces it.

[JeffYoung]

I've tried to stay out of this to let membership weigh in, but I have to speak on this one.

Yes, we have an ITAC that is resistant to some form of rule change, but in my view, not others.

We've added a FWD modifier based on a simulation, we've added a live rear axle deduct without any real understanding if there is a penalty and we spent a lot of time arguing about torque.

In my view, we should have as much simplicity and resistance to change in the process as we do with washer bottles, because, frankly, the process has a whole lot more to do with how things play out on track that "dual purpose vestiges."

That said, my basic position on Ron's proposed changes is that (a) if membership wants them and they don't violate IT core principles, we should consider them and (b) Bowie is right, we've had a lot of change in the last few years and we should probably let everything settle for a few years and see how things play out (including any push to remove dual purpose vestiges).

[StephenB]

I have voted NO.

I joined a class and built a car to the rules that are listed in the GCR. If I really didn't like the rules I would NOT have spent the money to build a car, join the class, and then try to change the rules. Why would anyone do that? Why bother joining something you don't like?

The rules are the rules no matter how petty you think they are. The more rules you add the longer and thinker the book and the more misses/interpretations you get.

You will get ZERO benifit from removing these items so why even bother removing them. Removing them creates NO benifit to the class. Or am I missing something?

Stephen

IT is was great from 1985 when my dad started. Today it is just as great and maybe even improved with a more stable classification process. The ECU rules are terrible and a mistake from the first time we said "we can't police it so lets allow it" (IMHO) I personally think the PTB learned from that so lets not mess with our rules anymore!

[tnord]

I've tried to stay out of this to let membership weigh in, but I have to speak on this one.

Yes, we have an ITAC that is resistant to some form of rule change, but in my view, not others.

We've added a FWD modifier based on a simulation, we've added a live rear axle deduct without any real understanding if there is a penalty and we spent a lot of time arguing about torque.

In my view, we should have as much simplicity and resistance to change in the process as we do with washer bottles, because, frankly, the process has a whole lot more to do with how things play out on track that "dual purpose vestiges."

That said, my basic position on Ron's proposed changes is that (a) if membership wants them and they don't violate IT core principles, we should consider them and (b) Bowie is right, we've had a lot of change in the last few years and we should probably let everything settle for a few years and see how things play out (including any push to remove dual purpose vestiges).

:happy204:

Jeff Young is my ITAC champion.

[seckerich]

Steve,

I'm going to throw the BS flag on that one. You know, as well as pretty much everyone else here, that the 'no new classes' thing refers to National classes (unless of course, the PtB want one). Topeka could pretty much care less what's done at the Regional level. Trotting that out, is a TOTAL red herring, and is really pretty weak.

I haven't voted in this poll, but if the ECU situation is any indication how things will go, I'm REALLY not comfortable w/ throwing all that other stuff out. To me, the ECU rule is a textbook example of how to dork it up.

Not really Bill. They let regions add region only classes but not additions to regional classes in the GCR nation wide. Big difference. My view is that we have changed a lot in the past few years for the better. The CRB has been more open to IT changes than I ever remember. I see this particular wish list as wasted clout and the kind of silly crap that will get everything else the ITAC does shot down. Now stuff that actually matters to the catagory as a whole does not get done. I think Bowie summed it up with his response--Just Stop screwing with a good thing.

[Andy Bettencourt]

We've added a FWD modifier based on a simulation, we've added a live rear axle deduct without any real understanding if there is a penalty and we spent a lot of time arguing about torque.



Let me clarify. We adjusted the FWD modifier, we didn't ADD one. We had the opportunity to use a sim instead of numbers pulled TOTALLY out of our ass. The change is small but makes total sense IMHO.

We don't KNOW if a solid axle is a penalty? How many real road race cars have them by choice? Ummmm, none. Come on. The lack of camber adjustment is a factor.

Again, there is a line in the sand on the items Ron has brought up. He wants to move the line. His A is someone elses Z. His Z will be someone elses A. There is no REASON to do it...at least ECU and shocks etc had REASONS.

[Knestis]

>> ...We've added a FWD modifier based on a simulation, we've added a live rear axle deduct without any real understanding if there is a penalty and we spent a lot of time arguing about torque. ...

...and did not change how it is considered in the process. Deductions for "suspension" have been applied since the GR - inconsistently. And simulation software informed the change from "block" weight breaks for FWD (-100, -50, or nuthin') to a percentage, in an effort to better accommodate the variable influence of weight/power on the price paid by front drivers.

I have to say that I'm worried about your post, Jeff, because it reinforces the misconception that we've changed the process in substantial ways over the past year or so. We have NOT.

Members: The single largest change we've made to the process, relative to its form when I came to the ITAC in January 2008, is in terms of the set of practices and procedures that wrap around the math so we are constrained to FOLLOW IT CONSISTENTLY.

Prior to this, it was entirely possible for ITAC members to impose their own biases on spec weights of cars, based on what they thought, feared, believed, or didn't believe, with no system of checks-and-balances or accountability. Given that there tend to be pockets of expertise among the members, it was absolutely possible that one member could have individually influenced the race weight of a particular car.

You can have what you want.

K

[JeffYoung]

Andy, again, because membership wants it -- so long as it doesn't violate at core IT principle -- should be a reason for. Plus, the line drawing argument is applicable to ALL of the changes IT has seen over the years right? Some would have drawn the line on stock ECUs, or no coil overs, etc. That's what IT rule making is all about isn't it? One group pushing the line one way or the other.

And my point on the live rear is not that it is a penatly, believe me I agree it is. The question was whether we could ever quantify that change with any accuracy within the constrains of the process.

Kirk, I understand and respect your perspective on Version 2.0, and it is a valid one. But I think it just as valid to say that we have had "rules instability" -- and line drawing -- in the process over the last year or so as well. So I tend to discount some of the counterargument to rules changes request based on line drawing since we do PRECISELY THAT in defining the process.

Not trying to pick a fight or be difficult, but I see far more risk to IT in the thinking that we could come up with a (subjective -- even the FWD adder is subjective although I don't want to reopen that one) formula and an adder for all detriments/advantages a particularhas than in a line drawing exercise on dual purpose vestiges.

I will say that after a lot of hard work and thought, to me anyway, most of that danger has passed.

[RacerBill]

I have read all of this thread and, understand fully just about every point of view on the subject of allowing the removal of 'dual purpose - street' parts such as water bottles. Yes, they serve no usefull purpose in a race car and no their removal is not a performance enhancing modification. However, in the case of older cars, finding replacements if a required part is damaged in an incident can be and is an issue. Non-availability of replacement parts can and will be an issue. For example, I needed to replace the shift linkage on my Shelby Dodge Charger a couple of years ago. Certain parts of the linkage were not available from Chrysler. I was able to find the needed pieces after months of searching, and finish my build.

I do agree with the ITAC and their position on limiting the number of changes. They are doing a great job of safeguarding IT - keep it up.

So, my opinion is to allow the removal of some trivial street-only pieces, but in a very limited and controlled way, and at a time that will not not put IT in a bad light. I agree that our cars should look as much like street cars as possible. (That said, should we allow wings and skirts a la the rice rockets that are in style with the youngsters of today to attract new members? Please, my tongue is firmly in my cheek!).

I love IT, and probably not be racing if it were not for our class. Love the dialogue, and the opportunity to hear everyone's opinions and voice my own.!!!!!

BTW, Andy, I have a solid rear axle and can adjust camber and toe very easily with shims behind the spindle plate.

[billf]

Ron, I'm in agreement with your thoughts on this subject. However, I'd include one other change: Fredom with steering wheel Quick Disconnect devices...to be fastened by other than "bolt-on".

After all, we are beyond the "duel purpose' concept, and should consider these cars "race cars".

As with race cars, they can be built to different rules structures. Ergo, Production, GT, IT, etc.

Thanks for getting this on the board.

Bill Frieder:024:
ITR under construction
WNNY SCCA

[tom91ita]

i voted no because i am basically lazy and don't want to feel obligated to take out the washer bottle.

[Ron Earp]

Again, there is a line in the sand on the items Ron has brought up. He wants to move the line. His A is someone elses Z. His Z will be someone elses A. There is no REASON to do it...at least ECU and shocks etc had REASONS.

As others stated, all rule changes at some point were lines in the sand. For many IT racers there was absolutely no reason to change the ECU or shock rules. Both of which have far more impact on IT than removing a washer bottle and a heater core. There are other examples.

There certainly are valid reasons for removing washer bottles, heater cores, and HVAC systems from IT cars:


Some members wish to do so and the SCCA/IT is a club for club members.
The items serve no practical purpose on a race car (debatable of course, if I get my fan working I'd keep my heater core if given the option but that is my choice).
Removing the items is an inexpensive way to remove weight.

Despite my post and feelings on the matter I do not intend to write a letter to the ITAC asking for these allowances. Like others on this thread I feel IT is a damn good place to race. And I feel that other than adding new cars into the classes as members request them that IT needs to ferment for a bit before undergoing additional rule changes.

[spawpoet]

As others stated, all rule changes at some point were lines in the sand. For many IT racers there was absolutely no reason to change the ECU or shock rules. Both of which have far more impact on IT than removing a washer bottle and a heater core. There are other examples.

There certainly are valid reasons for removing washer bottles, heater cores, and HVAC systems from IT cars:


Some members wish to do so and the SCCA/IT is a club for club members.
The items serve no practical purpose on a race car (debatable of course, if I get my fan working I'd keep my heater core but that is my choice).
Removing the items is an inexpensive way to remove weight.

Despite my post and feelings on the matter I do not intend to write a letter to the ITAC asking for these allowances. Like others on this thread I feel IT is a damn good place to race. And I feel that other than adding new cars into the classes as members request them that IT needs to ferment for a bit before undergoing additional rule changes.


I'll add a fourth reason. There are a number of other clubs that race with similar rule sets to IT (NASA is the obvious one) where there cars can remove all these items. By changing the rules it is easier for someone who has run in these clubs primarily to also legally run in IT. Additionally, if an SCCA racer was to purchase a car that was run elsewhere to a different, but similar rule set it would be simpler for them to covert their purchase to IT legal specs. Like Tom Sprecher said above, when you purchase an already built car, it's not always easy to know what is and isn't supposed to be there.

[JoshS]

Removing the items is an inexpensive way to remove weight.

Really curious -- how much do your empty washer bottle and empty heater core weigh?

[Ron Earp]

Really curious -- how much do your empty washer bottle and empty heater core weigh?

I don't know, can't remove and weigh them. :)

Seriously, on the original poll list we're talking about washer bottle, HVAC, heater core, windshield wipers, and headlights. Probably a considerable amount for all of that.

[IPRESS]

Ron, The items you mentioned for removal make SENSE.........that is why you are getting the "blowback"!
All this BS about "lines in the sand", symbolic waher bottles, rules creep.....for some folks, IT rules are a religion.
Evidently common sense has no place in IT.
The comeback "that you are a new guy" is a poor position to take. Opinions should be equal.......even if I think the majority on here are .....WRONG!:D

RON PUT ME DOWN FOR A YES.
I have asked 6 other IT racers I know and they voted yes too. (They think this forum is goofy so their votes are by proxy!)
Water Bottles damn who would have ever thought such a thing would be a point of principle.

[seckerich]

Washer bottle and heater core are no big deal. It has always kind of been the first thing a new driver pisses about in IT. Can't remember the last time anyone really cared if it was on the car. :rolleyes:

As for the noob question and what you want in IT:

You are a member of SCCA and have just as much right as any active driver to request changes. Those who see things different have the same right to appose you. What you do need to look at is the big picture. There are 2 groups of drivers. The "lifers" and those passing through. Either way you have a responsibility to look past your own personal interests and not request changes that lead to less participation and enjoyment. What the masses wanted for many classes ate them. You will do the same with IT if you keep moving the bar a little farther every year. You start the list of headlights, wipers (never run in the rain?) and the list goes on and on.

Part of the draw of IT is that you can find a 10 year old racecar cheap and do minor safety updates and still be competitive.

[trhoppe]

For the purposes of the poll assume we're talking about the following "dual purpose vestiges": washer bottle, heater core and HVAC system, wipers/wiper motors, headlights, and wiper bottle reservoir.

Allow for removal of all of those except headlights. Lets keep the outsides of the cars looking the same, and removal of all of those items except headlights allows for just "removal" rather then replacement.

Me personally, only thing I would remove is the washer bottle reservoir. I'll keep my windshield vents/HVAC/heater core in case it rains, so my window doesn't fog up.

-Tom

[Knestis]

Ron, The items you mentioned for removal make SENSE.........that is why you are getting the "blowback"!
All this BS about "lines in the sand", symbolic waher bottles, rules creep.....for some folks, IT rules are a religion.
Evidently common sense has no place in IT.
The comeback "that you are a new guy" is a poor position to take. Opinions should be equal.......even if I think the majority on here are .....WRONG!:D

RON PUT ME DOWN FOR A YES.
I have asked 6 other IT racers I know and they voted yes too. (They think this forum is goofy so their votes are by proxy!)
Water Bottles damn who would have ever thought such a thing would be a point of principle.

Who can argue with that compelling position? You got it, Mac, Jeff, et al. This one's yours, guys. I won't vote "yes" but I'm done shouting into this vacuum.

Make a note of the date. It's the beginning of a new era for IT - when "common sense prevails."

:happy204:

K

[Marcus Miller]

I voted no, but only because there wasn't a FUCK NO option.

Seriously: LEAVE I T ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's get the stuff the ITAC sent through done, and then let's not touch it for 2 years.

What he said.:smilie_pokal:

[JeffYoung]

Kirk, I think we try to have a bit higher level of discourse on this board. I respect your viewpoint and Marc does too, and NO ONE (not even Ron) is advocating any change right now, at this time. I think we all recognize the need to let IT "settle" for a bit.

Let's try to continue the discussion, and let me ask you this question Kirk -- as a friend and as someone whose views on IT I respect:

Whether you agree with it or not, there is a perception among membership that (a) no one knows what the process is (and I know you are an advocate for publishing, which I applaud); (b) it at least appears to membership be in constant flux; and (c) no one is sure how the adders/subtractors are "assembled."

How is that any different -- the push and pull of people who want "X" for an adder, or want "Y" subtractor done a certain way -- from what you see as an unworkable selection of one person's preferences over another's for the removal of items from an IT car that are there solely because of the dual purpose statement of purpose that no longer means anything?

I would submit it is not. And I think if we came up with a framework for what constitutes the "core" of IT we could pretty easily stop the "march to Prod" by removing those items.

I also think that we'd have 99% agreement on what constitutes the core of IT and can't be changed: (a) stock panels and glass; (b) stock dash; (c) current motor rules; (d) current suspension rules; (e) current brake rules.

I see far, far, far more danger in us ending up "Prod like" with a constantly evolving and fluid process that seems to have no end and at least "looks like" the balancing of cars that goes on in Prod, than the removal of dual purpose items from IT cars that (conceivably) a majority of membership wants to remove.




Who can argue with that compelling position? You got it, Mac, Jeff, et al. This one's yours, guys. I won't vote "yes" but I'm done shouting into this vacuum.

Make a note of the date. It's the beginning of a new era for IT - when "common sense prevails."

:happy204:

K

[shwah]

I know it does not fit some of your personal opinions of 'a real race car' item, but IMO the HV system and heater core are absolutely functional components in an IT application, as are windshield wipers. It turns out they are really helpful, even a competitive advantage when racing in the rain.

In some sitiations headlights can be useful as well.

As far as other 'valid' reasons to make these changes:

"some members want to" has to be a joke right? I mean some members want ported heads, cams and alternate material body parts and glass. Apparently they have not cracked open the PCS just yet...

Yes I would like to remove the horn, replace the wires and replace the air dam, rather than graft another one over it, but none of these are big deal to comply with and continue enjoying the racing. If you seriously think these little items make the difference between you enjoying IT racing and not, then you probably should have read the rules one more time before investing in an IT car.

Trot out the ECU rules all you want. I for one would prefer that 100% stock was required. It is too bad that the powers that were at the time assumed this to be unenforceable and opened it up *unintentionally* to anything in the box. From there, I still wish we had jammed the genie back into the bottle, but at least I can see the logic of what was done instead - let anyone with electric injectors have acces to the percieved gain that the 'few' had with the anything in the box rule.

Of course now today, with modern ecus, 100% stock is A. literally unenforceable as you can change programing through factory provided communications ports without cracking anything open and B. newer cars will likely require alternate programing to even operate with IT restrictions - no ABS, speed limiters, no stability control. So, who knows, maybe we would have ended up here anyway.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Thank you Chris. You have articulated something I haven't been able to.

Shocks is the other example? Does any remember the history on how we got where we are? Really?

Again, I understand why somebody would ask 'why can't I remove X'. What I don't understand is why it is such a big deal to leave this stuff alone. If you can't find a washer reservior in a junk yard someplace for your car, you are running something so rare I bet you can't get a lot of other more citical stuff.

The ITAC hears the issue - but only a few seem to hear ours. YOUR line is not far enough for someone else. That line is still not far enough for another guy. The line that we have now creates no issues, perpetuates no inequities and is really not hard to follow. So why not resist it's movement allthogether? When I review a request, I look for reasons to DO something, not for a 'why not'?

[Ron Earp]

When I review a request, I look for reasons to DO something, not for a 'why not'?

And when I read rules or other similar material I always ask myself "why is that rule there?". In the case of retaining washer bottles, heater cores, and a couple of other items I can't find a logical reason to keep them, especially in light of what we ARE allowed to change in IT.

But, like I stated and Jeff mentioned I personally feel IT needs to settle a bit.

[spawpoet]

The line that we have now creates no issues, perpetuates no inequities and is really not hard to follow.



Those are good parameters to follow, but I would argue the line we are talking about would also create no issues, perpetuate no inequities, and be ever so slightly easier to follow.

[Knestis]

>> How is that any different -- the push and pull of people who want "X" for an adder, or want "Y" subtractor done a certain way -- from what you see as an unworkable selection of one person's preferences over another's for the removal of items from an IT car that are there solely because of the dual purpose statement of purpose that no longer means anything...

Easy. They are the same and my position on both is consistent and extremely conservative.

The difference between my thinking on these issues and the rest of the world, or so it seems...? I don't believe that more allowances should be added to the rule set, and I don't believe that the process has actually changed in any substantive way - beyond the fact that it can't be gamed as easily as in the past.

I don't get the contrary-at-face-value position of arguing for more allowances but being critical of changes to the system - even perceived or imagined changes. Want "stability" but don't want to lock down the practices of the ITAC intended to prevent reactionary adjustments based on who wins at the next ARRC...? Seriously?

Until a couple of weeks ago, I was very optimistic about where we were going but based on the volume of opposition from a number of quarters, most of us clearly feel differently. I'm past believing that momentum won't have its way. A week ago or so, I asked for input. I got it.

K

[pfcs]

Now be a benign dictator-ignore it. What distinguished IT from other classes was that it embraced stability. Early on, rules makers understood that and ignored the background noise of the multitudes of bozzos that all had their own better idea. Everyone wants to be a rulesmaker, but this is not a democracy and shouldn't be! And you ITAC guys-to a lessor extent- this applies to you too-like when you had this great idea about opening the rules and making intake pipes free, WTF was that supposed to accomplish-did you just need to do something because it showed you were important?
All of this talk to me seems pretty hopeless-I think it's probably too late to pull IT back from the brink. Nevertheless, I appreciate guys like Kirk carrying on the fight to preserve (save) IT. Newer converts may think of my position as being religious-trust me its not. I know what I know. If any these voices clamoring for this little change and that are acted on, more and more will follow and IT will evolve into another piece of shit class like production-one that most people in the club wish had died years ago.

[JoshS]

And when I read rules or other similar material I always ask myself "why is that rule there?". In the case of retaining washer bottles, heater cores, and a couple of other items I can't find a logical reason to keep them, especially in light of what we ARE allowed to change in IT.

This might sound like I'm just arguing semantics, but ... there are no rules that talks about washer bottles or heater cores. So there is nothing to read to ask, "Why is that rule there?"

What you would need to ask is why ISN'T that rule there? And I submit that it's probably not there because no one thought it was necessary, and they wanted to keep the ruleset simple and small.

[AjG]

The good news is that no one cares anyway.
Every time I go off track some extraneous piece of ancient plastic gets forever lost in the Nelson tirewall. This year the passenger side glass fell victim to the armco at Beaver Run. Unfortunately, the impact didn’t dislodge the heater core or it would be gone as well. The first two times I took the motor out I diligently replaced the heater hoses, the third time…not so much.
In an effort to equalize these indiscretions I’ve purposely kept my car under-prepped in all areas of performance: an $800 motor (saved money by reusing the rings), nonadjustable sway bars, 20 year old shocks, 150 lbs. overweight, and a stock ECU(carburetor).
The point is (in case any new people are reading this), that the IT represented on this board is not necessarily the reality at the track. The track is waaaaay more fun.
And since no one checks anything in IT ever, like never ever, the idea is to run an honest drivetrain and suspension, make sure the exterior looks pretty much stock, and have fun.
By the way, I voted no… because if you let’em take the mudflaps off, they’re gonna show up with turbos.
Just kidding, I voted yes.

[JoshS]

And since no one checks anything in IT ever, like never ever, the idea is to run an honest drivetrain and suspension, make sure the exterior looks pretty much stock, and have fun.

"Never ever?" We had a competitor-filed protest in ITS this past weekend.

[AjG]

We had a competitor-filed protest in ITS this past weekend.

washer bottle?

[spawpoet]

The good news is that no one cares anyway.
Every time I go off track some extraneous piece of ancient plastic gets forever lost in the Nelson tirewall. This year the passenger side glass fell victim to the armco at Beaver Run. Unfortunately, the impact didn’t dislodge the heater core or it would be gone as well. The first two times I took the motor out I diligently replaced the heater hoses, the third time…not so much.
In an effort to equalize these indiscretions I’ve purposely kept my car under-prepped in all areas of performance: an $800 motor (saved money by reusing the rings), nonadjustable sway bars, 20 year old shocks, 150 lbs. overweight, and a stock ECU(carburetor).
The point is (in case any new people are reading this), that the IT represented on this board is not necessarily the reality at the track. The track is waaaaay more fun.
And since no one checks anything in IT ever, like never ever, the idea is to run an honest drivetrain and suspension, make sure the exterior looks pretty much stock, and have fun.
By the way, I voted no… because if you let’em take the mudflaps off, they’re gonna show up with turbos.
Just kidding, I voted yes.

Now see I like your approach. You're right. The reality is this whole discussion is noise more than anything else. Can anybody out there come up with an example of a protest over an item as insignificant as a washer bottle??

[Z3_GoCar]

Let me get this straight... There's a rule that says I can remove the kick panels from my dash, but the glove box isn't mentioned at all. My glove box connects to the kick panels, so if I remove what I'm allowed to then the glove box sort of just hangs below the dash. Since I'm not allowed to remove the glove box, the kick panels which I'm allowed to remove have to stay. Does this make sense?

As for the washer bottle, I've go one and it'll be in the car along with the heater core.

[Z3_GoCar]

Now see I like your approach. You're right. The reality is this whole discussion is noise more than anything else. Can anybody out there come up with an example of a protest over an item as insignificant as a washer bottle??

Last one we had that I remember was a dealer installed rear spoiler, that was mentioned in the factory brochure. I think he'd been running it for over 6 months by the time of protest.

[Dave Zaslow]

I voted no, but only because there wasn't a FUCK NO option.

Seriously: LEAVE I T ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's get the stuff the ITAC sent through done, and then let's not touch it for 2 years.

+1,000,000

What is the imminent need that the rule change would address? The perception that IT rules are too constrained?

In efforts toward allowing battery relocation, at least we were arguing "safety"; but removing wipers? Does it not rain outside of the northeast? Headlights? WTF does that allow besides lovely ram-air possibilities. I wonder if we would allow battery relocation if 50 pounds of nice, safe lead had to be bolted to the original battery position. Want those wipers gone? Just bolt another 10 pounds within 1 foot of where they used to be. Want to write that rulebook? Not me.

The 20 people playing here are not representative of the IT community. You want to ask what people want? You've got to cast a wider net than this webpage.

What I want is an ITAC that can say no many more times than they say yes.

DZ

BTW I like having fluid in my washer bottle.

[Ron Earp]

This might sound like I'm just arguing semantics, but ... there are no rules that talks about washer bottles or heater cores. So there is nothing to read to ask, "Why is that rule there?"

What you would need to ask is why ISN'T that rule there? And I submit that it's probably not there because no one thought it was necessary, and they wanted to keep the ruleset simple and small.

Yes Josh, you're arguing semantics here.

Apparently I'm not the only one who reads at the rule set and says "So, I can use any ECU I want, any shocks I wish, and I CAN'T remove my heater core, washer bottle, and HVAC system?"

So yes, I ask "Why isn't there a rule that allows me to remove those non-racable bits in my race car?"

We covered this a couple of pages ago.

Ron

[shwah]

Yes Ron we covered this a couple pages ago.

The answer is "because there is not a compelling reason TO allow removing these items."

The current ITAC cannot be responsible for the decisions in years or decades past, but they do have a responsibility to 'protect' the rule set from creep in the present. This merry go round is getting old. You guys that think you need to take stuff off to make a 'real race car' don't want to hear what others are saying. The horse is dead and I'm out of this one.

[JeffYoung]

Chris, we here you. And our side, you joke about the compelling reason we assert -- this is a club, and if the club's membership wants X and it doesn't affect the core values of the class, that is reason enough.

This is no different than the FWD modifier, the allowance of 15" wheels for all cars in S and A, or the process as a whole, etc. etc. etc.. It's change that the membership wanted.

[Andy Bettencourt]

This is no different than the FWD modifier, the allowance of 15" wheels for all cars in S and A, or the process as a whole, etc. etc. etc.. It's change that the membership wanted.

...that was predicated on a NEED.

[JeffYoung]

In your view, yes, it was. In others it might not have been. Again, back to subjective line drawing right?

On Edit. Let's use the wheel allowance as an example. 14" performance wheels were getting hard to find. Membership expressed a preference -- a preference, because if you spent the dollars you could still use 14s -- to allow S and A cars to use 15" wheels even if they didn't come with them stock. Cost people money -- cost me several thousand dollars to move from my 13s to 15s. And that's fine, I was ok with it.

Let's look at the wiring harness, or even the windshield washer......plenty of 30 year old IT cars have rotted out harnesses. You can spend a lot of time and money messing with them to comply with the rule, or you could change the rule to allow a simple replacement harness that has no performance benefit other than reliability. Windshield washer bottle and motor -- I LOST mine in a car wash and had to buy another one, for my car the bottle was $100 and the motor for the washer is NLA. So yes, I can say, for me, to a certain extent there is a need, albeit a small one, that in my view outweighs any potential harm that could come from making these allowances.

That's where the real difference is I think. And there certainly was no need for the FWD modifier, or the live rear axle modifier. There was the perception that making those allowances would better balance the classes......

[Andy Bettencourt]

In your view, yes, it was. In others it might not have been. Again, back to subjective line drawing right?

On Edit. Let's use the wheel allowance as an example. 14" performance wheels were getting hard to find. Membership expressed a preference -- a preference, because if you spent the dollars you could still use 14s -- to allow S and A cars to use 15" wheels even if they didn't come with them stock. Cost people money -- cost me several thousand dollars to move from my 13s to 15s. And that's fine, I was ok with it.

Jeff, you didn't HAVE to get 15's. Really. The preference was driven by a need. A need to not have to spend a years racing budget on wheels because availablity was an issue. The issue had been requested many times before - and was resisted until the ITAC felt that the issue was a need and not a 'want'.


That's where the real difference is I think. And there certainly was no need for the FWD modifier, or the live rear axle modifier. There was the perception that making those allowances would better balance the classes......

If you don't see the issue of better balance in the classes as a 'need' and not a want, we are chasing our tails. But I agree your line is your line. Everyone has their own.

[JeffYoung]

On the wheel issue, you're overstating how hard it was to get 13 and 14 wheels. The problem was getting ones at low weight -- again a preference.

But it's okay, I think we are at the agree to disagree point and that is fine.

On the last point though, of course I do see a need to help keep classes competitive. But the difference, and the line drawing we do differently, is in HOW. I am perfectly fine with the ITAC's decision to allow the FWD modifier and live rear deduct, etc. -- we are committee and we operate by majority vote. But my line for balancing the class without hurting it would have (personally) been drawn in a different spot.

Good discussion though.

[gran racing]

The key point I think some are missing is that removing stock junk you don't need DOESN'T COST ANYTHING.

Actually You’ve got that opposite – keeping items on a car doesn’t cost anything. At some point, I’d be okay with removing (again, going with the original poll “rules”) washer bottles, wiring harness and horns but that’s it. Right now, I fully agree with what Bowie said.

If you want to build a car that has more allowances for removal of items, there’s already one that exists. RSI – if you have friends who want to run in these classes because IT doesn’t appeal to them, good for them. It’s nice to know SCCA can still offer them a place that meets their wants.

Remove headlights? What is the “headlight”? The headlight assembly, right? Or are you merely talking about the replacement bulb? I’ve got those flip-up headlights which would be nice to remove to push cold air right into the engine.


It’s simply ridiculous that we can run a Motec, but can’t remove the washer bottle.

I agree. I would love to see only stock ECUs allowed if feasible when looking at newer cars as well.


Heater core no big deal or have NO negative impact on the IT ruleset.

Says the southern boys. J Removing it has an impact otherwise you wouldn’t want it. In this case is could be as simple as add one more thing that a newbie or anyone else feels compelled to do. When I first started racing, someone told me I needed to / should do that (they were obviously wrong and it isn’t allowed but) and I shook my head with a “I need to do what?” Then said newbie who removes the heater core races in the rain and realizes it was a silly thing to have done.


In some situations headlights can be useful as well. Chris

Absolutely. It’s another good form of on-track communication.


why bother joining something you don’t like? Stephen

On the flip side, there’s nothing wrong with trying to improve upon things otherwise this could have been said with the changes years ago. Or when submitting a request to have an Audi (or Prelude) run through the process so that it gets reviewed using the same process as other cars. We both joined the game well before then.

[JeffYoung]

In reading Dave's post where he makes the very good point that removing items costs nothing, I was struck by something.

Some of this is, I think, old car v. new car driven.

On older cars, yes, it can cost time and money to comply with these rules. Headlight pieces, wiper stuff, windshield washer bottles and pump motors, wiring harnesses -- all can be expensive to fix and/or replace if lost or damaged.

That's probably where a lot of my frustration comes from. I probably spent 2-3 hours and $100 locating a washer bottle, for example.

For a guy with a newer car, all of that stuff is probabyl there, probably easy to get and you don't even have to think about it. For us, it can be a hassle, an expensive one, and when it comes to old and crappy wiring harnesses it can cost us race weekends.

[shwah]

Chiming in to Jeff's wheel situation. We just bought some sub 9# custom 13x7 wheels for the prod car for about $200 each. If you are legally alowed to run them, I am surprised you choose 15" wheels instead. Less unsprung mass, lighter tires, lower cg without changing geometry, lower rotational interia, improved brake 'leverage' (this one especially catches my eye in your case) on the track surface. Is a 225 tire too narrow for your needs?

Look in to Spin Werks - formerly Circle Racing Wheels.

[JeffYoung]

I'm an odd case on wheels. I really needed the extra clearance of the 15"s for brake ducting and cooling. 13" wheels aren't too hard to find in reasonable weights, it's the 14"s that I think people have trouble with the most. And the Volk 15s I bought were actually ligther than my original set of 13" Panasports at 10 lbs.


Chiming in to Jeff's wheel situation. We just bought some sub 9# custom 13x7 wheels for the prod car for about $200 each. If you are legally alowed to run them, I am surprised you choose 15" wheels instead. Less unsprung mass, lighter tires, lower cg without changing geometry, lower rotational interia, improved brake 'leverage' (this one especially catches my eye in your case) on the track surface. Is a 225 tire too narrow for your needs?

Look in to Spin Werks - formerly Circle Racing Wheels.

[Racerlinn]

No. Leave it alone for goodness sakes.

[StephenB]

[/FONT]
On the flip side, there’s nothing wrong with trying to improve upon things otherwise this could have been said with the changes years ago. Or when submitting a request to have an Audi (or Prelude) run through the process so that it gets reviewed using the same process as other cars. We both joined the game well before then.

Dave,

I have NEVER requested any rule changes since I joined IT in 1999 and my family has not requested any rules changes since joining IT in 1985. I liked the rules for IT better than other classes, I thought it was the most affordable way for me to get into the racing I wanted to do, and I chose a car make that I was personally interested in with no idea on it's performance potential.

I do approve of the changed classification process but I don't think that is necasarily a "rules change" in relation to this discussion, instead I would consider it a Classification proces to find a stable way to classify cars into the future. I DID request my car to go through this process because with my math I realized that a potential issue may exist. I wanted to make sure that this type of error didn't happen in the future and bad or good I thaught I was doing the right thing by bringing it to the ITAC's attention. I really wouldn't care what happens with my car as long as it was consistant with all cars. If the process only applies to new cars classified then so be it, I am fine with that. Again I don't think what I requested was or is a "Rules change" but rather a classification change. Totally different than allowances and non-allowances for IT car prep.

I would not have changed anything from 1999 when I started to now with my current SCCA ITB car other than a stable consistant classification process to ensure consistant competition levels into the future. This is why I currently fully support our current ITAC and voted no on this rules change.

Stephen

PS: I think the only rules change since '99 that I think I have taken advantage of was the changed allowance of wheel spacers.

[Knestis]

Have all the new allowances to remove parts you want but conflating rules and the enforcement of rules (the protest and appeals process) is recipe for disappointment regardless of where you draw the line in the sand. Someone's always going to be stepping past it and it's not the rules that get them - it's enforcement.

K

[JeffYoung]

I will say this. I thought this would poll would be far more in favor of the change than 60/40. Interesting to me and why Ron did it.

[seckerich]

I will say this. I thought this would poll would be far more in favor of the change than 60/40. Interesting to me and why Ron did it.

My opinion and worth what you pay for it:

Most drivers I speak with want the cars all run through to get as close as possible. You will never get them all right and there will be some special cases, but do the best you can. After that please stop. Really----just stop and let us race with a stable rule set.

[DavidM]

I would like to see washer bottles, heater cores, wiper stalks, and other extraneous crap removable just because it's less crap to get in the way. I personally am using the washer bottle as the radiator overflow so it would stay anyways.

but

You have people that, right or wrong, would use the allowance to remove said items as reasoning that other items should be allowed to be removed.

so

I vote no. Yeah, it's retarded that we have open ECUs and have to keep the washer bottle. In fact I, as well as many others, have said as much to point out the dichotomy/irony in the ruleset. But keeping the washer bottle, heater core, whatever isn't really that big a deal so let it be. There are other things to be concerned about.

David

[IPRESS]

OK,
You talked me in to it. I want to change my vote.
No No No.
To paraphrase Bowie.
"Leave it the F alone."

But lets apply that all the way..... We like IT fine right now. Do what Bowie suggests for the whole thing. Leave it Be and lets just Race!

[frnkhous]

If you didn't do the work yourself, all the things listed would cost money, no matter what they cost money or time when building a car.(unless your assuming all IT cars are built by tearing down to a shell) at that point you might as well open up seem welding, cage rules, etc cause it is easy, you are already inside. Who needs a dash, that is a throwback to dual purpose cars. bring on the lexan and carbon fiber replacements for headlights, turn signals, etc.

Otherwise all the silly things you guys want to remove do cost either time or money to do. Honestly I'd have been fine with a car having to have a truly "stock" ecu. However that brings up issues in enforcement as well as If I have to have a stock ecu, then a carbed car should still have the stock rev limit via whatever ignition system it has. I understand the ecu thing, but don't use motec next to washerbottles to justify changes. I still don't undertand carbed guys being up in arms about computers, you are already allowed to rejet/tune carbs, maybe you should have to run untouched factory carbs(good luck with that since they are 20+ years old)

[Knestis]

... We like IT fine right now. Do what Bowie suggests for the whole thing. Leave it Be and lets just Race!

And what do you say to the member with the '92-95 Honda Civic DX that's trapped hopelessly in ITA at an unachievable weight and 102 stock HP...? Or to the guy/gal who owns one of the other several dozen common cars that weigh substantially more than they should because of when they were listed in the ITCS...?

We all love a system when it's working for US.

K

[seckerich]

And what do you say to the member with the '92-95 Honda Civic DX that's trapped hopelessly in ITA at an unachievable weight and 102 stock HP...? Or to the guy/gal who owns one of the other several dozen common cars that weigh substantially more than they should because of when they were listed in the ITCS...?

We all love a system when it's working for US.

K

Is it there because it was not run through the process, or does the process fail it? Either way fix it, stop all the other BS that just dilutes the important issues, and then move on. I sent a letter to the CRB backing you guys to run every car requested through the process. Now it looks like a floodgate of other agenda items. Stick to the basics and leave IT alone.

[tnord]

And what do you say to the member with the '92-95 Honda Civic DX that's trapped hopelessly in ITA at an unachievable weight and 102 stock HP...? Or to the guy/gal who owns one of the other several dozen common cars that weigh substantially more than they should because of when they were listed in the ITCS...?

We all love a system when it's working for US.

K

1) no garauntee of competitiveness
2) choose your weapon wisely

risk > benefit of continual monkey fucking with the class.

[spawpoet]

And what do you say to the member with the '92-95 Honda Civic DX that's trapped hopelessly in ITA at an unachievable weight and 102 stock HP...? Or to the guy/gal who owns one of the other several dozen common cars that weigh substantially more than they should because of when they were listed in the ITCS...?

We all love a system when it's working for US.

K


You apply the same logic many are applying here. If IT is getting by just fine without those changes, don't make the changes. I don't REALLY agree with that logic, cause it ignores common sense at times. You are correct that the system should work for everybody. If Jeff had to pay $100 for a part that isn't needed for his car, and doesn't affect the outcome of a race in any way whatsoever (is there anybody who disagrees with this point?), I don't think the system worked for him in this case.

[JeffYoung]

No, the CRB issue with the process is entirely separate from Ron's very informal poll on removing dual vestiges. There's no formal push, whatsoever, to do that, although I would support it down the road if I felt a majority of membership wanted it.

The whole IT National thing scares me a bit though. I'm new enough to the scene to not really understand how Club politics play out above the ITAC, and I admit to some fear to a "solution" to the issue being forced on us (either in regards to the Process, or to the perceived problem with the Regional/National distinction).


Is it there because it was not run through the process, or does the process fail it? Either way fix it, stop all the other BS that just dilutes the important issues, and then move on. I sent a letter to the CRB backing you guys to run every car requested through the process. Now it looks like a floodgate of other agenda items. Stick to the basics and leave IT alone.

[Bill Miller]

1) no garauntee of competitiveness
2) choose your weapon wisely

risk > benefit of continual monkey fucking with the class.


Just so I understand you Travis, you believe that no cars should have been adjusted, and the ITAC shouldn't have spent all that time trying to develop an objective process for classifying cars?

[Spinnetti]

I find this really interesting that the membership will argue ad-nauseam about removing (or not going out and buying) things like washer bottles, but apparently nobody raises an eyebrow for open ecu's coilovers etc... is this supposed to be low cost racing or not? I'm not sure it's been articulated very well, but you can have a faster (and thus for some of us) more fun race car by adding lightness, not buying expensive go-fast parts. What's wrong with that? For those using the "if you allow washer bottles to go, the next thing is free hewland transaxles with free mounting"! This is simply scare mongering and doesn't contribute to the discussion. What is the purpose here? If we share the ideals, surely we should be able to rationally see how the current ruleset could be better.

1. Cheap racing?
2. Race a modified street car of your choice?
3. Dual purpose?

Certainly, IT has gone beyond Dual purpose don't you think? Shouldn't the ruleset align with reality a bit more? I think some rules have gone too far (ECU, suspension) due to adding unnecessary cost to be competitive, but why not remove some of the other stuff? Is it a threat to the dying/or undersubscribed production classes? I don't want to go production, I just want my IT car to be lighter. If it doesn't cost money or undermine the structure, Why not?

[Knestis]

1) no garauntee of competitiveness
2) choose your weapon wisely

risk > benefit of continual monkey fucking with the class.

And you clearly include efforts to establish and use a repeatable, transparent process to specify cars in that category.

Okay, then.

Seriously. I may join you on the links, Travis, if this idea is as popular more broadly, as it seems to be in this community.

K

[tnord]

And you clearly include efforts to establish and use a repeatable, transparent process to specify cars in that category.

Okay, then.


i've never opposed that effort.

PS - the internet is a terrible place; specifically forums. nothing good has ever come from them.

[Knestis]

i've never opposed that effort. ...

But THAT'S pretty damned much the ENTIRE substance of what the ITAC has done, in terms of making changes - at least in the 20 months I've been on it...!!

What "monkey" activity is it, precisely, that you want them to stop doing...??

** Standardizing how individual car spec line make/model examples with more than one stock power values are handled?

** Categorizing cars based on realistic estimates of whether resulting weights are achievable?

** Adhering to a set of default protocols to estimate IT-prep power potential, absent any compelling evidence to do otherwise; rather than guessing picking numbers based on unknown biases?

** Requiring ITAC members to go on record individually, regarding their confidence in any evidence considered within those protocols?

** Requiring a supermajority of ITAC members expressing high levels of confidence in a non-standard power factor, before subsequent steps can even proceed?

** Using a percentage subtractor for FWD rather than blocks of weight, with percentages tailored to each class based on objective computer modeling rather than members' hopes and fears?

** Limiting and specifying the number and size of adders/subtractors based on physical attributes of cars (e.g., brake size) relative to other cars in the same class, rather than allowing open-ended adjustments of any amount, based on expectations of competitiveness (e.g., "I heard they stop real good")...?

** Eliminating all other opportunities to apply subjective judgments to influence classification and specification?

** Requiring a second final up or down vote, with abstentions discouraged; and documenting that final vote?

** Eliminating the codified practice of subjectively reviewing - and allowing ITAC members to change ITCS weights - if the spec resulting from the process "is not acceptable."

** Reporting recommendations to the CRB to the closest 5 pounds, rather than "leaving it alone" if a particular car isn't found to be more than 100# off...??

Seriously - which of these existential practices is it that needs to end...?

K

EDIT - Sorry, I forgot "use all of the above in the same way in every case without question, in response to any member's request to do so." I'll bet that's the one that has everyone upset. ;)

[lateapex911]

i've never opposed that effort.

PS - the internet is a terrible place; specifically forums. nothing good has ever come from them.

I SO disagree with that.

This board has educated lots of people, and IT is better SOLEY because of THIS board. If it wasn't for conversations and discussions, (some might even call them fights!) that happened here 5 or so years ago, much of what the ITAC has done to create a consistent and repeatable system to classify cars would NOT exist. Nor would the ability to balance the classes from their previous dorked up state. I rarely see the owner of this board, but when I do, I always thank him for his generosity.

My thoughts.....I've stayed out for a bit as requested, but..

I find it humerous how people love to compare washer bottles with ECUs.
The simple truth is, allowing ECU mods is the consitent play. Carbed cars were always allowed jetting, air bleed and other such changes. When they were assigned weights, it was assumed that the builders would take advantage of that allowance. Allowing ECU cars to do the same -alter the fuel curve- is no different than what was done in 84. The basic premise didn't change, the technology did. yes, they are not exactly the same, the carb and ECU, but you get the point. In an ideal word, yea, stock ECUs would be neat, but, that would mean that perhaps 30 percent of the cars classed today would be essentially un raceable due to rev limits speed limiters and other constrictions in the stock software. And that's only going to get worse.

So, being "anti creep" in that area was really being rather backwards. For those that feel ECU cars have been getting a break, remember, the Process assumes a full tilt ECu will be used. The good news there is that yu can get great performance from ECUs that are very reasonable.

Regarding Ron's list:

Washer bottles. sigh, who cares. If you can't find the stock one, don't lose sleep over it. or put a non stock one in. Move on.
Windsheild Wipers: The country has places where the water from the sky is common. They need wipers. So we all have them. Fair is fair, and even prep is a good thing.
Heater core: See above. Why should geography decide who gets a better car?
Headlight removal. Gran pulls his, gets a lot of cold air. Stevens pulls his, and his battery is right there. Oh well, no extra hp for him!
And so on

[lateapex911]

from my own story.

I have a car that I am having a hard time making weight legally.

Here is where we currently sit.
Take the car COMPLETELY apart to bare shell, bead blast to remove ALL sound deadening,

I didn't bead blast mine...a scraper did the trick. My car had over 30 pounds of the stuff, and I left 25% of it. I tend to doubt that a horn is 30 pounds. or a washer bottle. More like 1.5.




Or we could remove horns, hvac, all bottles, etc. Window regulators...which BTW I never understood why we HAVE to run glass.You don't. In exchange for you deciding to invest a few pound and little time in your won safety, you are allowed to remove all the door crap you list. Just add a horizontal bar that protrudes in the door cavity. See "NASCAR bars" in the GCR. That's a win win.

As for wipers and HVAC, see my previous post. Some folks need them...why should they be at a disadvantage? It doesn't cost anyone anything to leave the stuff in the car.


Sure weight is an issue and the cost of going to plexi...but the idea of getting hit with lots of crackling glass is a little frightening.No offense, but you frighten easily. ;) It's safety glass....when was the last time you heard about a guy in a full suit and gloves, with a helmet and probably some form of glasses and/or shield getting hurt by broken safety glass? That is SO not on my list of things I worry about.


Based on what has been discussed in the V2.0 process thread, someone stated that the point of IT was the have purpose built race cars, but from cars you would buy on the showroom floor. It was also said by an ITAC member that these cars are SUPPOSED to be trailers to each event.Who said that?? We might suggest that yea, driving a race car to the track is increasing your odds of walking home, but I drove mine to the track for many events. Walked home twice. I had coilovers, and cranked 'em up when I was going too the event. And I had taller rear springs that I swapped in and out. PIA? Sure! But, I did it, and I'm proud to say that I was one of the fastest, if not the fastest of my class/type. We CAN do lots of things, but we CHOOSE to do things that meet our needs and wants.




Sorry if the above comes of frustrated...I just have a regular competitor in ITB that is making the jump to H-Production because he didnt read the rules [when he built his car to IT specs] and now he has to ADD all those items back into his car....so now he's out recruiting people to stop running in IT and run in Production...So, he builds a car and doesn't read the rules...then poaches your buddies to leave the class and join him....THAT'S a reason we're supposed to change the rule book!? Priceless....

[tnord]

there was a repeatable process in play long ago.

what i want to stop is EVERYTHING. like bowie and others said, just leave it all alone. be it by fate, dumb luck, or sheer brilliance the first run of "the process" got it all pretty dang close. yes, i look through the listings and see weights i think are wrong, but i'd rather have a couple cars out there i feel are at significant advantage a few select tracks than run the risk of fucking up a good thing by getting way too granular.

when you list cars within 5lbs, change weight breaks and penalties to a specified percent, use 15% and 18% driveline loss assumptions when reviewing power figures, and continually change the weights of a number of other vehicles it sends the message and sets the expectation of the general IT population to a level of precision the process isn't anywhere near capable of. the process is just a big fancy guess. it's like the black-scholes model in finance, it's a big formula with a lot of factors that look well thought out (and they usually are) and impressive to the casual observer, but when you get right down to it it's still a big fat guess.

and as you're starting to sense kirk, once the population gets an idea in their head, and that idea starts to gain some momentum, watch out (btw...it's the same feeling i got with the whole miata weight thing).

i think the entire ITAC should take some time off to play golf, that way nothing can be messed with. :)

PS - that whole forum comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

[lawtonglenn]

.


I think we should be able to run whatever fairway woods we want,
and since the process has yet to be run on the gas-powered
club car, the electric club car should be assessed a provisional
weight penalty equal to one case of Titleist Pro V1x, bolted
securely to the bag stand at the rear....

And as to those soft spikes........

.

[IPRESS]

And what do you say to the member with the '92-95 Honda Civic DX that's trapped hopelessly in ITA at an unachievable weight and 102 stock HP...? Or to the guy/gal who owns one of the other several dozen common cars that weigh substantially more than they should because of when they were listed in the ITCS...?

We all love a system when it's working for US.

K

I am sure your US meaning was not specific as in US being ME. That would not make sense as at this point I don't have a car, for the system nor the system's fathers to work for or against! Might be a smart move until the dust clears and the BOD speaks. You guys have done a great deal of work and have come up with what I am told is a nice tool to "help" classify. I am not really sure it should be the only consideration. But then again I am not sure of a lot of things..... but I did like Bowie's presentation even though my original vote was yes and his no.....his had more style.

[Knestis]

>> there was a repeatable process in play long ago. ...

No, there wasn't. Even among the cars to which it was supposed to be applied, it wasn't. And it only got applied to a small portion of the cars in the rulebook.

That laundry list I posted is NEW PRACTICES. If I mentioned it, it's because SOP on that point was the opposite of what I typed, or wasn't even in consideration.

Ultimately (Jeff mentioned this here or elsewhere) the culture of the Club's rulesmakers, who are inclined to keep their activities secret, allows - even encourages - the black helicopters. We are so worried that we'll have to explain things or be accountable, that we default to saying nothing. That's a crappy system. 90% of the concerns I've seen here recently are grounded in factual error but allowed to fester because real information doesn't come out.

K

[nlevine]

Having built an early-70s IT car, I see the logic of allowing the absence of washer botles and 100% stock wiring. I'd be happy to vote yes if I can also vote to go back to stock ECU hardware. I think that some of Ron's suggested list helps "level the playing field" in terms of reliability and eligibility for older cars without additional cost. The ECU rule may have created a level playing field somewhere, but it's at a level I can't afford for my current OBD-II car (and I always felt that the software mods achievable for a stock ECU are roughly equivalent to rejetting the Weber on my old 2002). Can I vote "maybe" now?

[Jeremy Billiel]

Having built an early-70s IT car, I see the logic of allowing the absence of washer botles and 100% stock wiring. I'd be happy to vote yes if I can also vote to go back to stock ECU hardware. I think that some of Ron's suggested list helps "level the playing field" in terms of reliability and eligibility for older cars without additional cost. The ECU rule may have created a level playing field somewhere, but it's at a level I can't afford for my current OBD-II car (and I always felt that the software mods achievable for a stock ECU are roughly equivalent to rejetting the Weber on my old 2002). Can I vote "maybe" now?

Noam - Just because you can't afford to buy an upgraded ECU is not a reason to restrict ECU's

[lateapex911]

. I'd be happy to vote yes if I can also vote to go back to stock ECU hardware. I think that some of Ron's suggested list helps "level the playing field" in terms of reliability and eligibility for older cars without additional cost. The ECU rule may have created a level playing field somewhere, but it's at a level I can't afford for my current OBD-II car (and I always felt that the software mods achievable for a stock ECU are roughly equivalent to rejetting the Weber on my old 2002). Can I vote "maybe" now?

But how do you put the genie back in the bottle Noam?

And I think your comparison fails a bit....you are having issues affording an ECU, but there are plenty of cheap ECus available. Perhaps nobody has written the code for your car though. It's the same with carbs. You cite Webers, but guess what...most cars didn't come with Webers...and the allowance to swap to them is a step backwards for most. So they are forced to source or custom make their own jets, air bleeds and other intricate and delicate carb parts....which is exactly the same situation it sounds like you are in.

Warts and all, warts and all....

[GTIspirit]

I didn't bead blast mine...a scraper did the trick. My car had over 30 pounds of the stuff, and I left 25% of it. I tend to doubt that a horn is 30 pounds. or a washer bottle. More like 1.5.

You don't. In exchange for you deciding to invest a few pound and little time in your won safety, you are allowed to remove all the door crap you list. Just add a horizontal bar that protrudes in the door cavity. See "NASCAR bars" in the GCR. That's a win win.

As for wipers and HVAC, see my previous post. Some folks need them...why should they be at a disadvantage? It doesn't cost anyone anything to leave the stuff in the car.

No offense, but you frighten easily. ;) It's safety glass....when was the last time you heard about a guy in a full suit and gloves, with a helmet and probably some form of glasses and/or shield getting hurt by broken safety glass? That is SO not on my list of things I worry about.

Who said that?? We might suggest that yea, driving a race car to the track is increasing your odds of walking home, but I drove mine to the track for many events. Walked home twice. I had coilovers, and cranked 'em up when I was going too the event. And I had taller rear springs that I swapped in and out. PIA? Sure! But, I did it, and I'm proud to say that I was one of the fastest, if not the fastest of my class/type. We CAN do lots of things, but we CHOOSE to do things that meet our needs and wants.

So, he builds a car and doesn't read the rules...then poaches your buddies to leave the class and join him....THAT'S a reason we're supposed to change the rule book!? Priceless....

Can I change my vote? :unsure: I originally voted yes, but had doubts afterwards, doubts for similar reasons that Jake cited. IT is affordable Club Racing for streetable cars with minimal mods, that's the spirit, right? So on second thought I'm for maintaining the dual vestiges.



So, being "anti creep" in that area was really being rather backwards. For those that feel ECU cars have been getting a break, remember, the Process assumes a full tilt ECu will be used. The good news there is that yu can get great performance from ECUs that are very reasonable.


Maybe I'm flogging a dead horse, :dead_horse: but as discussed elsewhere, there are some cars caught in the middle that can't take advantage of the open ECU rule because of the limitations imposed by the sensor rules. While yes, it is possible to get a useable ignition signal from the camshaft sensor, that signal is crap compared with that from a 36 tooth or 60 tooth crank trigger wheel. And that crappy signal will be a big handicap to finding any gains with a full tilt ECU. I'm mildly optimistic that this inequality will be resolved by the ITAC.

[nlevine]

Noam - Just because you can't afford to buy an upgraded ECU is not a reason to restrict ECU's

That actually wasn't the point, per se. Removing a washer bottle is of no real competitive consequence and does not compel somebody else to do something to remain on the same competitive level. The ECU rule does. Being compelled to spend the time and effort - not so much the money - to muck with stuff that I never intended to muck with when I started out with the car is what I can ill afford.
It's hard enough to find the time just to race.

Now back to the discussion at hand rather than beating the ECU horse.

[DavidM]

I find this really interesting that the membership will argue ad-nauseam about removing (or not going out and buying) things like washer bottles, but apparently nobody raises an eyebrow for open ecu's coilovers etc... is this supposed to be low cost racing or not?

There was quite extensive debate about the ECU rule. Ironically, lowering cost was one of the reasons cited *for* the new rule. But that's :dead_horse:

I think the ITAC is on the right road. The fact that there is a big push to document everything is something I personally am very pleased to see. The process will never be perfect, but if everything is documented then at least we'll know how something was determined.

I'm all for putting every car through the process. In fact, I think a cycle should be created where every so many years the process gets run again. That way if something changes for a car then it can be adjusted when the next cycle comes around.

Leave everything else alone for the time being, though.

David

[Andy Bettencourt]

What does the IT community feel about THIS concept:

Run car A through the process. No 'additional' information is known about power output so 25% is used. A process number is spit out and recommended. It is 200lbs lower than it is now.

The CRB rejects the recommendation based on 'historical on-track perfromance'. Meaning the car is competitive now, lowering its weight would result in a problem given what we have seen so far on track.

To what level is the IT comminuty acceptant of on-track performance being used in the process. I won't comment. If you feel stringly either way - WRITE THE CRB NOW.

[JeffYoung]

I feel very stringly...lol...

I think Jake said it best. We can never cut ontrack performance out completely even if we tried -- human nature and all. But we can limit it to being a trigger for a closer look to see if something is wrong with the process. But that's all.

In the case I above, I say use the 25% and have at it.

[GKR_17]

I'd love to know how you lose a washer bottle in a car wash... or is that a British car issue?

I've complained for quite a while that the process was applied inconsistently, and I'm all for fixing that. Though I won't sign on to V2.0 without all the details, it seems clear there is more not on the table. The rest is claimed to be very minor, but if that's true why not spell it out?

Otherwise, count me in for no. Enough change. Leave IT alone.

[JeffYoung]

I pointed the high pressure gun at the engine bay to clean it and it destroyed my already deteriorating bottle...literally blew it to pieces. It was kind of cool to watch.

[seckerich]

What does the IT community feel about THIS concept:

Run car A through the process. No 'additional' information is known about power output so 25% is used. A process number is spit out and recommended. It is 200lbs lower than it is now.

The CRB rejects the recommendation based on 'historical on-track perfromance'. Meaning the car is competitive now, lowering its weight would result in a problem given what we have seen so far on track.

To what level is the IT comminuty acceptant of on-track performance being used in the process. I won't comment. If you feel stringly either way - WRITE THE CRB NOW.

I would say you just found a pretty good trigger to believe it is outside the 25% power gain and more research is needed. If the car is as fast as you say you are missing something.

[seckerich]

I pointed the high pressure gun at the engine bay to clean it and it destroyed my already deteriorating bottle...literally blew it to pieces. It was kind of cool to watch.
And you and what two other people living today know what the stock one looked like?:D AutoZone is calling.

[shwah]

I would say you just found a pretty good trigger to believe it is outside the 25% power gain and more research is needed. If the car is as fast as you say you are missing something.
Sounds like it is outside the 25% power gain. Is it similar in engine architecture to other cars that are awarded a higher than 25% power gain?

[Z3_GoCar]

.....You don't. In exchange for you deciding to invest a few pound and little time in your won safety, you are allowed to remove all the door crap you list. Just add a horizontal bar that protrudes in the door cavity. See "NASCAR bars" in the GCR. That's a win win.

As for wipers and HVAC, see my previous post. Some folks need them...why should they be at a disadvantage? It doesn't cost anyone anything to leave the stuff in the car.

No offense, but you frighten easily. ;) It's safety glass....when was the last time you heard about a guy in a full suit and gloves, with a helmet and probably some form of glasses and/or shield getting hurt by broken safety glass? That is SO not on my list of things I worry about.

.....

Uh Jake,

If I remember correctly he's got a Volvo wagon, and is talking about the window glass from the second set of doors and wagon windows, I don't think door bars will help with those and last time I checked the side glass isn't safety, it's tempered as in shatters into tiny bits.

I've still not voted... how about adding the glove box to the list of stuff that can be removed from the interior? Oh, and technically I'm still required to have a seat heater as those aren't mentioned either. As for window fog it's called Fog-X same as Rain-X for the inside. Otherwise I've found the AC is much better at de-fogging the windshield than the heater.

[frnkhous]

That actually wasn't the point, per se. Removing a washer bottle is of no real competitive consequence and does not compel somebody else to do something to remain on the same competitive level. The ECU rule does. Being compelled to spend the time and effort - not so much the money - to muck with stuff that I never intended to muck with when I started out with the car is what I can ill afford.
It's hard enough to find the time just to race.

Now back to the discussion at hand rather than beating the ECU horse.

But it is another item that will cost time/money to remove. No reason to remove it, The wiring issue for older cars I kind of understand, but think that for the most part if you attempted to rewire the whole car just like the original harness nobody would care nor is it really disallowed by the rules(you were simply repairing it right;)). Now if your asking to modify the harness to make it easier to repair/replace. Hell no. Cause now every single car can cut into the harness, remove wires, run lighter and or smaller gauge wiring. You wanna see a spending war, imagine car harnesses that cost more than the pimpy motec ecu you guys bitch about. Sorry but performance advantages can be gained from being able to move weight around. The gains may be smaller/less obvious but they are real. If a car truly won't make weight with the assumed 180lbs driver then ask for it to be reclassed. You have a legitimate argument for it to be moved down one class at a heavier weight. Understand my car is overweight right now, and it ain't all driver. If you weighed 150lbs you would make weight, otherwise i'm over. But give me all the shit you guys listed plus the things I haven't done yet and I bet I can make it A ok for a 300+ pound person. or enough to balance the car out side to side and possibly front to rear to some extent for a 150-180 lbs person.

[lateapex911]

Uh Jake,

If I remember correctly he's got a Volvo wagon, and is talking about the window glass from the second set of doors and wagon windows, I don't think door bars will help with those and last time I checked the side glass isn't safety, it's tempered as in shatters into tiny bits.

I've still not voted... how about adding the glove box to the list of stuff that can be removed from the interior? Oh, and technically I'm still required to have a seat heater as those aren't mentioned either. As for window fog it's called Fog-X same as Rain-X for the inside. Otherwise I've found the AC is much better at de-fogging the windshield than the heater.

OK, I guess I missed the part about it being the back doors. But the point remains, the stuff is hardly any more hazardous than gravel.

Also, think about it this way: Guys want to remove it for various reasons. The ITAC allows it. They just made a rule change that, what, hundreds or a thousand cars now will need to comply with.

You say, "Make it optional". Irrelevant. Most guys are far more concerned with becoming MORE competitive than with meeting rules just for the sake of meeting rules. They will change out that glass because it's 10 pounds way up high in the car that could be placed elsewhere, or left on the garage floor altogether. Of course, they'll need to source a replacement, or fabricate one.

Simply put, such a change alters the package that most will bring to the track, adds to the workload, and isn't needed. I just don't see a compelling reason to DO it.

[shwah]

Putting 2 and 2 together on Andy's post.

Competitive 'historical on track performance' means one thing to the CRB/ITAC in my opinion -> ARRC

I mostly know the VW / Audi stuff, so thinking about the engines/cars I know...There is a car that has the same combustion chamber as mine, less compression and one more cylinder that is rated at 110hp stock, vs 105 for the 4 cylinder. It was also a front row qualifying ARRC car a few years ago.

You guys trying to take 200# out of the Audi Coupe GT? No wonder they put the brakes on.

If I have that right - you do realize that the car should make larger gains that the '30% gain' Golf right? They are the same basic architecture engines. Displacement gain with 5 oversized pistons is 25% more, compression gain from 8.5:1 is 6% vs 2.5% from 10:1, easily tuned CIS-E. Basically less optimized from the factory than the 1780cc 4 was. Now don't be surprised if all the Audi racers fail to send you dyno sheets showing the gains, they may not be that dumb.

Get that one through and you will have created an overdog IMO.

[Knestis]

Bag --> Cat

:)

K

EDIT - Seriously, folks. This is a very important test case for the ITAC's application of the process and practices around it. But ask yourself - whatever you decide is right re: what to do with Andy's not-so-hypothetical case - would you want the SAME OPTION to be available to the powers-that-be when it comes time to set the weight on YOUR CAR...?

[shwah]

That car caught my eye when I first started looking at weights in the ITCS a few years ago. I just assumed that it was treated like the low compression 1780cc Rabbit GTI - a motor that will make a big gain. I could see it losing some weight from where itis right now, but expect it to be above the A3 Golf 100% build power level, and thus more than 10# above the A3 weight (that may be 50# light as is).

It all goes back to what is the standard to know what we know about a given motor. And we may not be able to know what we need to know to get every one right. And in those cases, what mechanism will we leave ourselves to make a correction? I really don't have an answer. I guess put the club data boxes in and hope people don't sand bag is one way...

EDIT: From a personal/selfish viewpoint - if you are giving that car a 25% gain, you damn well should be giving my car one too. Like I said, I would expect more gain from that low compression 5 pot than my high compression 4.

[Knestis]

>> ...what mechanism will we leave ourselves to make a correction? I really don't have an answer. I guess put the club data boxes in and hope people don't sand bag is one way...

The option of revisiting any listing with evidence that we need to use a different power multiplier is always available. That's the rationale - which I actually agree with, despite my desires to be as locked down as possible on processes - for the subjectivity in the process, applied to that step (and that step ONLY).

>> ...if you are giving that car a 25% gain, you damn well should be giving my car one too. Like I said, I would expect more gain from that low compression 5 pot than my high compression 4.

Yeahbut... We have boxed ourselves in such that we require "evidence" of what actual examples of any make/model under consideration achieve in terms of IT power gains - NOT "expectations" of what they might do. I'd posit that you don't REALLY want to give the power to a small group of people, to base weights on predictions grounded in no data. That's a recipe for all kinds of mischief. Or maybe I AM WRONG. I've heard lots of things that surprise me in the last 2 weeks or so.

EDIT - In short, we are equipped to deal with the possibility of an overdog emerging, but we are NOT - and should not, I don't think - be trying to proactively prevent that from happening through the manipulation of race weights. Unless pertinent evidence is available through happenstance somehow.

K

[DavidM]

That is the crux of the issue that has been debated ad nauseum. What is considered enough "evidence" to increase the weight of a car from what is derived by the process. And what we're really focused on here is power generation from the motor. Dyno sheets are really the only true empirical data we have to use. I seriously doubt people are going to give out their dyno data if they know the ITAC is looking for data to increase their car weight; despite all the proclamations of openness.

I say bring a dyno to the ARRC (and other big races if possible) and the top 5 in each class get put on it right after the race. There's your data and it could be kept confidential to the ITAC if desired.

Otherwise, it's going to be people evaluating an engine's architecture and guessing about how much gain can be made over stock. It's going to be educated guessing for sure, but still guessing and that's always going to cause some controversy. If we're ok with that then so be it. If not, then we have to get data somehow.

David

[shwah]

Yeahbut... We have boxed ourselves in such that we require "evidence" of what actual examples of any make/model under consideration achieve in terms of IT power gains - NOT "expectations" of what they might do. I'd posit that you don't REALLY want to give the power to a small group of people, to base weights on predictions grounded in no data. That's a recipe for all kinds of mischief. Or maybe I AM WRONG. I've heard lots of things that surprise me in the last 2 weeks or so.

EDIT - In short, we are equipped to deal with the possibility of an overdog emerging, but we are NOT - and should not, I don't think - be trying to proactively prevent that from happening through the manipulation of race weights. Unless pertinent evidence is available through happenstance somehow.

K

Which is why I labeled that as a personal/selfish comment. I do understand the issue.

Doesn't change the reality, which I understand why others may not realize it yet, that it will make greater gains (raw and %) than the 4 cylinder. Lets just make sure we are not afraid to use said mechanism when we do get it wrong.

[shwah]

That is the crux of the issue that has been debated ad nauseum. What is considered enough "evidence" to increase the weight of a car from what is derived by the process. And what we're really focused on here is power generation from the motor. Dyno sheets are the most easily manipulated data we have to use. I seriously doubt people are going to give out their dyno data if they know the ITAC is looking for data to increase their car weight; despite all the proclamations of openness.


fixed :D

[Flyinglizard]

The Audi has less compression, less cam , more front weight. If it is faster than the Golf, Than something got missed. Did SCCA ever get a real cam for those?? .
Evry time the rules change to take more stuff out, we have to go and lower the Cg, move the # to the rear, etc. Constant obsession for weight management.
Give the cars with wind up front windows a 50# weight break.
MM

[Bill Miller]

there was a repeatable process in play long ago.

Talk about a guy that has absolutely no clue what he's talking about! You say you've been around IT ~ 5 years now. Kirk, do you recall when you first dubbed it the 'Miller ratio'?

[Bill Miller]

PS - the internet is a terrible place; specifically forums. nothing good has ever come from them.

More evidence that you really don't have a clue what you're talking about. I guess you don't consider ITR a 'good' thing. I can tell you for a fact that what ended up being the proposal and initial classifications for ITR was developed right here on this very board.

Go buy your damned clubs already.

[Knestis]

Talk about a guy that has absolutely no clue what he's talking about! You say you've been around IT ~ 5 years now. Kirk, do you recall when you first dubbed it the 'Miller ratio'?

November of 2001 was the first use of the term in this forum (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14736&highlight=miller+ratio). In that same thread I wrote, "...my sense is that there is a lot of frustration (in all of the make-specific forums) with the lack of 'transparency,' where the IT classification and specification setting process is concerned. If we were able to see into the process, then there would be no room for even the suggestion that something hinky is going on."

We've come a long way in 8 freakin' years, eh...? Gawd. How depressing.

K

[Bill Miller]

Wow Kirk, what a walk down memory lane! And you're right, look where things are now!

[planet6racing]

Have all this pent up energy? Enjoy arguing about race car rules? Come out to the VSCDA event at Road America this weekend! Volunteer workers are needed in every specialty! If you want to argue rules, go help in Tech or work a corner and try to find every rules violation on Vintage cars as they go by! (BTW, I'm serious. We do need the help this weekend.)

For those of you that are all for the washer bottle and other crap, I have a question. Why not just take it all out and run Production at the regional level? Our (CENDIV) prod groups at the regional races are typically poorly subscribed, so you won't be running against the National drivers and then you can "build real racecars." IT can be left the way it is and everyone can be "happy."

[tnord]

Bill, I know you're mental capacity only allows for the processing of a single line of information at a time, but if you go back and read (slowly) I clarified my comment re: forums to be mostly sarcastic in nature. so you can just calm yourself down.

it must be hard for you to have proper perspective on time when your laps are only marginally quicker than the 5 or so years since "the great realignment" using process v1. or has it been 6? or 4? whatever. the bottom line is that the process has been in place, and the class growing stronger for multiple years (and yes, i consider the aspect of ignoring cars that were within 100lbs to be part of that process). i support continual efforts for transparancy, and documentation of methods and thought processes to ensure future repeatabilty, but not continual efforts to try and make it "perfect." not at this time anyway.

[shwah]

BTW - regarding that cat and bag thing. I did some digging around and hear maybe it was a 250# reduction that was requested, not 200#. Truth?

edit - 2290 for the Audi, vs 2280 for the Golf. That would be the equivalent of asking me to drop my compression 1.5, and add a whole nother cylinder. If the motor would fit sideways I would do that in a heartbeat.

At a 1mm overbore that's a 2281cc motor that is in the same family/design vs. 1825cc motor.

This is why I make my prediction. Just be ready to use your mechanism. Hard to beleive that this passes the 'smell' test of the ITAC as a whole.

[Andy Bettencourt]

BTW - regarding that cat and bag thing. I did some digging around and hear maybe it was a 250# reduction that was requested, not 200#. Truth?

Again, I am not sure anyone at this moment has a problem with the CRB pushing anything back to us. What is happening now is that we may be being asked to find 'evidence' that doesn't exist currently. Absent of that, what does the IT community expect us/the CRB to do?

[shwah]

Huh? Did you guys request a 250# reduction or a 200# reduction?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am not sure the actual number but it was run at 25%. See my previous post.

[Bill Miller]

Bill, I know you're mental capacity only allows for the processing of a single line of information at a time, but if you go back and read (slowly) I clarified my comment re: forums to be mostly sarcastic in nature. so you can just calm yourself down.

it must be hard for you to have proper perspective on time when your laps are only marginally quicker than the 5 or so years since "the great realignment" using process v1. or has it been 6? or 4? whatever. the bottom line is that the process has been in place, and the class growing stronger for multiple years (and yes, i consider the aspect of ignoring cars that were within 100lbs to be part of that process). i support continual efforts for transparancy, and documentation of methods and thought processes to ensure future repeatabilty, but not continual efforts to try and make it "perfect." not at this time anyway.

Travis,

Exactly WTF are you talking about? Your weak attempts at personal insults are quite amusing, but you still don't have a damned clue as to what you're talking about. You continue to shoot your mouth off, and when you get called on it, you claim you were being 'sarcastic'. You're rapidly becoming the poster boy for the 'me' generation. Isn't today the day you go get your new clubs?

[IPRESS]

Again, I am not sure anyone at this moment has a problem with the CRB pushing anything back to us. What is happening now is that we may be being asked to find 'evidence' that doesn't exist currently. Absent of that, what does the IT community expect us/the CRB to do?


Andy, As you well know by now the process seems to be a great tool. It should be very useful, but it is far from foolproof. As good as it is said to be, there are holes and exceptions in it. (In any process there are almost always things that don't exactly fit.) I would think that using the process plus other info to get things close makes sense.
But I could be wrong.

[jjjanos]

What does the IT community feel about THIS concept:

Run car A through the process. No 'additional' information is known about power output so 25% is used. A process number is spit out and recommended. It is 200lbs lower than it is now.

The CRB rejects the recommendation based on 'historical on-track perfromance'. Meaning the car is competitive now, lowering its weight would result in a problem given what we have seen so far on track.

To what level is the IT comminuty acceptant of on-track performance being used in the process. I won't comment. If you feel stringly either way - WRITE THE CRB NOW.

Red Herring.

Are the currently raced cars legal? Has this been confirmed? If so, then I would say the process itself should be rejected. Failing to hit real world data by that far would indicate either specification or calibration error.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, As you well know by now the process seems to be a great tool. It should be very useful, but it is far from foolproof. As good as it is said to be, there are holes and exceptions in it. (In any process there are almost always things that don't exactly fit.) I would think that using the process plus other info to get things close makes sense.
But I could be wrong.

You are not wrong at all! I am not sure it has 'holes' (we spent about 9 months closing them) but the methodology we use is certainly far from perfect. We know this. We know it can never be exact. We just want to make sure we are 'wrong' the same way for every car in every class. I think that because IT is made up of so many cars with so many technologies and so many platforms we can agree that throwing a dart and hitting the board is a good goal. I think that is all IT guys want - is to be on the same dartboard...because we know we can't hit bullseyes. We will leave that to Prod. And how do they do it? They throw the dart and then move the board.

Using other info does make sense for sure. The issue for us is WHEN we use it, how much is enough, who wants to lock their name in next to it, when it isn't readily available, where do you get it and how hard do you dig? Janos's red herring post is congruent with common thought on IT - level on-track data.

[lateapex911]

Red Herring.

Are the currently raced cars legal? HOW Has this been confirmed? HOW do we Know what we know? If so, then I would say the process itself should be rejected. Failing to hit real world data by that far would indicate either specification or calibration error.

Added some ...

[lateapex911]

Andy, As you well know by now the process seems to be a great tool. It should be very useful, but it is far from foolproof. As good as it is said to be, there are holes and exceptions in it. (In any process there are almost always things that don't exactly fit.) I would think that using the process plus other info to get things close makes sense.
But I could be wrong.


OK, let's run with that.

What other info?
How do we scrub that info down. Remember, we need to judge on track performance with the same stick across the board, and we've got 350 cars to keep aligned.
How do we apply "other info" repeatably?
The membership has been pretty darn clear they don't like smoke filled back room dealings - they aren't happy unless we can show them the math. (we're working on that, but it's counter to the decades old ingrained club philosophy) Do we add weight to a car and label it "Fluff"? or "on track performance adder", or "Just because we are worried about it". or "It's gotta make more power"?

That's a serious question. I know I posed some ludicrous answers, but really, how would you insert such a chunk into the result, and answer members questions?

I'm all for using on track performance as a trigger...to use to go sniffing for more info. ANd that info comes out, it's actually rather numerous sometimes how it happens, but, in time, it comes out. But to just add chunks based on hunches is tough to defend.

So, Mac, help me understand "more info". Where, what, and how is it scrubbed down, and how is it used, and defended, and documented?

[Knestis]

Red Herring.

Are the currently raced cars legal? Has this been confirmed? If so, then I would say the process itself should be rejected. Failing to hit real world data by that far would indicate either specification or calibration error.

So the only factors that contribute to on-track performance - by the above logic - are...

** Legality

** Weight

Really?

K

EDIT - On reflection, this REALLY pisses me off. Even if they'd been torn down to the bare tubs and declared squeaky clean (which they were not), a couple of examples of a car demonstrate speed in qualifying at one event, and it's "proof" that the process doesn't work...? Then quit dinking about and commit to rewards weight. Fold up the ITAC's tent and call it a day.

[IPRESS]

Yep, it is a very inexact science. As much as we hate to even think of adjustments based on "track performance", that is really the thing that matters the most. The reason I came back to IT was the different cars and their abilities to out perform at different places on the track. Makes for a fun contest and also one that has less damage than some other classes. (Well accept for T1 or T5 at ARRC :happy204:)
In my estimation, the PTB will be supportive of what you guys suggest if it is pushed as a tool but not the only thing considered. Sometimes the perception is that the process and it's adoption is more important than getting things right. Not saying that is a reality, just that it has come across that way. I think the one thing everybody can agree on is stability. But not stability that allows a gross overdog. You always need a safety valve to take care of the unforseen class killer. Other things that the PTB has to keep in mind are actions that help or hurt participation. We are a cash builder for the club. Like it or not if numbers drop (and I am not saying they will no matter what) the club will suffer. The PTB has to keep this in mind. Things are just never cut and dry.

[JeffYoung]

Marc, how about this. I fully support and agree with Kirk's fear of setting weights by on track performance.

On the other end of the spectrum, I also agree we can't completely ignore it, nor would it be possible to (we are human, and what we see and observe matters to us).

I think Jake put it this way, and this I agree with: observed on track performance should be a trigger for us to take a harder look at a car, or what the process "spits out" for that car.

I see that as a fair balance between the two extremes. Your thoughts?

[IPRESS]

Jake,
I understand the "here it is in black and white" good side of the process idea. It is nice to be able to just point at the rule book and say "There it is your car is classed in ITZ @ 4,000 lbs. after it was run through the process. See ya go have fun."
Very clean system. The problem is (and this is gathered from very second hand info, so feel free to dispute) the process is starting with some educated guesses. As long as you guys have worked on this I am sure that they are good ones. But there are times these guesses will not be right and will impact the results. Why I don't know. So in my opinion "track performance" has to be a part of the equation even if it is a distasteful part. How do you figure out how to use it? When do you know it is accurate? Those are tough questions to deal with. Maybe when you find out either way (most of brand X cars are dogs in a class or most of brand X cars are front runners) you apply an adjustment during rules season. IT is not so big that information on a "hot" or "dog" car can't be found.
I know that this view is not what you guys think is good, but adding the process to a "track performance" review is about as good as we can do. IMHO.

[DavidM]

Seems like we have a three step re-evaluation process:

1. Determine if car needs further scrutiny.

On track performance is used as a trigger for further research on a car.

2. Gather data and evidence.

What is the evidence? Dyno sheets still seem to be the only true data, but, as has been pointed out, those can be manipulated unless gotten in a controlled environment. Is lower compression evidence? Is longer cam duration evidence?

3. Set new weight.

Presumably, the idea is that the 25% number would be increased to whatever is determined by the evidence in step 2.


Did I leave something out? Step 2 is still where we have the problems.

[seckerich]

Marc, how about this. I fully support and agree with Kirk's fear of setting weights by on track performance.

On the other end of the spectrum, I also agree we can't completely ignore it, nor would it be possible to (we are human, and what we see and observe matters to us).

I think Jake put it this way, and this I agree with: observed on track performance should be a trigger for us to take a harder look at a car, or what the process "spits out" for that car.

I see that as a fair balance between the two extremes. Your thoughts?

Good points Jeff. If we ever get to the point that everything is determined by the process then the ITAC is irrelevant. We could just class our own car with the process and go racing. We have class advisory boards to look at the big picture and make their best attempt at getting a level playing field. Every formula will have the oddball and that is what you guys are there to deal with. Take that away and we go back to the days of SWAG"S. You have to have the leeway to deal with them and the differeing views of the ITAC members keep you from tilting too far one way. They call that balance.

[GKR_17]

I say bring a dyno to the ARRC (and other big races if possible) and the top 5 in each class get put on it right after the race. There's your data and it could be kept confidential to the ITAC if desired.


Dyno sheets still seem to be the only true data, but, as has been pointed out, those can be manipulated unless gotten in a controlled environment.

With custom ECU's that won't work. All it takes is the flip of one hidden switch and you can cut the engine power in half (or whatever fraction you want).

[jjjanos]

So the only factors that contribute to on-track performance - by the above logic - are...

** Legality

** Weight

Really?

K

EDIT - On reflection, this REALLY pisses me off. Even if they'd been torn down to the bare tubs and declared squeaky clean (which they were not), a couple of examples of a car demonstrate speed in qualifying at one event, and it's "proof" that the process doesn't work...? Then quit dinking about and commit to rewards weight. Fold up the ITAC's tent and call it a day.

Doesn't matter if it's a couple of laps in one event or not - it demonstrates what the car can do. If the driver is wildly inconsistent and cracked off a 1:28 in an ITB car at Summit and then turned nothing but 1:37s the rest of the session it simply means that a consistent driver would be capable of turning the 1:28s virtually every lap in that car. Only two sources of error - illegality and/or the model.

Use the process to take 200lbs off the car and the wildcat driver will turn a 1:27 and 1:36s and the good driver will turn 1:27 every lap.

Errors in the model could be due to specification or input error. Based on what's been said in this thread, it sounds to me that the assumption regarding 25% gains would be the culprit. That doesn't invalidate the hallowed process, but does point at operator error.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Errors in the model could be due to specification or input error. Based on what's been said in this thread, it sounds to me that the assumption regarding 25% gains would be the culprit. That doesn't invalidate the hallowed process, but does point at operator error.

Well, yes and no. We might be able to assume that based on historical on-track performance, that the 25% is wrong. I wouldn't call it operator error however. All we can plug in is what we know. The default for all cars is 25%. Absent any evidence to the contrary, what are we to do?

[DavidM]

With custom ECU's that won't work. All it takes is the flip of one hidden switch and you can cut the engine power in half (or whatever fraction you want).

True. The switch wouldn't even need to be hidden since it's legal per the rule book as ECUs are open.

However, maybe you could have something in the Supps for the event that says cars are not to be modified from their on-track configuration before being put on the dyno. There's nothing to keep someone from flipping their switch, but I think their integrity would come into question (Edit: If caught of course). I don't know if that's something you could specify in the Supps or not.

You have to trust people at some point. I just think it would be harder (mentally speaking, not actually doing it) to fudge things at an event versus sending in that dyno sheet of your car before the trick exhaust header and full ECU tuning. Maybe not, dunno.

David

[callard]

I've got two IT-S cars which each started with 165 (plus or minus 2) crank HP. One had a cast iron manifold and an ECU running the fuel and ignition. The other had factory supplied headers, distributor and mechanical fuel injection. I bumped both the half point in compression when I did my IT builds. On the one car, I replaced the cast iron manifold with headers, played with the ignition and fuel mapping (got 12.8 across the rev range with WBO2 readings) and got GOBS more power. With the other, I recontoured the fuel mapping cam in the injection pump to achieve 12.8 across the rev range, found that more advance didn't help much and got minimal additional power.
My issue with the process is the magic number 25%. Many cars can achieve that within the rules and a few will never be able to improve that much. All based on what you start with from the factory.
Chuck

[gran racing]

If we're going to use on-track performance for more than just a trigger to look closer at various vehicles, can we at least get some scouts at each event taking notes of conditions and potential causes of the results? Did the car have a fantastic tow, use bump drafting, what was the outside temp like, what were all of the track conditions like, who else showed up, what tires were they running and how many cycles did each have, who was doing the set-up and what were their qualifications, how good of a driver was behind the wheel, did they screw up at all, and so on, and so on. I mean if we're just going to start basing thing on the results, I sure would hope we know how each was achieved. Hey, pro, college, and even down to high school teams use scouts since this information is so important, why shouldn't we if using results as a bigger factor?

[Andy Bettencourt]

If we're going to use on-track performance for more than just a trigger to look closer at various vehicles, can we at least get some scouts at each event taking notes of conditions and potential causes of the results? Did the car have a fantastic tow, use bump drafting, what was the outside temp like, what were all of the track conditions like, who else showed up, what tires were they running and how many cycles did each have, who was doing the set-up and what were their qualifications, how good of a driver was behind the wheel, did they screw up at all, and so on, and so on. I mean if we're just going to start basing thing on the results, I sure would hope we know how each was achieved. Hey, pro, college, and even down to high school teams use scouts since this information is so important, why shouldn't we if using results as a bigger factor?

Because it's not possible. Right? Isn't that the point?

[gran racing]

Exactly the point. Without this type of information gathering tool, we'll never know and we're back to a guessing game and pure speculation.

[Knestis]

Doesn't matter if it's a couple of laps in one event or not - it demonstrates what the car can do. If the driver is wildly inconsistent and cracked off a 1:28 in an ITB car at Summit and then turned nothing but 1:37s the rest of the session it simply means that a consistent driver would be capable of turning the 1:28s virtually every lap in that car. Only two sources of error - illegality and/or the model. ...

Argh.

How about the DOZENS of other variables that influence where any given car finishes, relative to any collection of other cars?

Testing time, tire budget, set-up skill, maintenance of wear items (DNF/no DNF), nature of the track, dyno tuning time, track familiarity, driver rest and physical condition, engine build quality, shock/strut quality, ability to tune said dampers, brake pad choice, fuel (pump, race, secret sauce?), traffic, track conditions, miles on the engine, final drive choice, amount over (or under?) spec weight, weather conditions, tire choice, DRIVER SKILL...? Of EVERY car in any given race, to different degrees...???

Seriously.

Bowie won the '07 ARRC in my car. Does that mean it's an overdog? I got my butt handed to me at the Festival last year in the same car. Does that mean it's just a dog? Did I get beat at the SIC because I chose a VW (rather than an Accord or Celica) or because I didn't pull up my big-boy pants and get it done...?

SERIOUSLY.

You are smarter than this, Jeff. I can only figure you are being intellectually selective in your arguments to support a preconceived notion on your agenda.

K

[Knestis]

Exactly the point. Without this type of information gathering tool, we'll never know and we're back to a guessing game and pure speculation.

NO.

Without that "information" (which is flawed), we accept that we're OK with not being perfect, and that other factors will contribute more to on-track competitiveness - like the list above - than do the choice of car and its resultant race weight.

Or we don't accept that first principle. That's what I'm coming to understand here - that most of you agree with the CRB on this issue, and actually WANT the ability to pick and choose race weights based on how competitive you think cars are, from watching onesy-twosy examples on track.

Tell me clearly that's the consensus but don't bitch about the lack of "repeatable and transparent" because you can NOT have both. You get the IT you want.

K

[IPRESS]

Kirk, Please don't take this wrong, as I mean this as constructive..... but have you ever thought that maybe one of the reasons that you guys are having trouble getting your way with the PTB is because of the tone and attitude of your messages? Posts like the one above don't gain a side (any side) support. Jeff may disagree with what you or some of the others think, but he (so far) hasn't questioned your thought process. Damn, try a little sugar and spice. It might help sell the ITAC position.

Now on the question at hand. (or the one this thing has come around to)
Is the process by itself the answer?
Evidently the PTB (or at least the CRB) has not been convinced of this.
I think they realize that this is a sport with a human element. So far as bad as the present system seems to be :rolleyes: IT has been able to cure most of its problems when one has arisen (thats a big word for me.) Now with the updated V2 to help out maybe big problems will be less likely to jump up.)
I think I will start another thread to get some info on problem cars.

[Ron Earp]

Looks like we're waaaaay off thread topic for many pages. Maybe the last few pages of posts should be merged over with the "Big Picture IT" thread?

[gran racing]

Exactly the point. Without this type of information gathering tool, we'll never know and we're back to a guessing game and pure speculation.

Kirk, you misinterpreted this and it could just have been due to poor wording on my part. What I meant was if on-track performance were used to classify cars and other information were not available, then we'd be back to a guessing game. I am NOT advocating using on-track peformance for more than a trigger to look at things closer.

[Knestis]

Kirk, you misinterpreted this and it could just have been due to poor wording on my part. What I meant was if on-track performance were used to classify cars and other information were not available, then we'd be back to a guessing game. I am NOT advocating using on-track peformance for more than a trigger to look at things closer.

I apologize, Dave - I read your post exactly backward. Back pronoun antecedent action on my part.

But I'm not going to apologize for being frustrated by this situation. Maybe I'm as PO'd at myself as anything or anyone else, for letting myself believe that we could actually get to a place where the category was, to the very best of our abilities, protected from the standard Club classing and spec'ing silliness that I've been watching since 1979.

We were THIS CLOSE ------> <------- to having the ITAC's documentation of the practices we use in their final form. Internally, we used the term "codified" - to put it in writing and make it a law. We put a TON of time into looking at options; collecting feedback; and rejecting ideas that we ultimately couldn't resolve in a way that was repeatable, explainable, and confidence-inspiring to members (like dealing with torque in a different way).

I don't have to be politic. I'm a crumudgeon and I view my role as being crumudeony. Andy does an amazing job herding the ITAC cats and understanding the political landscape and Club practices. We would all be well and truly screwed without him doing his job, but someone has to kick over the anthill to find out what's inside.

I've gone back and forth with JJJ and while I don't agree with him on a lot of things, he is a damned smart dude. He understands the scientific method and researchy stuff. If he's going to look at an example through a straw to cherry pick logic to support a position, he's going to do it well - but I'm going to call him on it.

K

(Sorry, Ron)

[gran racing]

Kirk, not that this will make you feel any better but you're not the only one whose frustrated. It seems like the more involved I become with this club the more annoyed I become.

[DavidM]

We were THIS CLOSE ------> <------- to having the ITAC's documentation of the practices we use in their final form. Internally, we used the term "codified" - to put it in writing and make it a law. We put a TON of time into looking at options; collecting feedback; and rejecting ideas that we ultimately couldn't resolve in a way that was repeatable, explainable, and confidence-inspiring to members (like dealing with torque in a different way).


Did I miss something? Are you guys saying the CRB, BOD, whoever is rejecting the process? I would definitely have an issue with that and would write in to support the ITAC and its work. I think a lot of thought has gone into the process and while not perfect, it's pretty darn good. I think most of the debate is about how to deal with the exceptions.

David

[JeffYoung]

Reject is probably a bit strong. They have a lot of questions about what we are doing. But, a letter from membership in support of the process would be helpful at this point.

Thanks on that David, the only 240sx guy I know with brake issues....lol...glad you got things sorted.

You going to try to get to CMP next spring?


Did I miss something? Are you guys saying the CRB, BOD, whoever is rejecting the process? I would definitely have an issue with that and would write in to support the ITAC and its work. I think a lot of thought has gone into the process and while not perfect, it's pretty darn good. I think most of the debate is about how to deal with the exceptions.

David

[Ed Funk]

[quote=Knestis;295183] Back pronoun antecedent action on my part.




K

WTF!! Shit I've forgotten a lot of High School English in 45 years, but don't think I've ever heard of that one!!

[IPRESS]

I apologize, Dave - I read your post exactly backward. Back pronoun antecedent action on my part.

But I'm not going to apologize for being frustrated by this situation. Maybe I'm as PO'd at myself as anything or anyone else, for letting myself believe that we could actually get to a place where the category was, to the very best of our abilities, protected from the standard Club classing and spec'ing silliness that I've been watching since 1979.

We were THIS CLOSE ------> <------- to having the ITAC's documentation of the practices we use in their final form. Internally, we used the term "codified" - to put it in writing and make it a law. We put a TON of time into looking at options; collecting feedback; and rejecting ideas that we ultimately couldn't resolve in a way that was repeatable, explainable, and confidence-inspiring to members (like dealing with torque in a different way).

I don't have to be politic. I'm a crumudgeon and I view my role as being crumudeony. Andy does an amazing job herding the ITAC cats and understanding the political landscape and Club practices. We would all be well and truly screwed without him doing his job, but someone has to kick over the anthill to find out what's inside.

I've gone back and forth with JJJ and while I don't agree with him on a lot of things, he is a damned smart dude. He understands the scientific method and researchy stuff. If he's going to look at an example through a straw to cherry pick logic to support a position, he's going to do it well - but I'm going to call him on it.

K

(Sorry, Ron)

Point Taken ..... and you are more an internet curmudgeon and far less grumpy in person:D!
I think that frustration runs on both sides of the issue. I understand that when something is worked on for such a long time and is not accepted as planned, that it can make you POed. Hopefully all the alphabet groups can find a middle ground.

[IPRESS]

Ed great sig!:happy204::smilie_pokal:

David, from what I can gather the PTB has some doubt as the Process being the only determination. They (and I am just speculating) and some others in IT aren't convinced that the Process is accurate. For some cars it may be accurate but isn't when used on others.
One other thing to keep in mind, some of the people making the call at the next step have a strong IT background...they are IT people and IMHO as smart about the subject as most any on this forum. I have to believe that they want the best for the class and the club.
They deserve the same respect in their opinions as the posters and ITAC guys get from this community.

[erlrich]

I have a question - is there a non-spec (and I would include NASCAR in the "spec" category) professional series that completely ignores on-track performance when setting weights, i.e. uses only a formulaic process to evaluate cars? I realize the differences between most pro racing series and IT are many and great, but I'm just wondering if anyone has ever had success in classing cars the way we want to.

[DavidM]

Reject is probably a bit strong. They have a lot of questions about what we are doing. But, a letter from membership in support of the process would be helpful at this point.

Thanks on that David, the only 240sx guy I know with brake issues....lol...glad you got things sorted.

You going to try to get to CMP next spring?

Heh. My issues are always different. Everyone else has brakes that fail. Me, I get brakes that stick on. At least I managed to get my two races in.

I'll make it back to CMP eventually. I like going there. Probably won't be next Spring, though. I need to get my ass in gear and finish the new shell.

[mom'sZ]

I haven't logged on to this site in a while. Now I know why. My eyes are bleeding.
hello... news flash....
leave the damn washer bottle off
leave it off
nobody cares
really they don't
request to the crb
please change the rule disallowing the washer bottle to be removed
need for rule change as follows: so the membership will quit using it as a reason to trot out the ECU rule change debate ... AGAIN!!!
new suggested rule wording: the washer bottle may NOT be removed but failure to comply with this rule may not be used as a protest of any competitor
there done
what is it snowing up north already?

[Bill Miller]

I have a question - is there a non-spec (and I would include NASCAR in the "spec" category) professional series that completely ignores on-track performance when setting weights, i.e. uses only a formulaic process to evaluate cars? I realize the differences between most pro racing series and IT are many and great, but I'm just wondering if anyone has ever had success in classing cars the way we want to.

Earl,

I guess it matters what you consider a 'spec' series. I agree that NASCAR is pretty much a spec series, but I don't think F1 is. But then again, all those cars have to weigh the same. I don't know enough about the in's and out's of pro sports car and GT racing to say for sure, but I thought things like ALMS used a formulaic process, and no rewards weight. But I haven't researched it to say for sure.

[spawpoet]

I haven't logged on to this site in a while. Now I know why. My eyes are bleeding.
hello... news flash....
leave the damn washer bottle off
leave it off
nobody cares
really they don't
request to the crb
please change the rule disallowing the washer bottle to be removed
need for rule change as follows: so the membership will quit using it as a reason to trot out the ECU rule change debate ... AGAIN!!!
new suggested rule wording: the washer bottle may NOT be removed but failure to comply with this rule may not be used as a protest of any competitor
there done
what is it snowing up north already?


I changed my mind on this. I now think everybody should have to run TWO washer bottles!

[jjjanos]

Well, yes and no. We might be able to assume that based on historical on-track performance, that the 25% is wrong. I wouldn't call it operator error however. All we can plug in is what we know. The default for all cars is 25%. Absent any evidence to the contrary, what are we to do?

You have evidence - the current performance of the car. Until demonstrated that the car is illegal, one must assume that it is legal.

Absent requiring every car to be presented in 100%-build condition for an official dyno test, one has to use what is available. Thus, if the car is competitive at its current weight and the process says take 200lbs out, then either the assumptions used to generate the weight or the process used to get the weight are in error.

[jjjanos]

Argh.

How about the DOZENS of other variables that influence where any given car finishes, relative to any collection of other cars?

Which is irrelevant to what I said - I gave lap times, not finishing positions.


Testing time, tire budget, set-up skill, maintenance of wear items (DNF/no DNF), nature of the track, dyno tuning time, track familiarity, driver rest and physical condition, engine build quality, shock/strut quality, ability to tune said dampers, brake pad choice, fuel (pump, race, secret sauce?), traffic, track conditions, miles on the engine, final drive choice, amount over (or under?) spec weight, weather conditions, tire choice, DRIVER SKILL...? Of EVERY car in any given race, to different degrees...???And among a well-developed field of cars in a particular class, that works out to no net effect. I specifically picked ITB and Summit Point for a reason, i.e. a large group of highly competitive and highly experienced drivers competing in a hard-fought series with cars that, up-front, are fully developed.

You come in and run a second or two faster than the front of that field - you are either illegal or mis-classified.

Seriously.


Bowie won the '07 ARRC in my car. Does that mean it's an overdog? I got my butt handed to me at the Festival last year in the same car. Does that mean it's just a dog? Did I get beat at the SIC because I chose a VW (rather than an Accord or Celica) or because I didn't pull up my big-boy pants and get it done...?Slow? That's all you unless you have other evidence. Fast? How fast? Put half a lap on the field at the ARRC fast?

SERIOUSLY.


You are smarter than this, Jeff. I can only figure you are being intellectually selective in your arguments to support a preconceived notion on your agenda.Nope. I'm not even sure about the car that the process wants to take 200lbs out of. What I do know, however, is that if that car is running at the front of MARRS or NARRC or NYSRRRRRRRRCCCC or the ARRC, it sure as hell doesn't need weight taken off of it. Now, if that car is running at the front of the EBF Grand Prix with a grand total of 2 competitors, the jury would be out.

[jjjanos]

I've gone back and forth with JJJ and while I don't agree with him on a lot of things, he is a damned smart dude. He understands the scientific method and researchy stuff. If he's going to look at an example through a straw to cherry pick logic to support a position, he's going to do it well - but I'm going to call him on it.


I am going to pick the outliers to illustrate the problem with a 100% objective process. The process is nothing more than a model making a prediction as to the "correct" weight of the car and it's based on a lot of assumptions that work, in general. It's when the general != the specific that causes a problem.

The problem in this particular instance is that you've got observable data (of quality I don't know - but assume it's good quality data) that says the model misses. In this instance, if you use the prediction as your forecast of the correct weight, you'll create an over dog. (If it said add weight, you'd just be messing with the one car not an entire class.).

[frnkhous]

Ok, I wanna move in a slightly different direction here. For all those who want to be able to remove washer bottles, How do you suggest allowing the removal of these items? I'm still not convinced this is anything but leading down the road toward prod. These are not safety issues which means people will be spending money or time removing horns, washer bottles, heater cores(which may actually be worse for safety) etc. and what is the gain to the class? A few people such as jeff young don't have to search for 100 dollar used washer bottles. I don't see how allowing removal does anything to improve the class. But to that end are we talking specific allowances, and are you going to add something to the list everytime somebody finds a new dohicky on there race car that isn't needed if your not street driving? Not the washerbottle removal itself but I think this could very fast lead down a slippery slope if your intent is to allow removal of "street" equipment generically I can think off all kinds of things that would suddenly become removable. The wiring is also a slippery slope, I bet I could remove a nice chunk of weight if I rewired my car specifically with what I needed. Some newer cars would likely be over 10 pounds but at what cost? Wiring can get expensive really fast if the goal is to reduce weight with no rules. All fuses, relays, etc. can be replaced with a single box weighing less than a typical fuse box, I believe the price of those things is between 6 and 10k dollars if I remember right. It might have been as high as 14k. More than most It cars are selling for these days. I'm not suggesting this would become necessary, simply pointing out extremes somebody could go to for being able to ballast a car differently/remove weight. Would it now not qualify as a 100% build if you didn't do such things?

[Knestis]

... What I do know, however, is that if that car is running at the front of MARRS or NARRC or NYSRRRRRRRRCCCC or the ARRC, it sure as hell doesn't need weight taken off of it. ...

There's no question where you are on this issue, J. Thanks for taking the time to explain it. I think it's going to be pretty sad should that point of view get its way with IT, but as of today, I'm about 90% convinced that you'll see your competition adjustment approach in IT inside of 3 years.

K

[jjjanos]

There's no question where you are on this issue, J. Thanks for taking the time to explain it. I think it's going to be pretty sad should that point of view get its way with IT, but as of today, I'm about 90% convinced that you'll see your competition adjustment approach in IT inside of 3 years.

K

Correct me where I'm wrong, but based on the above, I'm inferring that your view would be that if
1. Someone built a Studebaker Hawk
2. Raced it in one of the regional series
3. And that series had a long history of close competition in that class
4. Among experienced drivers
5. And well-developed cars
6. And the Hawk was running at the front of the series during the car's inaugural season, in terms of comparative lap times (note: not finishing position)
7. And someone asked the ITAC to review the process weight
8. And the process determined that the car, as classified, was 200 lbs too heavy
9. You would support removing the 200 lbs of weight.

Is that correct?

What you just wrote sounds like it and I'd like you to confirm my conclusion before giving a full reply.

[frnkhous]

I think the answer is gonna be yes, IT has the process, no competition adjustments. Now, the hawk likely makes more power than the process figures, as it sounds like the audi that was brought up likely does. But until you have evidence of that what you have is a competition adjustment if you don't set the weight according to the process. How do you know that the guy isn't just that much better that he's driving around being 200lbs heavy? Maybe we should go on a witch hunt to prove vesa silgren's car is illegal because he hasn't lost an itc race in 2 years( I don't believe for one second it is). Obviously it isn't misclassed as he beats other itc crx's, not just other random cars. In this example the guy has won the arrc and the itfest 2 years in a row, not small races, not a regional series. This is why ontrack performance can't always be trusted. He's beaten former arrc winners in itc at the arrc as well. If you want comp adjustments based on on track performance and no "street" parts why don't you guys go race a limited prep prod car. I predict we'll see you back in IT within a couple seasons.

[Tristan Smith]

I've been racing in IT for the last 16 years, and can I just say........let's take a break from rule changes/tweaking.

Here I am building a new car, and quite frankly, I am scared to death that before I even get it out there that there are going to be ten new rules I have to comply with, or a new weight that I have to make.

I am all for the removal of the following: washer bottles, heater cores, and horns. Yes, remove the dual purpose clause, please. But lets just stop after that.

I remember when we got to remove all the interior pieces/panels in the cars. Good call. Like washer bottles, it doesn't cost the racer time and money yanking out those things. Unlike having to find a model-correct washer bottle at a junk yard.

But I am quickly becoming one of the anti-rule change guys.

Lets put a hold on anymore "changes" or "corrections" for a while. Lets see where we are for a season, and if the changes we already have made are enough, correct, and relevant.

Otherwise I think we are going to wake up one day and
wonder how in the heck we ended up in the class we've made.

The class was never "broken", it just needed a few tweaks, and I think we have made them. Lets race on it.

Just my humble and insignificant opinion.

[gran racing]

... What I do know, however, is that if that car is running at the front of MARRS or NARRC or NYSRRRRRRRRCCCC or the ARRC, it sure as hell doesn't need weight taken off of it. ...

You said you "know this" but how? Lets assume this car is legal. The driver is the next Mario Andretti, and has skill sets beyond the average or even very good club racer. He's able to extract 100% of the cars abilities. Other drivers attending the event are quite good, but the reality is they're not at the same level. The you look at Mario to be's car and the prep level is just amazing. It's legal, but every little allowance is taken advantage of. He's got deep pockets and can use the absolute best tires in the best condition possible (maybe stickers for qual, scrubs for race). The downside is the process says it's 150 lbs heavy. Not unexpected, he goes out and wins each of these series. Now several other drivers are racing the same make and model car, and have it prepped pretty darn well. They manage to stay in the top 1/3 of cars, but can't overcome the disadvantage they start out with - being 150 lbs over weight. But since this other driver was on a different level than all of his competitors, we say the car is classed just fine. It's not fair to all of the other people who drive the same make/model, but tough.

When I first started looking into running Honda Challenge, my car didn't have a set weight. I supplied them with specs, and they came back with a weight that was just silly. I asked how in the world they came up with that weight and was told they heard I was pretty fast. What?? I asked what if I go out and don't do so well, will the weight be adjusted - yes. Fine, I'll go out for two races and suck on purpose. Then go on and adjust my weight based on my on track performance.


I agree, no more rule changes but lets have cars classed by the same rules. It's beyond annoying and frustrating to know one car was classes by X crappy process, and another car was classed by an improved process. Fine. You don't like the improved process, then at least class both cars using the crappy process. Is having some consistency on how cars classed really asking too much? I sure as hell don't think so.

[spawpoet]

Ok, I wanna move in a slightly different direction here. For all those who want to be able to remove washer bottles, How do you suggest allowing the removal of these items? I'm still not convinced this is anything but leading down the road toward prod. These are not safety issues which means people will be spending money or time removing horns, washer bottles, heater cores(which may actually be worse for safety) etc. and what is the gain to the class? A few people such as jeff young don't have to search for 100 dollar used washer bottles. I don't see how allowing removal does anything to improve the class. But to that end are we talking specific allowances, and are you going to add something to the list everytime somebody finds a new dohicky on there race car that isn't needed if your not street driving? Not the washerbottle removal itself but I think this could very fast lead down a slippery slope if your intent is to allow removal of "street" equipment generically I can think off all kinds of things that would suddenly become removable. The wiring is also a slippery slope, I bet I could remove a nice chunk of weight if I rewired my car specifically with what I needed. Some newer cars would likely be over 10 pounds but at what cost? Wiring can get expensive really fast if the goal is to reduce weight with no rules. All fuses, relays, etc. can be replaced with a single box weighing less than a typical fuse box, I believe the price of those things is between 6 and 10k dollars if I remember right. It might have been as high as 14k. More than most It cars are selling for these days. I'm not suggesting this would become necessary, simply pointing out extremes somebody could go to for being able to ballast a car differently/remove weight. Would it now not qualify as a 100% build if you didn't do such things?

Is the allowance to remove engine trim pieces leading down the road to production? I agree with your concern about wiring allowances, and glass would worry me too because you can see a path people will chase in their builds with these items. To me a wash bottle (and the rest of Ron's list) is no more threatening than removing engine bay trim which is allowed. On our own car we are actually trying to get our heater core, wipers, and headlights working again (all disabled or removed by PO), so I don't have anything to gain. Just don't see ANY danger in removing these specific items. That said I respect the position many on the ITAC have on this, and given their dedication to preserving what IT seems to mean to all of us I'm happy with whatever they want to do.

[Knestis]

...and I'd like you to confirm my conclusion before giving a full reply.

And I'd like to retire from the field of battle.

I know your position on the most important question, I can't change your - or anyone else's - mind because its rooted in a basic difference in first assumptions, so you win.

K

[JeffYoung]

This ITAC member says, for himself only:

Yes, but.

The but being the on track performance would cause me to take a harder look at the assumptions underlying the weight via the process. But if those assumptions proved correct, the car should lose the weight regardless of any on track performance we "observe."

If we didn't, the inequity would be that we were classing all cars except one using the process.

Tristan, I hear you (and others). It's time to let IT congeal for a while, in my view. While I am in favor of removing the dual purpose stuff, I think we wait a few years to tackle that, and anything else.


Correct me where I'm wrong, but based on the above, I'm inferring that your view would be that if
1. Someone built a Studebaker Hawk
2. Raced it in one of the regional series
3. And that series had a long history of close competition in that class
4. Among experienced drivers
5. And well-developed cars
6. And the Hawk was running at the front of the series during the car's inaugural season, in terms of comparative lap times (note: not finishing position)
7. And someone asked the ITAC to review the process weight
8. And the process determined that the car, as classified, was 200 lbs too heavy
9. You would support removing the 200 lbs of weight.

Is that correct?

What you just wrote sounds like it and I'd like you to confirm my conclusion before giving a full reply.

[jjjanos]

You said you "know this" but how? Lets assume this car is legal. The driver is the next Mario Andretti, and has skill sets beyond the average or even very good club racer. He's able to extract 100% of the cars abilities. Other drivers attending the event are quite good, but the reality is they're not at the same level. The you look at Mario to be's car and the prep level is just amazing. It's legal, but every little allowance is taken advantage of. He's got deep pockets and can use the absolute best tires in the best condition possible (maybe stickers for qual, scrubs for race). The downside is the process says it's 150 lbs heavy. Not unexpected, he goes out and wins each of these series. Now several other drivers are racing the same make and model car, and have it prepped pretty darn well. They manage to stay in the top 1/3 of cars, but can't overcome the disadvantage they start out with - being 150 lbs over weight. But since this other driver was on a different level than all of his competitors, we say the car is classed just fine. It's not fair to all of the other people who drive the same make/model, but tough.

Excuse me, but the above is the level of prep and ability to which the MR-2 and the other cars that were dropped from ITA to ITB were held when people said the process weight was too heavy - i.e. 10/10ths build and Fangio-like ability. The fast car has demonstrated what a 10/10ths prep/build can do. The other drivers are capable of building a similar car.

All you've done is re-enforce that the classification of this particular car has either 1. relied on inappropriate assumptions (25% HP gain) or 2. demonstrated a model failure.

I'd love to not have to build my car to 10/10ths. How about taking 200lbs out of my car too to compensate for my lack of mechanical ability, dedication and finances?


And I'd like to retire from the field of battle.

I know your position on the most important question, I can't change your - or anyone else's - mind because its rooted in a basic difference in first assumptions, so you win.

K

Kirk,

I'm somewhat disappointed with you. Not because you won't engage, but from a model-builder and data analysis standpoint.

You know that your model is an approximation of what occurs and are entirely dependent on the assumptions used and yet, when given real world data that the model has erred, you would stand by the prediction.

This is akin to the Chairman of the Fed saying - I don't care that the measured unemployment rate is 12%, the model says it should be 5%. We're not lowering interest rates.

I've been building economic models for 24 years and I'd never produce a forecast that flies in the face of reason. A prediction saying that one should take 200lbs out of a car where you have observable data that, at its current weight, the car is a front-runner screams model error and/or assumption error.

In short, if the model is to be the be-all/end-all of classification, then one needs to use the most optimistic HP gain modifier until a 10/10ths build is presented for independent/trustworthy dyno analysis. I.e. EVERY car, until demonstrated otherwise, uses the max.

[frnkhous]

Ok, since so many wanna allow these things to be removed how do you suggest doing it? One item at a time with people constantly asking for new allowances, or open the flood gates by writing some vague rule that allows "street" items be removed? This is only the second time I've asked this. If nobody has a suggestion about how you'd actually allow this, then I gotta think that while you may think the items are silly, or wanna bitch if you gotta replace them, that the rules don't need rewritten if those that want the allowances, but haven't even thought out how it should be done. You will make the class less stable by doing this, look at the last few posts before mine, you guys are concerning people.

[erlrich]

Ok, since so many wanna allow these things to be removed how do you suggest doing it? One item at a time with people constantly asking for new allowances, or open the flood gates by writing some vague rule that allows "street" items be removed? This is only the second time I've asked this. If nobody has a suggestion about how you'd actually allow this, then I gotta think that while you may think the items are silly, or wanna bitch if you gotta replace them, that the rules don't need rewritten if those that want the allowances, but haven't even thought out how it should be done. You will make the class less stable by doing this, look at the last few posts before mine, you guys are concerning people.

Seems to me this would be an easy one to write, but then I'm not devious (experienced) enough to think of ways to twist the rules to get an unintended advantage. How about something like:

"The following items may be removed:
- Windshield washer bottle and attached hoses
- Windshield wiper motor, wiper actuating arms, wiper arm and blade
- Horn
- Heater core, its housing, and heating & a/c controls & their operating mechanisms
- Headlights may be removed; any opening in the body created by the removal of the headlights must be completely covered by a permanently attached metal or plastic cover
No wiring, bracketry, or body work may be removed or modified to facilitate removal of allowed items."

This could all be dealt with in a single, one-time only allowance. I think with the talent we currently have on the ITAC writing the rule would be the easy part; agreeing on what to allow would seem to me to be the tough part.

For the record, I did vote yes on this one - the items in question seem to me to be much less prod-like than the allowances for interior/door gutting, open ECUs, adjustable coil-overs, or about a dozen other things we're already allowed to do. I do also understand the resistance to these changes, the whole slippery slope argument, unintended consequences, etc. I also understand the "leave it alone" attitude, I just am one of those who tends to think there's almost always room for improvement. What I think a lot of you, including a few ITAC members, are failing to take into account though, are the changes that have occurred over the past few years w/r/t attitudes about the class and the rules making process. Knowing what I do about who makes up the ITAC, their attitudes, experience, and dedication gives me pretty high confidence that they aren't going to let things get out of hand.

This isn't a really big deal; I doubt very seriously anyone will not build or race an IT car because these things are required. At the same time I don't see how these items could be the beginning of the end for IT. It seems to me we've already passed these things on the way down the slope...

[RacerBill]

Seems to me this would be an easy one to write, but then I'm not devious (experienced) enough to think of ways to twist the rules to get an unintended advantage. How about something like:

"The following items may be removed:
- Windshield washer bottle and attached hoses
- Windshield wiper motor, wiper actuating arms, wiper arm and blade
- Horn
- Heater core, its housing, and heating & a/c controls & their operating mechanisms
- Headlights may be removed; any opening in the body created by the removal of the headlights must be completely covered by a permanently attached metal or plastic cover
No wiring, bracketry, or body work may be removed or modified to facilitate removal of allowed items."

This could all be dealt with in a single, one-time only allowance. I think with the talent we currently have on the ITAC writing the rule would be the easy part; agreeing on what to allow would seem to me to be the tough part.

For the record, I did vote yes on this one - the items in question seem to me to be much less prod-like than the allowances for interior/door gutting, open ECUs, adjustable coil-overs, or about a dozen other things we're already allowed to do. I do also understand the resistance to these changes, the whole slippery slope argument, unintended consequences, etc. I also understand the "leave it alone" attitude, I just am one of those who tends to think there's almost always room for improvement. What I think a lot of you, including a few ITAC members, are failing to take into account though, are the changes that have occurred over the past few years w/r/t attitudes about the class and the rules making process. Knowing what I do about who makes up the ITAC, their attitudes, experience, and dedication gives me pretty high confidence that they aren't going to let things get out of hand.

This isn't a really big deal; I doubt very seriously anyone will not build or race an IT car because these things are required. At the same time I don't see how these items could be the beginning of the end for IT. It seems to me we've already passed these things on the way down the slope...

I second Earl's post. I am for these allowances, not for the purpose of being able to remove the items, but for the purpose of not having to replace them, if they become unavailable.

[IPRESS]

Good one Bill, I agree.
And thanks for helping out at NL.

[RacerBill]

No, thank you Mac. PM me your address and I'll send you a dvd with incar video from the night time session. Send me Ren's and Myron's addresses, and I'll send them dvd's too.

[Conover]

Come on guys, let them take off their wipers, their heater cores and their washer bottles, it'll be fun to watch them trying to figure out how to see when it rains. Let there be rain, rain, rain, rain!

The reason that the ECU rule keeps getting "trotted up". Is that it's still screwed up, it's an incomplete solution that needs to be reconsidered. Just like my letter said two years ago, if your gonna open it up open it up. In my view that should be numero uno, top priority for the ITAC/BOD.

This balogna about washer bottles and wiper blades is just a bunch of hoowey, let's keep the debates targeted on things that actually matter.

I vote no, you gotta keep that stuff, you don't like it, you go prod. You wanted to be in a national class anyway, just go prod already. It's freakin IT, understand? It's IT, you have washer bottles, you have wipers, you have haeter cores, get the hell over it! Your gonna need that shit one day, and your gonna be pissed when an itb golf walks your its junk in a rainy ecr one day.

[matt batson]

I second Earl's post. I am for these allowances, not for the purpose of being able to remove the items, but for the purpose of not having to replace them, if they become unavailable.


I thirdly that...

[frnkhous]

To all those that listed line items, as cameron pointed out, why do you wanna remove hvac systems, and windshield wiper components? I can kinda go with the washerbottle, again I don't understand the fascination with being allowed to remove it for the sake of it. and I can see somebody actually using it, but I can understand allowing removal of the washer bottle and the horn. But then I get to headlight replacement and start seeing $$$. Only reason I see for allowing removal of those is weight, once you start that you got carbon fiber covers, why not allow the fenders and hood as well? I'm really shocked that almost 60% of people wanna allow the removal of more stuff. I could make my own headlight covers, remove everything on the list from my car myself if I wanted too, but I just simply don't get it. For sure I wouldn't be removing the wipers or the heatercore/blowermotor and i'm kinda baffled at the suggestion of the rest. I'm curious how many of the people asking for this have been around a racecar that didn't have one of those things in the rain. I have and you don't wanna remove them.

[matt batson]

To all those that listed line items, as cameron pointed out, why do you wanna remove hvac systems, and windshield wiper components? I can kinda go with the washerbottle, again I don't understand the fascination with being allowed to remove it for the sake of it. and I can see somebody actually using it, but I can understand allowing removal of the washer bottle and the horn. But then I get to headlight replacement and start seeing $$$. Only reason I see for allowing removal of those is weight, once you start that you got carbon fiber covers, why not allow the fenders and hood as well? I'm really shocked that almost 60% of people wanna allow the removal of more stuff. I could make my own headlight covers, remove everything on the list from my car myself if I wanted too, but I just simply don't get it. For sure I wouldn't be removing the wipers or the heatercore/blowermotor and i'm kinda baffled at the suggestion of the rest. I'm curious how many of the people asking for this have been around a racecar that didn't have one of those things in the rain. I have and you don't wanna remove them.


I may be mistaken, but there wouldnt be anything in the rules that says you HAVE to remove those items...right?

If you have a hard time making weight, I guarantee removing some of these items would be cheaper than super lightweight wheels.
And this is supposed to be a class we can run cheaply in and still be competitive.

I have non-functioning wipers. I run rain ex if it rains. My heater doesnt work either.

It rained for much of my drivers school back in 04 at moroso and I pretty much dominated without either.

[jjjanos]

I may be mistaken, but there wouldnt be anything in the rules that says you HAVE to remove those items...right?

If you allow it, then the front-runners will need to do it to maintain position. It's an arms race. Someone builds a dreadnaught and everyone needs to build one just to maintain parity.

[lateapex911]

I may be mistaken, but there wouldnt be anything in the rules that says you HAVE to remove those items...right?

If you have a hard time making weight, I guarantee removing some of these items would be cheaper than super lightweight wheels.
And this is supposed to be a class we can run cheaply in and still be competitive.



Lightweight wheels will return 8X the performance advantage of a 3 pound windshield wiper motor in the dry.


And when you are racing on a slimy, drying, oiled down track in the rain, the 3 pound wiper motor will reduce you lap times bey a measurable amount, maybe a second or more.

I speak from experience...of two days ago, when my wiper motor failed. I was pissed that no store had one until Monday.

Again, it's an arms race.

[matt batson]

sorry, but I dont see the big deal. If the front runners want to remove the stuff they can. If they want to keep their windshield washer bottles or motors, they can.
And I dont see how this will cost anybody any money or frustration.


Now, you wanna talk arms race, then we can talk about the ECU and final drive allowances that never should have made it into the rulebook. Talk about costing the front runners money...

[lateapex911]

sorry, but I dont see the big deal. If the front runners want to remove the stuff they can. If they want to keep their windshield washer bottles or motors, they can.
And I dont see how this will cost anybody any money or frustration.


Now, you wanna talk arms race, then we can talk about the ECU and final drive allowances that never should have made it into the rulebook. Talk about costing the front runners money...

Well, we could just not allow ECU cars in.....

[seckerich]

sorry, but I dont see the big deal. If the front runners want to remove the stuff they can. If they want to keep their windshield washer bottles or motors, they can.
And I dont see how this will cost anybody any money or frustration.


Now, you wanna talk arms race, then we can talk about the ECU and final drive allowances that never should have made it into the rulebook. Talk about costing the front runners money...

You have only been around IT for a short period Matt. All those rules were in place when you started. You read the rules and made a decision to play. There is a balancing act between letting drivers change enough to be excited about a class and allowing so much it gets out of hand. Washer bottle is no big deal unless it covers a big hole in front of the air intake. :rolleyes: Then it is not such a small deal. Every seemingly simple rule change has unintended consequences. Now you have to go fix what WAS NOT BROKEN.

[frnkhous]

No, in the case of the hvac and wiper parts I would not remove them unless i'd exhausted every other means of getting the car within 50lbs of weight. The problem I see is it will become accpetable to class cars a weights based on achieving a weight with these items removed. A fully prepped car is still fully prepped. You guys simply want to add farther to what that includes when it comes to removing things. I get the washer bottle(not sure why it is so hotly desired for removal even the argument that it is hard to get for a few seems weak when you figure how few people it really affects in a year) but I undertand removing it. The other items i'll argue you simply haven't been around road racing long enough if you don't see the serious downsides to the removal. No you won't have to remove them but how long before people cry because they scca doesn't black flag all so that people can come in and get wipers etc. No thankyou, these are production based vehicles and if it doesn't make it safer to remove it leave it alone.

The Ecu rule is a silly argument, If you don't like it then I think you should be ok with the idea of a completely stock carb with needles as delivered on your datsun, as well as completely stock ignition controls. NO changing weights, pickups points etc. Otherwise your already getting many of the benefits of the ecu rule.

[jjjanos]

The ECU rule is a red-herring. My understanding is that the rule was changed in two phases.

Second, and most liberal change, free ECUs. The motivation for this was equity and to lessen the cost of the arms race. There was a set of cars that could cram an after-market ECU into the stock housing a/o custom chip installed in the stock housing. The cost was prohibitive for most, but for the big buck guy, within budget. Given the relaxation of the original standard, it made sense.

First, and least liberal change, was the stock housing rule. As I recall, this was not done to allow allowances a/o performance improvement. It was done because the stock ECU rule was becoming/had become unenforceable. Consequently, dropping the stock ECU rule made sense.

Now alternate final drives... there you have something.

[spawpoet]

No, in the case of the hvac and wiper parts I would not remove them unless i'd exhausted every other means of getting the car within 50lbs of weight. The problem I see is it will become accpetable to class cars a weights based on achieving a weight with these items removed. A fully prepped car is still fully prepped. You guys simply want to add farther to what that includes when it comes to removing things. I get the washer bottle(not sure why it is so hotly desired for removal even the argument that it is hard to get for a few seems weak when you figure how few people it really affects in a year) but I undertand removing it. The other items i'll argue you simply haven't been around road racing long enough if you don't see the serious downsides to the removal. No you won't have to remove them but how long before people cry because they scca doesn't black flag all so that people can come in and get wipers etc. No thankyou, these are production based vehicles and if it doesn't make it safer to remove it leave it alone.

The Ecu rule is a silly argument, If you don't like it then I think you should be ok with the idea of a completely stock carb with needles as delivered on your datsun, as well as completely stock ignition controls. NO changing weights, pickups points etc. Otherwise your already getting many of the benefits of the ecu rule.

The argument I was making had nothing to do with parity between carb'd cars and FI cars. Simply that if we think we can safely open up ECU rules (you HAVE to admit that is very complex), then a washer bottle should be simple to approach. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for the parity argument, why weren't the carb'd cars running away with all the IT wins when other FI cars were "stuck" with a stock ECU? Honest question. Was there parity, before the ECU rules were opened up, between FI cars and carb'd cars? Maybe the answer is no, but there is an inherent advantage in having an ECU over carbs. Just because changing needles etc can overcome some of the disadvantage of having carbs, doesn't mean carb'd cars were at a major advantage before the ECU rules were changed. And from what I understand that was NOT the reasons the ECU rules were changed. I believe they were changed because it was considered difficult to police.

[Conover]

The ECU rule is a red-herring. My understanding is that the rule was changed in two phases.

Second, and most liberal change, free ECUs. The motivation for this was equity and to lessen the cost of the arms race. There was a set of cars that could cram an after-market ECU into the stock housing a/o custom chip installed in the stock housing. The cost was prohibitive for most, but for the big buck guy, within budget. Given the relaxation of the original standard, it made sense.


The Problem With the ECU rule is that it wasn't truly opened up. The current Sensor rule heavily favors some cars and punishes others. Something along the lines of :

"ECU input devices may be replaced or substituted, stock air metering device must remain in place, but does not have to be utilized."

That would be the way to go, otherwise you have cars that you can put a nice new programmable ecu in the car and then have to spend literally thousands of dollars to design a one off trigger to run the thing from.

Intentions were good, I just think the rule needs to be more thoroughly considered if cost issues, and "fairness" for lack of a better word, are actual goals.

[JeffYoung]

I've tried, but I just can't contain myself anymore.

What Cameron said! lol......

[Ron Earp]

Said it on the other thread, say it here. As the others have pointed out the rule is unfair now. If your car comes from the factory with a crank fired system plus other modern engine management sensors/ECU you're good to go. Add any ECU you want and you'll have the sensors to make it sing.

If your car doesn't come from the factory with all the "goodies" you can't add them and you'll be not enjoying the benefits your competitors might have.

Ron

[spawpoet]

I've tried, but I just can't contain myself anymore.

What Cameron said! lol......

I would agree with that as well. I only pointed out the ECU as an example of creep and something more threatening than a wash bottle, but it's done and we can't go back. If we are going to creep we gotta creep fairly. It's probably best (meaning most fair) that all the sensors be open.

[JeffYoung]

I have too much of a vested interest in the sensor rule to debate it objectively....I'll leave that one to you guys.....

[jjjanos]

The Problem With the ECU rule is that it wasn't truly opened up. The current Sensor rule heavily favors some cars and punishes others.

Not true. The sacred process which produces exact and correct weights without the need of human intervention must already be making adjustments for those with the correct sensors versus those that lack them versus those that drive antiques with carbs.

[spawpoet]

Not true. The sacred process which produces exact and correct weights without the need of human intervention must already be making adjustments for those with the correct sensors versus those that lack them versus those that drive antiques with carbs.

While I've been around a few years, I'm new enough that I'm not sure about this. Does the process already adjust for these variables? Did it adjust for carb vs. FI BEFORE opening up ECU's. Are the same adjustment still in play after the changes that have been made?

[lateapex911]

While I've been around a few years, I'm new enough that I'm not sure about this. Does the process already adjust for these variables? Did it adjust for carb vs. FI BEFORE opening up ECU's. Are the same adjustment still in play after the changes that have been made?

YEs, and no. Depends on the car, and the point in history. Certainly early on, weights were set, and THEN the ECU rule was opened to some degree. (chips, in the box). Now, it is assumed that ECU gains are part of the package.

As to sensor ease of installation/usage, no, the Process doesn't parse car models that fine. It is (the sensor package) under discussion.

[lateapex911]

..... ECU as an example of creep ....., but it's done and we can't go back. .

Just curious, should the ECU rule (assuming it never opened) remain "stock"?

[spawpoet]

Just curious, should the ECU rule (assuming it never opened) remain "stock"?


I think it was pointed out before that some ECU cars had no way of getting around rev limiters etc (that are integral to stock units) without changing/modifying the ECU's, so I'm not sure opening of ECU's could have been avoided. Call it inevitable creep. The cars we race have changed, and the rules have to change with them. As long as all cars are kept as close to equal as possible that is all we can ask for. I (selfishly) don't want to see carbd cars left behind as ECU's have opened up, but at the same time I don't see yet where they really have been. I.E. I see well built, well driven versions of my carbd car as currently competitive.

[JeffYoung]

In the last 18 months, I've done way more reading than I wanted to on EFI v. carb. I had to make the choice to spend the money to do the conversion on the TR8.

My car is a bit unique because the FI intake manifold is significanlty better than the carb one, which gives peak gains that would not be there otherwise.

Which leads me to my core point. EFI is not "magic." At the end of a day, and this is backed up by all kinds of data from muscle car land, EFI will probably not make any more peak power than a carb'ed car.

What EFI does give you is, at least in my case, more torque and far more area under the curve via being able to more precisely tune timing and mixture across the rev range.

Carbed cars can do this is "rough" fashion via messing with the advance curve and the neddles/jets, but it is always a trade off (better in one area of teh RPM than another, etc.).

But "old school" ECUs can be VERY bad. Mine in particular, which doesn't fuel over 4500 rpm on purpose and has a terrible stock advance curve for emissions reasons.

Based on this, for my car anyway, the way these things line up is:

"Open" EFI is significantly better than "open" Carbs which is WAY BETTER than stock EFI.

Where I am going with this is that I think many stock ECUs would actually be at a disadvantage to carb'ed cars wthout the ability to tune fuel and timing.

Make of that what you will. If we went back to stock ECUs, I'd have to ditch the ($15k) EFI conversion I did and go back to carbs.

[callard]

The Weber carb that is allowed for some IT-B cars has sequentially opening throttle plates. Within the present rules, changes can be made to idle air bleeds, main jets, air correctors and emulsion tubes. No matter what you do within these rules, the carb still goes a bit lean at high RPMs or runs like crap in the mid range. Since ECUs are free, shouldn't the drivers of these Weber carbed cars be allowed similar freedoms? High speed enrichment holes drilled into the carb body and concurrent opening throttle plates? If so, some of the existing cars will go faster and others won't. Just sayin'....
Chuck

[spawpoet]

"Where I am going with this is that I think many stock ECUs would actually be at a disadvantage to carb'ed cars wthout the ability to tune fuel and timing."


This is appropriate to one question I am asking. When weights were set for cars pre-open ECU was the fact that carbd cars had more tuning capability at the time factored in to how they were processed or have carbd cars had an edge all along?

[Andy Bettencourt]

The Weber carb that is allowed for some IT-B cars has sequentially opening throttle plates. Within the present rules, changes can be made to idle air bleeds, main jets, air correctors and emulsion tubes. No matter what you do within these rules, the carb still goes a bit lean at high RPMs or runs like crap in the mid range. Since ECUs are free, shouldn't the drivers of these Weber carbed cars be allowed similar freedoms? High speed enrichment holes drilled into the carb body and concurrent opening throttle plates? If so, some of the existing cars will go faster and others won't. Just sayin'....
Chuck

While I agree that cars with ECU's are able to tune significantly better, is it my imagination or is there a significant % of the cars with carbs making way more than 25% over stock? Think about that for a minute. While under a microscope they may be at a 'disadvantage', when you look big picture, they may be enjoying some power advantages (some of them).

Listen, I would take EFI over a carb any day (assuming you can get both to work right) but given the era that some of these cars came from, I bet they make a good bit of gains percentage-wise. We just did a request that asked to be re-run and the resultant weight was NOT lower.

[DavidM]

If we are going to creep we gotta creep fairly. It's probably best (meaning most fair) that all the sensors be open.


As to sensor ease of installation/usage, no, the Process doesn't parse car models that fine. It is (the sensor package) under discussion.


Since ECUs are free, shouldn't the drivers of these Weber carbed cars be allowed similar freedoms? High speed enrichment holes drilled into the carb body and concurrent opening throttle plates? Chuck

These are just from this last page. I didn't include JJJanos' sarcastic comment about the weighting process. Apparently he would like to spend all his time researching cars, motors, ECUs, etc. so that he can more correctly weight them. While he has valid arguments, at some point you have to say we've done the best we can. I think we've reached that point.

That sound you hear is the vortex spinning faster. Leave IT the f alone for at least a little while.

David

[spawpoet]

"Listen, I would take EFI over a carb any day (assuming you can get both to work right) but given the era that some of these cars came from, I bet they make a good bit of gains percentage-wise."

You mean the Mesozoic era? What you are saying is entirely possible. All we can ask is that significant variables between cars are either equalized within the rules (allowing all ECU cars free run on there sensors), or accounted for through the process. If the antiques have more power potential the process should account for this factor as much as it should account for the advantages of FI vs. carbs. In this case how would would you equalize a 280z with FI, with 240 and 260z's that have carbs? Engine architecture is the same, and supposedly the 280 has better flowing options in terms of head design (though lower comp.) and of course greater displacement.

[jjjanos]

These are just from this last page. I didn't include JJJanos' sarcastic comment about the weighting process. Apparently he would like to spend all his time researching cars, motors, ECUs, etc. so that he can more correctly weight them. While he has valid arguments, at some point you have to say we've done the best we can. I think we've reached that point.

Of course it was sarcasm and it's intent was to point out the foolishness of relying on a entirely objective process. While I like things to be transparent and repeatable, but not at the cost of rationality.

I'd like to change my vote - leave the damn bottles on the cars.

[lateapex911]

While he has valid arguments, at some point you have to say we've done the best we can. I think we've reached that point.

That sound you hear is the vortex spinning faster. Leave IT the f alone for at least a little while.

David

LOL, that sound has been playing for years. Sometimes it sounds off key, other times it's a pretty sweet harmony. But, it will always play.


We're looking at the sensor situation, and discussing it's merits.

Regarding the intricacies of car to car abilities to take advantage of their particular carb, or their particular fuel injection setup, it's just not in the cards for IT. 350 cars over a 42 year span.

We'll never get them all balanced on the head of a pin. Not going to happen. Ever.

In my opinion, I think we'd like to apply the process to each of them*, account for their individual physical properties to a somewhat medium fine level, and, in cases where they don't fit the standard (rotaries, cars under/over rated from the factory, overachievers, etc) apply repeatable corrections based on data and evidence.

If we can do that, we'll worry about washer bottles and other such stuff, but honestly, we have enough big picture stuff in the works that washer bottles is just noise.

We want to avoid overdogs, sure, but the cream will rise. And some cars, like mine, are just not going to fit the process.

And you know what? In most of the cases, that's ok. I fully accept that my car, for example (an ITA RX-7) has had it's day in the sun, and that fighting for greater equality is putting the of the few ahead of the needs of the many. Some cars just won't be top dogs, and there's not much that can be done, short of re-orging the classes. Which would just create other issues.

*(or more exactly, each that hasn't been processed, and is in need of processing. Member requests seem to be a good method of attending to that)

[JeffYoung]

Agree with most of Jake's post although feel the "washer bottle" issue is bigger picture than he does (honest disagreement) -- it's more about dual purpose vestiges of many kinds.

Spaw, to answer your question -- was the diffference between carb and EFI cars accounted for in the process -- the answer is not specifically.

As I understand the history, and understand how things work now, that is all rolled up in the expected power multiplier for a particular. For example, even though a 944 is EFI, it's been fairly well established via dyno sheets that you aren't going to get as much gain out of that motor as you would, for example, a Z car or a carb'ed TR8.

So in some ways, the process is "better" than a standard carb or EFI adder/subtractor, in that it does, in a very rough way, try to be car specific in determining power potential.

Now, again, Jake is right. There is no way we can do that with 100% accuracy for all cars. Not possible, but we try to get it as "right" as we can and go from there.

[callard]

Jeff,
Are you saying that the 944 (another Porsche) doesn't get the magical 25% horsepower increase that the process is based on?
Chuck

[JeffYoung]

I don't know for sure, but I think that is right. I think it was 15% but Jake can answer it definitively.

[Knestis]

The 944 hasn't been reviewed since February 2008, when we started keeping a consolidated record of reviews and recommendations.

K

[spawpoet]

Thank you Jake and Jeff. I agree the best you guys can do is get close, and that inevitably means some cars will be on the positive side of close, and others on the negative. And that what's in the best interest for the broadest group of IT racers is the direction the ITAC must push. IMHO most pro series could take a few lessons from how SCCA has achieved parity within IT. At the end of the day most IT competitors would be better served focusing on making themselves better drivers than worrying so much whether their car is fairly classed. I apologize for all the questions, and really appreciate you guys taking the time to answer them.

[JeffYoung]

No apologies necessary -- keep the good questions coming.

And, I hate calling you "spaw" -- lol....can you tell me your first name?

Thanks again for the thoughtful discussion. It is appreciated.

[spawpoet]

No apologies necessary -- keep the good questions coming.

And, I hate calling you "spaw" -- lol....can you tell me your first name?

Thanks again for the thoughtful discussion. It is appreciated.

I keep meaning to add a signature, and can't figure out how to change my screen-name. Name is Chris Carey. We met briefly at Daytona last year, but you and Ron were pretty busy between sessions.

[lateapex911]

Thank you Jake and Jeff. I agree the best you guys can do is get close, and that inevitably means some cars will be on the positive side of close, and others on the negative. And that what's in the best interest for the broadest group of IT racers is the direction the ITAC must push. IMHO most pro series could take a few lessons from how SCCA has achieved parity within IT. At the end of the day most IT competitors would be better served focusing on making themselves better drivers than worrying so much whether their car is fairly classed. I apologize for all the questions, and really appreciate you guys taking the time to answer them.

Thanks! Tell our bosses, the CRB!

(I can't think of any Pro series that has 350 cars on the spec lines. THAT is really the crux of the issue in IT. If we had 3 or 5 models to attend to, we might take a different tact. We'd have a MUCH bigger matrix of data to look at, and the variabilities would be reduced in comparison. But we don't, so we have to take another approach. Your point about driver skill is well made. We have to take that into account when even discussing on track performance, and it is a HUGE factor. We've heard from members that they'd rather we are consistent than perfect.)

[JeffYoung]

To bring the thread back on topic, and to focus on the results of the poll:

1. I've seen (in my view) decent arguments on both sides for and against removal of dual purpose vestiges.

2. I personally would be in favor of removal but also agree rules stability for the next few years is more important.

3. But the results of the poll were eye opening to me. I, wrongfully, assumed membership strongly supported removal of these items. 103 IT racers does not a majority make, but it is significant and the fact the vote was that close would leave me to believe the rules should be left alone.

Very interesting discussion, and poll.

[erlrich]

103 IT racers does not a majority make, but it is significant and the fact the vote was that close would leave me to believe the rules should be left alone.

It's 107 now, so there :p


Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if the SCCA keeps statistics on how many individual drivers compete in each class in a given year?

[Dave Gomberg]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if the SCCA keeps statistics on how many individual drivers compete in each class in a given year?
The simple answer is "no". Until the last couple of years, the participation numbers (entries) in regional races were not tracked. If you go to http://www.scca.com/contentpage.aspx?content=40 and go down to the link for "2009 Regional Class Participation", you can see this year's numbers through August. From those, you can make some guesses about how many drivers those entries represent. Remember, especially this year with the economic problems many have had, a lot of those entries will be for drivers who have done only two races to keep their licenses.

For the first time, because of the new points championship for National drivers, the number of drivers who have run at least one National race are being tracked. Go to http://www.scca.com/event.aspx?hub=1&event=13506 and click on the "2009 National Point Standings" link. There are a lot of drivers who have run only one or two Nationals. Some of that is attributable to the economy, but it is most likely that they are drivers who only run the one or two Nationals at their home track and their other races are regionals.

Dave

[Andy Bettencourt]

WOW! ITA is the 3rd largest class in Regional Club racing.

SM 2315
SRF 1431
ITA 1309
ITS 763
SSM (an East Coast SM class) 586

[JoshS]

WOW! ITA is the 3rd largest class in Regional Club racing.

SM 2315
SRF 1431
ITA 1309
ITS 763
SSM (an East Coast SM class) 586

We also have an SSM class out here in SFR, so you're getting numbers from both coasts. I'm sure the rules are different. with regionally-defined classes, you're going to get inflated numbers when the only thing that is counted is the name.

[erlrich]

WOW! ITA is the 3rd largest class in Regional Club racing.

SM 2315
SRF 1431
ITA 1309
ITS 763
SSM (an East Coast SM class) 586

Yeah, noticed that too - and we're the largest non-spec class.

[Ron Earp]

WOW! ITA is the 3rd largest class in Regional Club racing.

SM 2315
SRF 1431
ITA 1309
ITS 763
SSM (an East Coast SM class) 586

Aren't you getting a fair number of SMs in ITA? Not that it matters much.

Get those IT7s and SRX7s with some lead on and put them in ITB and ITB will look healthy too!