Open Coolers

[Rabbit07]

I just sent a request for open coolers for all IT cars. Including Differential, Transmission, and Power Steering. I have seen some failures this year particlularly on some Mazda products that appeared to be directly related to heat.

I ask if you share a similar view point and would like to be able to add cooler(s) to your IT car beyond an external engine cooler, Please send you letters.

[JeffYoung]

I think the argument was made that since power steering lines are free, you can add a cooler there (the idea is that the cooler is "part" of the lines). I haven't looked at that set of rules in a while, so no position on that.

Beyond that, this seems like one of those claimed safety/reliability issues that could have significant unintended consequences.

[frnkhous]

Just curious what mazda products?

[lawtonglenn]

I thought the thread was about drinking beer in the paddock

:shrug:

.

[C. Ludwig]

I agree that coolers should be allowed. It makes no sense to me at all that you are freely allowed to spend an unlimited amount on building a custom ring and pinion and differential but that couple hundred more for a fluid pump and cooler is out of the question. Typical SCCA.

[Rabbit07]

just Curious What Mazda Products?

Rx-7.

[jhooten]

Looking deeply into something that looks like a crystal ball I see the words "Not in keeping with the class philosophy". But my magic wand hasn 't been working so well of late either.

[joeg]

Where was it hot this year?

Seriously, the proper fluids and regular maintenance would take care of 95% of cooler perceived issues (allong with good finned lines).

[924Guy]

I thought the thread was about drinking beer in the paddock

:shrug:

.

+1 - open hoods and coolers in impound. ;)

[cchandler]

Improved reliability = Competitive advantage

Gentlemen, choose your weapons carefully.

[rsportvolvo]

I don't think folks realize how hot differentials can get, especially with Salisbury type limited-slips. Adding coolers should be a minimal impact considering all that can be done currently within the ITCS. I mentioned this awhile back and plan on running one regardless. The cost of a new differential is a lot more than a pump, lines and a cooler.

[Greg Amy]

The cost of a new differential is a lot more than a pump, lines and a cooler.
Choosing a lesser-performance differential that doesn't run as hot is a lot less than having to add pumps, lines, and coolers...

;)

[rsportvolvo]

Choosing a lesser-performance differential that doesn't run as hot is a lot less than having to add pumps, lines, and coolers...

;)

Possibly. The friction from a TORSEN type vs. Salisbury type will depend on a lot of design factors of each specific brand. The end result is the same, they all produce heat. Adding coolers is peanuts compared to getting custom bevel gears made, which is currently legal. Why not allow coolers? Heck it's extra weight and complexity.

Does anyone really think that someone will beat them on the track becuase they have a gearbox/diff/transaxle cooler? I sure hope that's not the case.

[Greg Amy]

SWISH!!!

(Picture of GA moving his hand across the top of his head, front to back...)

[JohnRW]

I don't think folks realize how hot differentials can get, especially with Salisbury type limited-slips. Adding coolers should be a minimal impact considering all that can be done currently within the ITCS. I mentioned this awhile back and plan on running one regardless.

So...you disagree with the the current rules-set, and you'll just disregard the ones you don't like ?

What other rules might you rationalize away ?

You've been building that Volvo for many years, and while you've never turned a lap, you seem to have all sorts of problems with it that others don't. Dana 30 rear end, big axle tubes out each side, holds lots of oil and has a reasonably big surface area to dump some heat. When I was racing a 142 with a Dana 30 solid axle, I had all sorts of issues (gearbox, engine, etc) but never a problem with the diff. None of the other Volvo guys with that same axle seem to have overheating diff issues. A friend with a "flat-nosed turbo" 240 rally car had occasional diff & axle issues, but he was running ballistic power levels in a difficult (pro rally) environment, far beyond what IT-legal has to deal with.

Most likely, you've picked the wrong class for your project. Feel free to build a GT car...the rules are right there in the GCR...you can modify and add all sorts of whizz-bang stuff, legally.

[tnord]

i would not support this, even as someone who could potentially benefit from it.

[Lael Cleland]

Mazda currently has a HUGE recall on power steering pumps and lines.....Brand new cars.... ya need all the help you can get if they still cant figure out how to build it...

[rsportvolvo]

So...you disagree with the the current rules-set, and you'll just disregard the ones you don't like ?

Doesn't everyone at some level? That's why folks search for loopholes and work arounds.


What other rules might you rationalize away ?

The ITCS 37mm exhaust valve that is only 35mm from Volvo. Care to discuss more issues with the 240 and the ITCS? My reclassification request is in process and I'm awaiting the results.


You've been building that Volvo for many years, and while you've never turned a lap, you seem to have all sorts of problems with it that others don't. Dana 30 rear end, big axle tubes out each side, holds lots of oil and has a reasonably big surface area to dump some heat. When I was racing a 142 with a Dana 30 solid axle, I had all sorts of issues (gearbox, engine, etc) but never a problem with the diff. None of the other Volvo guys with that same axle seem to have overheating diff issues. A friend with a "flat-nosed turbo" 240 rally car had diff & axle issues, but he was running ballistic power levels in a difficult (pro rally) environment.

A 142 is not the same as a 242. Hence Bob Griffith's ITB 242 being termed a "toad" by Eric Curran in testing. That is part of the issue in developing a new car, it takes a lot of time and research. I've done my research, helped other running ITB 240's and worked to reclassify the car with correct specs (weight is not a big issue with me). Now I'm ready to build the car and run it. Additionally my job travel requirements have prevented my cars completion. My car will be on the the track this spring.

The axle held together, but was it running too hot? What type of differential was used? TORSEN, Salisbury, welded, etc. Moot point without actual recorded temps.


Most likely, you've picked the wrong class for your project. Feel free to build a GT car...the rules are right there in the GCR...you can modify and add all sorts of whizz-bang stuff, legally.

I can run a 3-link with a Mumford-link or Watts-link in the rear with a custom bevel gears in an alloy M30/Dana 30 axle and still be 100% ITB legal. I can also run trick aluminum Tilton style clutches and adjustble blade-type ARB's in ITB. All whiz-bang IT legal parts. GT/Production requires more engine work, not much to gain on the suspension end. I picked the correct class for my project. Same ITCS rules in the same GCR.

Sorry about the thread hijack, but isn't this about the letter written to allow additional oil coolers?

[JohnRW]

Doesn't everyone at some level? That's why folks search for loopholes and work arounds.

It's quite a leap of logic to describe adding non-compliant items as "loophole- & work around- bait".



The ITCS 37mm exhaust valve that is only 35mm from Volvo. Care to discuss more issues with the 240 and the ITCS? My reclassification request is in process and I'm awaiting the results.

...and...


A 142 is not the same as a 242.

...are "red herrings".

A Dana 30 solid axle rear is a Dana 30 solid axle rear, regardless of whether it's in a 140 or a 240. An error in the GCR re: valve diameter is just that...an error. Is the lack of language allowing trans & diff coolers an error ? LOL.


The axle held together, but was it running too hot? What type of differential was used? TORSEN, Salisbury, welded, etc. Moot point without actual recorded temps.

So...you've never raced, and you're putting together a car that, to this date, has never turned a wheel on a track, but you're finding all sorts of weak links that you wish to be addressed by changes in the rules (or as you suggested, you'll just ignore the rules), even though you've never had these problems, and those with experience with these elements have never had these problems ? Am I getting this right ? So, we should consume the time of the CRB, to solve phantom problems ?


I can run a 3-link with a Mumford-link or Watts-link in the rear with a custom bevel gears in an alloy M30/Dana 30 axle and still be 100% ITB legal. I can also run trick aluminum Tilton style clutches and adjustble blade-type ARB's in ITB.

A whole net-full of red herrings. Yeah..those are allowed by the current rules. So what ? Trans & diff coolers aren't.


Sorry about the thread hijack, but isn't this about the letter written to allow additional oil coolers?

LOL. Thread-trajectory nannying.

Overt message: You'll ignore the rules you don't like.

Subliminal message: You really wanted to build a GT car.

[rsportvolvo]

One weak link: the Dana 30. I crewed for a friends ITB 242 and he had axle issues. Other friends racing Volvos recommended looking at options to keep diff temps down as they've had issues. You didn't have any issues or didn't check temps to see if you did, not sure which.

240 has a different engine and gearbox. So the next item down the power path is the differential.

Sorry my approach doesn't meet your approval. But then again neither does my car choice. I apologize for not asking first.

Like I said, when I get to the track come by and protest away.

[lateapex911]

Like I said, when I get to the track come by and protest away.

I hope you'll regret saying that, and it was a rash comment.

You have two honorable choices:


Campaign to get a rule you don't like changed.
Run a legal setup, and adjust your setup legally to deal with whatever issue confronts you.


Actually, a third. Put stickers on your car more in keeping with the prep level.

David, to be blunt, your current stance shows no respect for me, or my fellow rules abiding competitors. You are stating that you will choose to increase your performance via cheating. An accidental issue, I can understand, but this is a conscious and premeditated plan, which results in a malicious cheat, and I hope your fellow competitors are aware of your approach, and your lack of respect for them.

Greg, I believe you mean "Prop wash"...or in this case "Jet wash"....

[mbuskuhl]

fellow competitors

As long as rsportvolvo stays in the SOWDIV, there are no competitors to even file protests.

Latest standings have avg. car counts at:

ITA - 6.09
ITB - .36
ITC - .36
ITE - 1.09
ITR - .82
ITS - 2.73

It's a moot point.

Anyways, back to trans coolers. How about the competitive advantage "washer bottle".

[rsportvolvo]

CRB letter sent.

My intended tone is the lack of respect for how SCCA deals with IT issues. Not my fellow compeititors.

My point is that my car is going to be 100% legal and I welcome any protests regardless of the forum banter and subsequent speculation.

Does anyone have gearbox/transaxle/differential temp logs to provide some empirical evidence to the CRB?

[JohnRW]

"What's past is prologue" - William Shakespeare, "The Tempest" (Act 2, Scene 1)



My intended tone is the lack of respect for how SCCA deals with IT issues. Not my fellow compeititors.

Hmmm. In this thread in early 2006 ( http://72.167.111.130/forums/showthread.php?t=18440 ) about this very same subject, you stated:


I was boasting about running shot peened rods. But let me ask you this, if you protest my car for the rods being illegal how can you prove that I shot peened my rods? Did Volvo shot peen the rods from the Factory? Were the rods shot peened from another rebuild by a shot that uses shot to clean engine parts? Basically this modification only increases the life of the rod by increasing the rods fatigue life. If you're going to complain abou that I feel sorry for you. Same goes for someone who would protest the use of a diff. cooler. That makes for a satisifying victory!

If you suspect my car's illegal, put up or shutup. Not trying to be rude, but if you aren't going to protest, then you're just a whiner. No one likes a whiner and you are doing nothing about keeping IT honest. Oh, and the accused is, of course, innocent until proven guilty.

So...where is the "respect" that you claim to have ?

In that same thread, you wrote:


The differential is a Dana 30 and can easily handle the IT power ouput. Plate style limited slips can create a lot of heat. I am thinking about solutions before the problem arises.

...then in your most recent post, today, you write:


Does anyone have gearbox/transaxle/differential temp logs to provide some empirical evidence to the CRB?

Hmmm, again. You're only now looking for evidence to back up your requests for a rules change, that you had previously stated (2006 again) was based on looking for problems that didn't actually exist. Big thumbs up here.

[lateapex911]

Adding coolers should be a minimal impact considering all that can be done currently within the ITCS. I mentioned this awhile back and plan on running one regardless. The cost of a new differential is a lot more than a pump, lines and a cooler.

David, this is the comment that triggered my follow up. It seems clear from this that you plan to do what you want, in spite of the rules. How can we conclude otherwise?

And if you run one to spite the rulesmakers, are they the ones getting hurt? I am not following the logic.......

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am having a shit-ton of issues posting lately. Tons of time outs...

Anyway, I would support a diff cooler rule. We have an engine oil cooler allowance now. I would support it because we can upgrade our units with pretty trick stiff that spins umpteen more revs that stock so it makes sense to me. Same with motor mounts. I think because we are allowed to upgrade the engines to do more than what they were intended, we should be able to keep them from sloshing around without fabricating a stay rod.

Tranny cooler? No. Tranny's must be stock internally so I don't see a need really. Trying to keep this stuff 'making sense' in my head without expanding the performance envelope. Logical upgrades in keeping with other rules in the ITCS that are totally optional.

[Ron Earp]

Cool. Motor mounts and diff coolers. Can we get rid of the freaking washer bottle now? Cause the bottle sure doesn't have a damn thing to do with us going to Prod.

Ron, who is already dreaming of hydraulic drives from pinon mounted impellers cause inside his diff is free and diff coolers look like a lot of things. Might be illegal but from the looks of this thread illegal is in vogue now :blink:

[Rabbit07]

I am having a shit-ton of issues posting lately. Tons of time outs...

Anyway, I would support a diff cooler rule. We have an engine oil cooler allowance now. I would support it because we can upgrade our units with pretty trick stiff that spins umpteen more revs that stock so it makes sense to me. Same with motor mounts. I think because we are allowed to upgrade the engines to do more than what they were intended, we should be able to keep them from sloshing around without fabricating a stay rod.

Tranny cooler? No. Tranny's must be stock internally so I don't see a need really. Trying to keep this stuff 'making sense' in my head without expanding the performance envelope. Logical upgrades in keeping with other rules in the ITCS that are totally optional.


The Diffs are most of the problem I have seen. However FWD would require a trans cooler to accomplish the same thing, so I figured open it all up. Just my $.02

[Knestis]

Allowing RWD cars to use diff coolers without the same allowance for FWD cars is a post hoc competition adjustment. We're hurting gearboxes on the Golfs so there's little question that less heat would help them live longer, so leaving us without coolers puts us at an instant relative disadvantage. And FWD cars can make the same change (FD) to their gearboxes as the RWD guys/gals can to their 3rd members so "logical upgrades" applies.

What's good for the goose and all that, eh, wot...?

Hey - this creep thing is easier than I ever thought it would be! If I wanted to, I could just snip all of my arguments from past posts here.

:)

K

[Xian]

I am having a shit-ton of issues posting lately. Tons of time outs...

Anyway, I would support a [fill in the blank] rule. We have an [fill in the blank] allowance now. I would support it because we can upgrade our units with pretty trick stuff that [fill in the blank] than stock so it makes sense to me. Same with [fill in the blank] . I think because we are allowed to upgrade the engines to do more than what they were intended, we should be able to [fill in the blank] .

Really? Really, really?

Andy, please re-read your argument above. Maybe your issues posting are b/c of loose footing on the slippery slope you're currently navigating?

Christian, who, maybe just b/c it's been a long day, thinks you sound like a fuggin fool right now.

[Ron Earp]

Hey - this creep thing is easier than I ever thought it would be!
:)

K

See, see, you're catching on. You too can do it!!

[Xian]

See, see, you're catching on. You too can do it!!

Well, if I can't get a diff/tranny cooler installed and plumbed effectively, can I get an allowance for a non-factory transmission?

Also, with Andy's logic, I'd like an allowance for aftermarket rods and valvetrain so they can handle the "umpteen more revs than stock" I spin my engine to.

Christian, who's amazed that his tongue didn't poke thru his cheek writing this.

[Rabbit07]

Well, if I can't get a diff/tranny cooler installed and plumbed effectively, can I get an allowance for a non-factory transmission?

Also, with Andy's logic, I'd like an allowance for aftermarket rods and valvetrain so they can handle the "umpteen more revs than stock" I spin my engine to.

Christian, who's amazed that his tongue didn't poke thru his cheek writing this.

And as always we digress..........:rolleyes:

[Greg Amy]

See, see, you're catching on. You too can do it!!
Think that's fun? You should listen in on some of the theoretical conversations in the rental cars to and from the race tracks. Hell, Kirk and I have already figured out how to have full-up tube-frame cars in IT -- LEGALLY!

;)

[Andy Bettencourt]

The point of the excersize gentleman is that everyone has their line. Things are ok where they are. I would love a few of my personal pet peeves to go through but they aren't important to most.

[frnkhous]

Allowing RWD cars to use diff coolers without the same allowance for FWD cars is a post hoc competition adjustment. We're hurting gearboxes on the Golfs so there's little question that less heat would help them live longer, so leaving us without coolers puts us at an instant relative disadvantage. And FWD cars can make the same change (FD) to their gearboxes as the RWD guys/gals can to their 3rd members so "logical upgrades" applies.

What's good for the goose and all that, eh, wot...?

Hey - this creep thing is easier than I ever thought it would be! If I wanted to, I could just snip all of my arguments from past posts here.

:)

K


Kirk, your reading this wrong... diff coolers means you get a trans cooler poor bastards with seperate transmissons are out of luck. I mean you are cooling the diff right?:D

Brian who can't believe andy just posted that. I know atleast 4 people with 5.13's and zero issues in an rx-7. In fact the only person I personally know that has had an issue is because bolts backed out. I think somebody is doing the rx-7 diff's wrong, or else the current crop of 2k dollar final drive gears isn't being done correctly. That really isn't out of the question as it has happened in the past. I've seen a 4.4 or whatever the good stock diff was last 24hours straight without a cooler and still no issues. Sorry but change the fluid ever weekend and you shouldn't be having issues.

[Z3_GoCar]

SWISH!!!

(Picture of GA moving his hand across the top of his head, front to back...)

Greg,

Shouldn't that be:

Neeeeee......owww :D

[Ron Earp]

Hell, Kirk and I have already figured out how to have full-up tube-frame cars in IT -- LEGALLY!

;)

Tube frame? Hell, that is so yesterday....:)



Also, with Andy's logic, I'd like an allowance for aftermarket rods and valvetrain so they can handle the "umpteen more revs than stock" I spin my engine to.


See how easy it is? I dub thee Master of the Slippery Slope.

I'm gonna try. Ok, I'm putting my competitors on notice - I am not going to run a 2.6L motor because, well, because the 280Zs get to run a 2.8L motor and I've blown up too many 2.6L motors. Plus, there areeven bigger motors in ITS. Hell, phuck it, you know what? I'm not even going to run a Datsun motor anymore cause they don't seem to last as long as lots of other stuff. I'm going to run a 5L Ford motor.

Damn IT rules getting in the way of fun and all that. Wooo wheee I'm gonna be fast in '10!

[pfcs]

Hold it as a possibility that the comp board is the only people left with ANY idea what this class was (should be).
This talk is total senseless bullshit-what the fuck are you thinking?? Andy-please get off the ITAC-you don't belong there and neither did your vacuum line. Kirk-come on man! Don't you remember?
And regarding David Russel-who's long winded, "technically talented" ego driven posts I've endured all these years about a racecar that seems to exist in his mind only, IGNORE HIM! Pay no more attention to him, PLEASE!! And if he ever does get his 242 built, lets hope he puts an illegal diff cooler on his car just so somebody can protest him. What is this forum now, a playpen for the feeble-minded?

[Eagle7]

What is this forum now, a playpen for the feeble-minded?
Just silly-season pickin' up momentum.

[Knestis]

Hold it as a possibility that the comp board is the only people left with ANY idea what this class was (should be).
This talk is total senseless bullshit-what the fuck are you thinking?? Andy-please get off the ITAC-you don't belong there and neither did your vacuum line. Kirk-come on man! Don't you remember? ...

Seriously, Phil - even before the most recent kerblooie from the CRB, I'd pretty much resigned myself to the reality that my IT-Luddite ways were doomed, I was so outnumbered. As Greg has been saying for years, we will eventually end up with the IT that we (collectively) want.

I'm tired of feeling like that kid with his finger in the leaky dike. I'm tired of stupid, snotty washer bottle jokes. I'm tired of the whole thing. Chris asked about coolers at the ARRC. I told him to write the proposal because at this point, it's not IF we go sledding on that slope, it's WHEN. Unless a whole bunch of people decide they don't want to go there.

K

[Rabbit07]

Personally, I can't see why people would be adverse to coolers. Heat kills particlularly in longer races. I really don't see this as a performance advantage. Somewhere along the line someone on the CRB thought it would be ok to add an oil cooler to the engine. What is the difference with other components in the driveline? For quite some time now I have been using REM polish on final drives to reduce temperature, but that isn't always that practical or affordable for some. To me it's like an accusump or a baffled pan on an engine. We do these things not to make them faster, but to make them dependable.

[Ron Earp]

Personally, I can't see why people would be adverse to coolers.

Personally I am not adverse to them. If they make components last longer then can they lower the cost for the racer. I was only against the the basic disregard for the IT rules set that popped up on the thread, a comparison of washer bottles to diff coolers, and naturally tried to have some fun with it.

[Greg Amy]

Personally I am not adverse to them.
Neither am I. However, there is a distinct philosophical issue that we should be all keep in mind...


We do these things not to make them faster, but to make them dependable.

But Chris, it *is* about performance. Are there not options available in final drives and limited slips that cost less, last longer, and don't get as hot, yet offer lesser performance?

The problem here is that if we use 'dependability' as a standard we open the door to lot of unintended consequences. In the name of 'dependability', can't we allow the VW Rabbit guys to use the larger-OD Audi hubs? After all, a replacement hub won't make the Rabbit faster, just more dependable. Can Dave Gran use a redesigned rear hub? Can the Porsche 944 guys use the later-model front control arms? After all, none of these parts will make the car faster, just "more dependable". Can any number of other cars point to a design flaw in THEIR car that causes them to have to replace specific parts more than others, and ask for that to be allowed "in the name of dependability"?

And if you argue it's not a model-specific problem, that ALL cars have this problem (and opportunity), then all I have to do is find one car that does not have a final-drive overheating problem to disprove your theory.

So the philosophical argument here, noted earlier in the thread, is neatly summed up by the "warts and all" description. You choose your car, you learn its limitations, and you prep within those limits. Can't use the much-faster final drive design and LSD without blowing up? Then choose one that lasts longer; it's your decision to make. Yep, you may not be as fast, but you'll certainly spend less money (after all, this is about cost and dependability, not performance, right...?) Within the current philosophy of the rules everyone works within the limits of their vehicles either by replacing the parts on a regular basis, or choosing a different car more suited to their limitations.

Again, I'm not opposed to the idea of diff coolers, as long as you recognize that it's a FAR more complex issue than about just "about dependability" or "spending less money". Since both of those options are currently available to you with different rear-end parts, it's really actually about performance, AND dependability AND about spending less money.

GA

[seckerich]

I don't really care either way as the Mazda final drive does run hot. I have not killed one in 12 years so I have to disagree with the earlier post about their quality. I run a clutch type and do get heat with no problems if you change the fluid every weekend. I do know there was some junk on the market the last couple of years from someone who did them wrong.

I do disagree that there is not a performance advantage. Give me a cooler and a pump to circulate fluid and I will go faster. It is never as simple as it seems. Now back to my neutral corner.:026:

[JohnRW]

...and let's not forget that the bastard cousin of the dependability canard, the "safety" canard. Same family tree, different diseased branch.

IMO, IT started "wandering off the reservation" when the concept of "some cars are just turds" was forgotten.

Performance modifiers ? "Adjustments" ? If you want to close up the gap between performance of different cars...if you want all cars to have a chance on the podium...thenyou should be using tight set of rules, such as many of the formula classes, or the word "spec", as in "Spec Miata", or "Spec Racer Ford".

Allow all sorts of rules concessions...and spend enough money...on a turd, and you can possibly make it fast. There are plenty of other classes that allow for that. Why screw up IT to gratuitously accomodate the selection of turds as race cars ?

I know..."I'm sooo 1990"....

(edit)

My current enduro car, a 1.6 Miata, is a reliable car...mostly. They're known differential-eaters, and I fondly recall...recently...sticking the third diff of the weekend (really) into the car and dropping it off the jackstands ~30 minutes BEFORE the start of a 12 hour race. Never lost one during a race weekend before that or after, but it's part of the game. It's the one turd-like part, in an otherwise solid package. And....yes...I know EXACTLY how hot my diff gets...been underneath the car with an IR temp gun during an enduro pit stop. "Proper assembly techniques" and "suitable lubes" mitigate the problem.

[Xian]

And if you argue it's not a model-specific problem, that ALL cars have this problem (and opportunity), then all I have to do is find one car that does not have a final-drive overheating problem to disprove your theory.

To my knowledge, every Honda/Acura in ITC to ITR does just fine without a tranny/diff cooler.

BTW, can we get the ITA CRX and Civic guys bigger hubs? Maybe alternate brake rotors and calipers... they seem to go through brake components much faster at their higher (post-2005) weight.

Christian, looking for a "throwing popcorn" emoticon...

[tom_sprecher]

Now this is the IT.com I used to love. People bitchin' about this rule or that interpretation. It's been a little slow here while everyone was in the sandbox. I kinda missed it.

:popcorn:

[Ron Earp]

And if you argue it's not a model-specific problem, that ALL cars have this problem (and opportunity), then all I have to do is find one car that does not have a final-drive overheating problem to disprove your theory.

Ditto 240/260/280 Zs. Hard to kill them at IT power levels. Have run them all, welded,clutch pack, Quaife, open, and haven't broken one yet. 300z's have even beefier diffs so I imagine those will be relatively immune as well.

[callard]

Of the two Benzes that run enduros, the one with a welded dif never had a problem. The one that runs slips has lost three.
Chuck

[betamotorsports]

Two of the coolers on an IT car are already open - radiator and oil cooler. Anyone see any large scale escalation in running costs or a few class Goliaths are a result? :shrug:

Seems that most of the argument against diff and trans coolers is philosophical.

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/Assets/philosopher.jpg

[betamotorsports]

The problem here is that if we use 'dependability' as a standard we open the door to lot of unintended consequences. In the name of 'dependability', can't we allow the VW Rabbit guys to use the larger-OD Audi hubs? After all, a replacement hub won't make the Rabbit faster, just more dependable. Can Dave Gran use a redesigned rear hub? Can the Porsche 944 guys use the later-model front control arms? After all, none of these parts will make the car faster, just "more dependable". Can any number of other cars point to a design flaw in THEIR car that causes them to have to replace specific parts more than others, and ask for that to be allowed "in the name of dependability"?Why not? What's wrong with improving the car and making it more dependable? Why is that a negative in regards Improved Touring?

The rule set is not sacrosanct. Its not a religious document. There is a process to amend it and there's nothing wrong with making the effort even if it goes against a class philosophy. Maybe its time to update the philosophy. The E36 killed the concept of a low cost racing category so why are we still clinging to the idea that IT is low cost racing?

[Greg Amy]

You know, John, you might have a good point there: why have rules at all? Why have limitations? Why have a philosophy to guide us? Maybe we should just open it up, maybe set up a default minimum standard (something like, "used to be a production car some time in its life") and let folks do whatever they want? I mean, restrictions are so...you know, restricting, that if we open it up, let folks "run whatcha brung" we'd all have a lot more fun...

I think that's a good idea: send a request to the CRB, requesting that all sections be stricken in Improved Touring. After all, how can you be "improved" when you're still running the same rules as way back in the Pinto days?!?!

:shrug:

[JeffYoung]

Oh Jesus, I agree with THE GREG AMY.

Besides, if you have no rules, you might end up with secret military tribunals instead of Stewards and Appeals.

[Andy Bettencourt]

POPULARITY OF IT killed the concept of a low cost racing...

Fixed that for you. :D

[Bill Miller]

Neither am I. However, there is a distinct philosophical issue that we should be all keep in mind...



But Chris, it *is* about performance. Are there not options available in final drives and limited slips that cost less, last longer, and don't get as hot, yet offer lesser performance?

The problem here is that if we use 'dependability' as a standard we open the door to lot of unintended consequences. In the name of 'dependability', can't we allow the VW Rabbit guys to use the larger-OD Audi hubs? After all, a replacement hub won't make the Rabbit faster, just more dependable. Can Dave Gran use a redesigned rear hub? Can the Porsche 944 guys use the later-model front control arms? After all, none of these parts will make the car faster, just "more dependable". Can any number of other cars point to a design flaw in THEIR car that causes them to have to replace specific parts more than others, and ask for that to be allowed "in the name of dependability"?

And if you argue it's not a model-specific problem, that ALL cars have this problem (and opportunity), then all I have to do is find one car that does not have a final-drive overheating problem to disprove your theory.

So the philosophical argument here, noted earlier in the thread, is neatly summed up by the "warts and all" description. You choose your car, you learn its limitations, and you prep within those limits. Can't use the much-faster final drive design and LSD without blowing up? Then choose one that lasts longer; it's your decision to make. Yep, you may not be as fast, but you'll certainly spend less money (after all, this is about cost and dependability, not performance, right...?) Within the current philosophy of the rules everyone works within the limits of their vehicles either by replacing the parts on a regular basis, or choosing a different car more suited to their limitations.

Again, I'm not opposed to the idea of diff coolers, as long as you recognize that it's a FAR more complex issue than about just "about dependability" or "spending less money". Since both of those options are currently available to you with different rear-end parts, it's really actually about performance, AND dependability AND about spending less money.

GA

This.

Couple of points though. The Quad4 cars were given rear discs to replace their stock rear drums, allegedly because there was a problem with them. I've asked about this several times, but nobody seems to know when and why this seemingly radical departure from the IT philosophy was allowed. And IIRC, in response to a request for something that would increase engine longevity, the AS folks were pretty much told that increased longevity was deemed to be a competitive advantage.

BTW, I've ignored the nonsense from the guy w/ the 242 Volvo because, well, just because! :D

[Knestis]

... The rule set is not sacrosanct. Its not a religious document. There is a process to amend it and there's nothing wrong with making the effort even if it goes against a class philosophy. ...?

Sigh.

<goes to look for STU rules>

K

[lateapex911]

Fixed that for you. :D

thankyou...saved me some typing!

[Xian]

This.

Couple of points though. The Quad4 cars were given rear discs to replace their stock rear drums, allegedly because there was a problem with them. I've asked about this several times, but nobody seems to know when and why this seemingly radical departure from the IT philosophy was allowed. And IIRC, in response to a request for something that would increase engine longevity, the AS folks were pretty much told that increased longevity was deemed to be a competitive advantage.

BTW, I've ignored the nonsense from the guy w/ the 242 Volvo because, well, just because! :D

Found this link with some info about the brake thing HERE (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showpost.php?p=142000&postcount=13)... nothing completely cut and dry but it sounds like a case of the safety and durability cards being played simultaneously.

[lateapex911]

nice digging! Came straight from SS.. that makes sense, sorta!

[betamotorsports]

You know, John, you might have a good point there: why have rules at all? Why have limitations?

Makes things a lot easier in tech... :-)

I'm not advocating elimination of the ruleset. What I am advocating is a ruleset that can be changed via member input and a willingness to review a 30 year old philosophy behind a ruleset. I don't know about your regions, but here in Cal Club IT is severely wounded. NASA's PT category for basically IT prepped cars has double and triple the turnout at events. Maybe their points mod classing philosophy has something to do with that?

[Ron Earp]

What I am advocating is a ruleset that can be changed via member input and a willingness to review a 30 year old philosophy behind a ruleset.

DING!

Game on. Race reason has officially ended and the Winter IT.com rules discussions have started.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's a very fine line we all walk here. Each of us has in our mind what the category should look and feel like. There has to be a line. My line is different from Kirk's whos is different from Vaughn's whos is different from Jeff's and so on and so on. If we changed everything based on 'member desire', we WOULD be Prod. In a thread a while back I listed all the things that had been requested last year. Kirk even put together a 'new' ITCS based on requests and it was hilarious.

It's hard to hold out to the pressure of the little things - and I am guilty of thinking motor mounts and diff coolers should really be allowed - but I am also not going to sweat it or burp "the same ole SCCA" when it gets shot down.

I think the majority of IT racers like the WAA theory (warts and all). You can call on it from washer bottles to legacy weighting issues. In anything *I* do, I look at the rules, weigh the chances and make a choice. No different here. We just have to accept it.

[Ron Earp]

It's a very fine line we all walk here. Each of us has in our mind what the category should look and feel like. There has to be a line. My line is different from Kirk's whos is different from Vaughn's whos is different from Jeff's and so on and so on. If we changed everything based on 'member desire', we WOULD be Prod.

If you changed everything, yes, it would be prod.

But I think you can come up with a short list of items that the majority of members would think ok to change. We did this some time ago with a couple of polls and I think due to my wording on the polls the results were a bit off.

One interesting thing is we don't ever put these rule change concepts up for a member vote. We've got the ITAC to recommend or control changes, which we hope reflect IT racer interests, but even so ITAC members are not elected by the IT majority. They are picked (volunteered, drafted, forced) to do the job from the IT base. So the ITAC may, or may not, reflect actual IT membership wants.

Maybe we should have some fun this off-season and pick a few topics, like diff coolers, and have an ITAC vote and a "IT.com" vote and see how they line up.

And I'm not going anywhere on this. I'm just bored in hold with the credit card company cause my card has been compromised for the second time this year.:(

[Andy Bettencourt]

But I think you can come up with a short list of items that the majority of members would think ok to change.

I don't. This is the vocal minority here.

And your list is different than my list. And each one wouldhave to have a benefit to the whole class. Andso on and so on.

[Ron Earp]

I don't. This is the vocal minority here.

n.

Can't if you don't try.

I bet you a Benjamin if we made a list of things that could be changed, mailed it to all active IT racers as a questionnaire, the results would show a handful common denominators.

[Andy Bettencourt]

We need to understand if the silent majoroty is silent because they like the rules the way they are, are indifferent, or don't care at all. OR, value stability more than the little pissy items we all are about every winter.

[spawpoet]

We need to understand if the silent majoroty is silent because they like the rules the way they are, are indifferent, or don't care at all. OR, value stability more than the little pissy items we all are about every winter.

I don't agree with that at all. The vast majority of people who are unhappy with a product aren't likely to put much effort into making their dissatisfaction heard. They will simply shop elsewhere. Sounds like the SCCA may be running into this in John's region.

[pfcs]

IF IT AIN"T BROKE, DON"T FIX IT!!!!!!

Everyone who has an IT car ought to have an idea of many things within the current ruleset they could do to improve their car. If they don't, then either they're unimaginative or have unlimited free time to act on what they've imagined. All the time I had one, I never had enough time to do everything I wanted to do.
I suggest putting creative energy into something that exists (your car)rather than something that doesn't (new IT rules).
AND-it's more satisfying-it produces tangible results. Trust me-it does.

[Ron Earp]

We need to understand if the silent majoroty is silent because they like the rules the way they are, are indifferent, or don't care at all. OR, value stability more than the little pissy items we all are about every winter.

How so?

They can choose to respond to the questionnaire or not respond. Participate in the process or not. Their choice. In a democracy if you choose not to vote you are choosing to not have a say in the process.

You're proposing that we find out what the people think that won't participate in the process. I don't think that is the way to do it. If you aren't interested enough to respond to a questionnaire then you don't give a damn and by not giving a damn don't have a say.

Only a small percentage of folks vote in off-year or local elections. Would you agree we need to make those results void because a majority, 50% or greater, wouldn't vote?

R

[Rabbit07]

For some reason I am always amazed at how passionate people can be about this stuff. I guess that just shows how much people care about their racing!:)

I only noticed this year that some cars seemed to be having issues with high temps in differentials as a result of running numerically higher gear ratios. I know that better fluid and changing it often midigates the issue. I have had issues with the Neon recarding P/S overtemp and would like to correct it. I don't believe because lines are open that I can arbitrarly add a cooler. I guess I am not willing to read that much into a rule. I think that kind of thinking is what gets the rules making body nervous about rule changes. Give them a mm and they will take a km. I agree with Andy that we all have our own lines to draw in the sand. I say if you agree that we should open up coolers or not please send your letters.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Just saying we don't know why the majority is silent and I think you may be surprsied.

[Knestis]

I've said (or typed) something like this about 1000 times in the past 6 years or so but if you think your rationale for (whatever you want) is sound, would you accept that same argument for every other new allowance proposed by every other IT racer in the US...?

If NOT - if you actually look at the specific allowance as either OK or not OK based on your beliefs, goals, expectations, etc. - then your rationale doesn't hold water in the greater scheme of things.

K

[Ron Earp]

Some of you fellows think if we poll 1000 IT racers we'll get 1000 unique items that folks want changed. I don't think that is going to happen.

But before worrying about that, let me pose this question:


What if 96% of all 2008 active IT racers were polled and 87.5% of those polled came back and said that X should be changed. Would the ITAC recommend that X be changed?

[pfcs]

This is NOT a democracy and never was meant to be!

What is required is an enlightened despot or we'll screw the pooch! Promised.

Look at NASCAR if you don't understand.
If only the squeaky wheel gets oiled, we end up with a new disaster like production.
Those who don't remember the past repeat it. IT as Cal-Club started it was 1963 production car rules!!! Get a life-leave these rules alone. Don't you have anything better to do with yourselves? If you're so smart, fix your car instead of whining.

[lateapex911]

Time marches on. 1963 rules are great for 1963 cars. Our cars start at 1968. That's freaking old, LOL. (I must admit that I LOVED seeing Blakes 914 at teh ARRCs this year, but sad he has terminal issues with the IT program)

Not many 1968 cars running around any more. I imagine typical cars are 25 or 30 years newer, with different technology, and the philosophy of the category has to to accommodate the newer cars, and fit them into the mix with the old. So, sometimes rules need to be added, or changed a bit to accommodate that. Safety gear has changed, and with it we have new allowances and new rules.

So, Phil, I see your point, but clinging absolutely to the old rules is just impossible if we want to remain current. This will surprise him, but I see, and agree with his basic point though. I think most of the recent changes he objects too were set in motion over 5 years ago, (before the 'current" ITAC), and once the genie is out of the bottle...

[betamotorsports]

They will simply shop elsewhere. Sounds like the SCCA may be running into this in John's region.

Although by no means scientific, I think the drop in IT participation in Cal Club is more a result of drivers moving to dual use cars. We see a number of SM/ITA Miatas, Spec and Pro RX7s, ITR/ITE E36s, etc. at SCCA events. This really impacts the IT classes like ITB, ITC, and ITS where participation is almost nil.

At NASA events we see a lot of folks running the same car in the Time Trial (TT) and Pro Touring (PT) groups because the rule set is the same. That setup is very appealing to families who come out and run because one spouse can do a time trial and the other car do a wheel to wheel race in the same car at the same event.

Also, most of the older iT prepped cars (BMW 2002, Datsun 240Z, Alphas, 914s, etc.) have gone to VARA and HRS West. These cars sometimes come out every now and then and run with Cal Club but just as a test day, not as a serious competitor.

IT is dying. I wish folks would realize that.

[Ron Earp]

Let me throw this out there again to the ITAC folks:


What if 96% of all 2008 active IT racers were polled and 87.5% of those polled came back and said that X should be changed. Would the ITAC recommend that X be changed?

Is it, or ain't it, a club by racers for racers?

[pfcs]

I hope the answer would be "possibly".....and if they did, I'd hope the overlords would be VERY conservative about approving it, IE, they would use the collective wisdom of their great (one hopes they have) experience. That said, I'm still very uncomfortable with the club hierarchy. Bozzoism isn't confined to the grass roots, its pervasive in this club. If I sound elitist, sorry, but I've been here a long time and I know what I know.

[lateapex911]

Let me throw this out there again to the ITAC folks:

What if 96% of all 2008 active IT racers were polled and 87.5% of those polled came back and said that X should be changed. Would the ITAC recommend that X be changed?

Is it, or ain't it, a club by racers for racers?

Ron, we're throwing ourselves on the sword over big issues because we feel the racers want certain principals. Ask Jeff. Ask Kirk.

My answer to such a blind and hypothetical question is "I'd give it a good hard look", and "Probably", but, also, "It depends".

[Xian]

I have had issues with the Neon recarding P/S overtemp and would like to correct it. I don't believe because lines are open that I can arbitrarly add a cooler. I guess I am not willing to read that much into a rule.

There's a 100% legal, easy fix for this within the current ruleset.

Next!

Christian

[Ron Earp]

My answer to such a blind and hypothetical question is "I'd give it a good hard look", and "Probably", but, also, "It depends".

I like that answer, fair.

Let's up the percentage to 93.5% of IT racers support a fundamental change to move IT off one of the core principles, hmmm, something like retention of heater cores. The members just say they hate it, they want the rule gone, no more heater cores or HVAC in the car. Some members of the ITAC say sure, change it, but a small faction of ITACers say "no, we're sticking with the core dual purpose principles laid out 30 years ago".

When what? Can a very small minority keep IT rooted deeply in the past even if the racing members do not want it? When do the wants of the many outweigh the wants of the few? Or the one?

[pfcs]

Jake Gulick:
So, Phil, I see your point, but clinging absolutely to the old rules is just impossible if we want to remain current.

Agree-but explain the need to drop the "true dual purpose" clause (sounds like it still works in California), remove pass seat, gut(lighten)drivers door for "nascar" bars, remove headliner, replace intake duct on certain Jap cars, etc, etc. Those aspects of cars haven't changed and had no real need for change except to meddle with the rules and change the philosophy and tenor of the class. Differentials fall into the same category and so, of course, do washerbottles. They're pretty much made the same as they were 30 years ago only, hopefully, better.

[jumbojimbo]

IT is dying. I wish folks would realize that.

a. And opening the rules would change this how?

b. You must be joking. If IT is dying, what do you call Prod and GT? Not to mention SS and AS.

[lateapex911]

Jake Gulick:
So, Phil, I see your point, but clinging absolutely to the old rules is just impossible if we want to remain current.

Agree-but explain the need to drop the "true dual purpose" clause (sounds like it still works in California), remove pass seat, gut(lighten)drivers door for "nascar" bars, remove headliner, replace intake duct on certain Jap cars, etc, etc. Those aspects of cars haven't changed and had no real need for change except to meddle with the rules and change the philosophy and tenor of the class. Differentials fall into the same category and so, of course, do washerbottles. They're pretty much made the same as they were 30 years ago only, hopefully, better.

Phil, (By the way, I haven't seen you at Lime Rock in quite some time. I was going to come over once and say hi, but it looked like you and your daughters were pretty busy packing up, and I missed the chance)

I'm sure you posed the items more rhetorically, but I'll take a stab. At least at a few that I have a clue on.

Remove pass seat, headliner: Before my time, but, I'd guess it had to do with making it easier for guys getting wrecked/stolen/salvage cars to get them on the track, without having to worry about sourcing stock things like that. Of course, the rule doesn't mandate the removal. The headliner weighs nothing, and the pass seat is often weight where it's needed, or would go anyway.

THe NASCAR bars: My take on this is that it was a reaction to some incidents that occurred. (Pocono Corvette incident maybe?), and that, in order to entice folks to beef up intrusion safety, the rulesmakers (CRB) offered to trade door weight. I think they thought the bars were sorta close to the guts weightwise, and thought even if they were lighter, it was a worthy trade. Again, a hunch based on talks I've had with some CRB guys.
Actually, I think all your examples are from before my tenure. THe dropping of the dual purpose item, I guess that was just a reaction to the percentages...I drove my car to the track my first year, 93, but even then, I was rare. I remember getting to the track, unloading, changing ride height, mufflers, etc. I know you did too, but even 10 years ago, I'd say the number of driver/racers was 1 -3%. And I think you can still do it if you want.
There are some rules I wish hadn't been changed, but I'm happy we've said 'no" to requests like: alt batt location, plexi windows, composite body parts, removal of bumper, alt transmissions, and so on.

[Andy Bettencourt]

IT is dying. I wish folks would realize that.

I wonder if the Nationwide stats back you up. IT is as strong as ever in the Northeast and Southeast. Car counts may be down across the board - but are they relative to other classes? Not here. You certainly could be right - I am sure the data exists.

[Z3_GoCar]

I wonder if the Nationwide stats back you up. IT is as strong as ever in the Northeast and Southeast. Car counts may be down across the board - but are they relative to other classes? Not here. You certainly could be right - I am sure the data exists.

This years winner of ITA told me he's planning on running Radial Sedan next year, partly because of lack of competition :shrug:

Jake,

Don't forget that part of IT prep is removing all the smog crap that's required for most street cars made over the past 34 years. That in itself will eliminate dual purpose cars at the highest prep level.

[Knestis]

Let me throw this out there again to the ITAC folks:

What if 96% of all 2008 active IT racers were polled and 87.5% of those polled came back and said that X should be changed. Would the ITAC recommend that X be changed?
Is it, or ain't it, a club by racers for racers?

There are things that democracies don't let majorities choose (e.g., impositions on minority civil rights). Similarly, there are aspects of IT that frankly a small group of people with a sense of perspective might need to prevent a majority of people with selfish or short-sighted views from buggering up.

And where would you put the cut score? 96% gets it done but 95% doesn't...? If it does, how about 90%? 80%? A simple majority...?

Or MAYBE, how about if only people with more than 20 years of experience racing in the category get to vote...

:026:

K

[JeffYoung]

Ron asks a very interesting question.

My take on the answer is this.

(a) There are a set of core IT values that can't be touched. Compression. Valvetrain. Displacement. Stock brakes. Stock suspension pickup points. Stock body panels. etc. Yes, I agree that this list, like all "lines in the sand," is subjective, but for these items, no majority of the IT masses should be able to "overrule" the ITAC/CRB/BOD and change them.

(b) For other changes...washer bottles, jacking points, motor mounts, etc....I think the ITAC should listen to member input and treat a significant portion of members requesting the change as a "reason" to do so. Right now, all of these requests get shot down by a the simple response of "no reason for the change." For me, on a non-core IT value, membership wanting it is a reason. It isn't the end of the analysis. We have to take a hard look at costs involved, unintended consequences, etc., but we should be less dismissive of membership requests on non-core values than we are.

And yes, I know that we will all view what is a non-core value change request differently.

My thoughts anyway.

[Bill Miller]

The way I see it, once the open ECU rule was pushed through, the people that did it don't have a leg to stand on vis-a-vis 'clinging to principles'. Talk about lack of internal consistency.

I also find it interesting that people are worrying about things like this, when you don't even have a rules-making body that's willing to treat all cars equally.

And IIRC, it was stated in the ITCS upwards of 10 years ago, that the dual-purpose nature of IT cars was no longer valid.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The problem is that everyone has a different idea of what 9.1.3.A means. And Jeff, you aren't talking about values, you are talkimg about rules.

[JeffYoung]

Same thing actually, values are put into practice via rules.

I didn't do a good job of backing Ron up. Here is what I meant:

1. A vast majority of IT racers would agree that changing suspension pick up points, etc. are core values that should never be changed by leadership.

2. A vast majority of IT racers would agree that things like the washer bottle are not core values that leadership could change without changing the fundamental nature of IT.

I do understand, on point 2, that we need to look hard at each change for unintended consequences, and for a reason for doing it. But I continue to maintain, which I think is Ron's point, that we can't dismiss "membership wants it" as a reason.

[betamotorsports]

I wonder if the Nationwide stats back you up. IT is as strong as ever in the Northeast and Southeast. Car counts may be down across the board - but are they relative to other classes? Not here. You certainly could be right - I am sure the data exists.I don't have the national data. I should have qualified my "IT is dying." statement to the region I'm most familiar with - Cal Club. I know of 3 wheel-to-wheel race cars being built from the ground up right now: an E36 BMW, a first gen RX7, and a Miata. None of these are planned or being built for IT and all the builders are long time SCCA members.

The Southeast has always been a hotbed of IT and will probably remain so forever. The ARRC is a huge draw for IT folks and having it in the SE region is great fro IT participation.

I know this won't be popular, but here's my simple opinion of where IT should go:

1. Eligibility should be any car 5 to 25 model years old. Anything older should be running Vintage (whether SCCA creates a vintage category or not is beyond this discussion). Anything younger should be running Touring or SS.

2. Acknowledge that these are purpose built race cars and not dual purpose street/track cars. Allow greater levels of non-vehicle specific race prep for safety and reliability - no HVAC required, coolers allowed, no washer bottle required, no wipers required, etc.

3. Allow competition adjustments (primarily weight) but limit them to changes every 2 years for each vehicle.

4. Allow rear spoilers up to some height and width limit.

5. Most other IT rules are retained - stock body panels, no wings, glass windows, stock dash, no internal engine mods, stock transmissions, wheel size limits, stock suspension mounting points, stock pedal boxes, etc.

[seckerich]

Comp adjustments = politics = dead class.
Wipers are good, we put stock ones on our RX8 GT cars (might allow blades to be removed when not needed.
Wings = Bling You have been around NASA a while.

You live in a vacuum in CA where Nasa is big and IT is small. It is nothing for us to have 60 different drivers in each class earning points and 25 + car classes in ITS, ITA, etc. You do not have drivers building IT cars because there is nobody to race with. Another draw in the Southeast/Northeast is the enduro series that allow double and triple dipping for drivers with IT or SM. Most of the driver and team losses in IT over the last few years went to Spec Miata. Many are coming back and ITR is starting to grow. Hard to see screwing that up to please the vocal few.

And for Rons sake: ditch the washer bottle if any resulting openings are sealed. :happy204:

[Ron Earp]

And for Rons sake: ditch the washer bottle if any resulting openings are sealed. :happy204:

Gone already. It melted in the fire at my first IT race as a novice at CMP, a very memorable weekend and one of the reasons I love CMP so much. Space it vacated was replaced with a oil catch can, which the car needed anyhow.

Yes, Jeff has succinctly stated what I was trying to convey. I believe if you search far and wide you'll find that core values are pretty much agreed upon all over - stock pickup points, low motor prep, stock tranny gears, and so on.

And, I think if you poll the membership you'll find a lot of agreement on changing some non-core IT rules like HVACs, heater cores, and wipers.

We can banter back and forth all day about what we think the IT population will agree on but without a solid IT racer survey we'll never really know. Now, I'd be willing to pony up some money to do a proper survey (and Kirk I know you know what that involves) as I have some connections via my wife's work that could help. The survey could be designed with the ITAC's guidance.
But the crux of the question is would anything be done with the results? What if 100% of the IT racers came back and said "you know what, we've decided that all IT race cars are going to be painted red, white, and blue", would the ITAC push for that change? The racers want it, will the club give them what they want?

[Xian]

You know the answer to that already... ;)

[Andy Bettencourt]

I would support anything that the membership was behind as a majority provided it had justification and it was proven to be a valid survey sent to every IT racer.

By supporting it, I mean at the very least I would present it in an unbiased fashion to the CRB for their decision.

[Z3_GoCar]

Comp adjustments = politics = dead class.
Wipers are good, we put stock ones on our RX8 GT cars (might allow blades to be removed when not needed.
Wings = Bling You have been around NASA a while.

...You live in a vacuum in CA where Nasa is big and IT is small. .....



I beg to differ, So-Pac covers Arizona and Southern Neveda too BTW, Look at IT from anyplace West of the Missippi River. With the exception on double-dipping Miatae in ITA, there's nothing happening. ITR is DOA, ask Josh how many other ITR cars he's run aginst this season or last.

Check out our numbers from this seasons standings:

http://www.calclub.com/html/html2/2009/2009r_points_11_03_09.htm

We've got more Formula Atlantic's and Fords than GT, Production, IT (except for ITA-SM double dippers and ITE-T1/ITR double dippers), T#, or SS cars running regionals. The fact is IT IS broken.

[Andy Bettencourt]

James,

So you haev proven that it is not popular in your area. Some have proven it is immensly popular in their areas. Is IT broken? If it is, how is it ?

Here in the Northeast, ITS and ITA can outnumber EVERY class except for SM. At some events, IT represents over 25% of the entries.

[betamotorsports]

I guess since IT is a "regional" class we can go our own way with the rules... Oh wait, IT is a Regional class with a National rule set. So what's good for the SE region is good for the SoPac region...

[Greg Amy]

Do you really think that the reason I.T. is poorly-subscribed in your part of the country is because of the ruleset?

Do you really think that if you opened up the ruleset for I.T. that it would increase participation?

Seriously?

:shrug:

[seckerich]

I guess since IT is a "regional" class we can go our own way with the rules... Oh wait, IT is a Regional class with a National rule set. So what's good for the SE region is good for the SoPac region...

No, but it is pretty stupid to think the rules for the country should be changed to accomodate you and your "possible" IT car and the other 2 cars per year. IT is poorly subscribed in your area--big deal, run another class or start your own "Bling Bling Wing" as a regional only class. Most of us actively recruit drivers to IT and help them purchase cars to grow the class. We have ITO and ITU for those that don't quite like the rules. I can send you the rules or you can look them up on the sediv website. People run IT because rules are relatively stable and we don't go off half cocked every time someone wants a special exception for their perceived problem.

[betamotorsports]

Do you really think that the reason I.T. is poorly-subscribed in your part of the country is because of the ruleset?

Do you really think that if you opened up the ruleset for I.T. that it would increase participation?

Its not the one reason but it does contribute something to competitor's choices to build different cars or run with a different sanctioning body.


No, but it is pretty stupid to think the rules for the country should be changed to accomodate you and your "possible" IT car and the other 2 cars per year.

Nice.



Most of us actively recruit drivers to IT and help them purchase cars to grow the class.

Me too. I've built five IT level cars for customers who have chosen to run the car somewhere other then IT. Their reasons were varied but I heard complaints from every one some small aspect of IT rules (HVAC, coolers, roll cage limitations, etc.). Will accomodating all their complaints bring them back into the IT fold. Probably not.

Just trying to help with the discussion.

[Rabbit07]

There's a 100% legal, easy fix for this within the current ruleset.

Next!

Christian

Hold on just a second. Where do you see that there is a 100% legal solution in this?


h. Oil pans, pan baffles, scrapers, windage trays, oil pickups,
lines, and filters are unrestricted. Oil and power steering hoses
may be replaced with metal braided hose (i.e. Aeroquip). A
pressure accumulator/”Accusump” may be fitted. The location
of the filter and accumulator are unrestricted, but they shall
be securely mounted within the bodywork. All oil lines that
pass into or through the driver/passenger compartment shall
be metal or metal braided hose. Dry sump systems are prohibited
unless fitted as standard equipment. Engine oil and oil
additives are unrestricted.


Power Steering lines are not open, it says very specificly what you can replace them with. No where have I seen a braided stainless hose cooler for sale?

[Ron Earp]

Power Steering lines are not open, it says very specificly what you can replace them with. No where have I seen a braided stainless hose cooler for sale?



Some of the old American cars used to have PS hoses with fins......

[Rabbit07]

Some of the old American cars used to have PS hoses with fins......

I know, but even so, the way the rule reads is that the car would have to have that on them from the factory to be legal.

[Ron Earp]

Replace the hoses with real small diameter ones that have kinks in them.

[Rabbit07]

:)

[JeffYoung]

Exactly. I'm not sure it is a huge intorturation to say that a finned cooler is metal braided hose (I'm serious). It is metal braided hose.

Or what if you ran your thin hose back and forth through a "bracket" in the air stream......

[jumbojimbo]

We've got more Formula Atlantic's and Fords than GT, Production, IT .... The fact is IT IS broken.

While in the midwest we say the opposite. We're going to have a hard time getting anywhere when our realities are so different. With 8-10 car ITC fields in GLD you will not convince me ITC is dead or that the rules need to be changed.

I guess the part I still don't get is how this new an improved IT that you guys want to build to resurect IT in your area is so different from Prod? Or, if there is really a need for this Improved IT in California, why not create a regional set of ITT classes or a slightly restricted Prod? Why bugger up the classes that work here for us here?

On a completely seperate note I'm intrigued by this notion of dual use cars in NASA CA. You have hordes of gentleman racers building 1/2 prepped cars, racing them on Sunday and the wife PDX's it on Saturday? I have to think 97% of the people reading this are laughing out loud right now at the thought or their spouse driving the car on Saturday. But, I grew up in CA, I know it's different out there...

[Xian]

You guys are making it more difficult than it has to be...

Start looking at other sections of the ITCS. Specifically the pulley area (and no, I'm not just talking about underdrive pulleys although they're a good starting point).

[pfcs]

As a paraplegic I needed power steering BAD. I ran it at about 50% on the Golf and the fluid stopped foaming and blowing out of the reservoir.

[Ron Earp]

Or what if you ran your thin hose back and forth through a "bracket" in the air stream......

Or crushed it up under something during an engine install.

Or had a broken pump. Pumps that don't pump fluid can't overheat.

[Rabbit07]

You guys are making it more difficult than it has to be...

Start looking at other sections of the ITCS. Specifically the pulley area (and no, I'm not just talking about underdrive pulleys although they're a good starting point).

And what exactly are you implying? Enlighten me?

[lateapex911]

I think I know. Does it..well, I'll keep mum...

[JeffYoung]

christian, that is a great find, and answers that question for me.

It harkens back to the time when IT was designed to be "the place for old SS cars to go." Since the SSA Calais and Achieva were allowed the upgrade in SS, it made sense under the "old system" to allow them to carry it over into IT.

I do think we should be proactive and remove it though. It's a problematic oddity to explain to others.


Found this link with some info about the brake thing HERE (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showpost.php?p=142000&postcount=13)... nothing completely cut and dry but it sounds like a case of the safety and durability cards being played simultaneously.

[Xian]

And what exactly are you implying? Enlighten me?

I'm not implying... I'm flat out stating that there is a legal solution to your PS overheating problem. Sometimes the answer isn't to rewrite a rule, it's to think deeper and broader on how to take advantage of the current ruleset to solve your problem.

Tell ya' what, swing by my paddock at next years ARRC and we can talk about it over a beer or 6 if you don't have it sorted out by then. (FWIW, I was the blue Civic trying to close in on you during the ARRC Sprint this year. Couldn't quite pull it off though... you've definitely got some straight line talent compared to where I was!).

Christian

[Marcus Miller]

I'm not implying... I'm flat out stating that there is a legal solution to your PS overheating problem. Sometimes the answer isn't to rewrite a rule, it's to think deeper and broader on how to take advantage of the current ruleset to solve your problem.

Tell ya' what, swing by my paddock at next years ARRC and we can talk about it over a beer or 6 if you don't have it sorted out by then. (FWIW, I was the blue Civic trying to close in on you during the ARRC Sprint this year. Couldn't quite pull it off though... you've definitely got some straight line talent compared to where I was!).

Christian

Christian is being modest, he has got an F`ing brilliant way of solving this....:happy204:
Its very Penske-can-am/trans-am day of old esque. though, legal. :eclipsee_steering:

[Greg Amy]

OK: Uncle. I have no idea what you guys are talking about.

However, PS coolers are free simply because of D.3.b: "Oil cooler(s) may be added or substituted." Power steering is part of the engine. Power steering fluid is a hydraulic oil. It needs to be cooled.

Thus, power steering fluid radiators are free. Always have been.

GA, whose NX2000 came with a PS cooler from the factory; well, if you consider a steel tube that passes left then right across the front of the car a "cooler". SE-Rs actually have finned coolers stock...

[Rabbit07]

OK: Uncle. I have no idea what you guys are talking about.

However, PS coolers are free simply because of D.3.b: "Oil cooler(s) may be added or substituted." Power steering is part of the engine. Power steering fluid is a hydraulic oil. It needs to be cooled.

Thus, power steering fluid radiators are free. Always have been.

GA, whose NX2000 came with a PS cooler from the factory; well, if you consider a steel tube that passes left then right across the front of the car a "cooler". SE-Rs actually have finned coolers stock...

I am sorry if this seems like a stretch to me? Power Steering is part of the steering system, not the engine? Following your logic Greg, the transmission is part of the engine also since it bolts to the engine, so trans coolers are open also. :p

I am not trying to be arguementative, but I just interpret the rule differently.........

[Rabbit07]

I'm not implying... I'm flat out stating that there is a legal solution to your PS overheating problem. Sometimes the answer isn't to rewrite a rule, it's to think deeper and broader on how to take advantage of the current ruleset to solve your problem.

Tell ya' what, swing by my paddock at next years ARRC and we can talk about it over a beer or 6 if you don't have it sorted out by then. (FWIW, I was the blue Civic trying to close in on you during the ARRC Sprint this year. Couldn't quite pull it off though... you've definitely got some straight line talent compared to where I was!).

Christian

Christian I never drink on race weekends ( As my nose grows longer) :) I would like to see your idea. My point is that this very creative rules interpretation stuff is why we have a difficult time adjusting rules even if they make sense.

And yeah Neons handle well in a stright line. I can tell you though that my striaghtline speeds are not the highest in the class.

[Greg Amy]

Power Steering is part of the steering system, not the engine?
Then explain why power steering lines are mentioned in D.1.h, "Reciprocating Engines": "Oil and power steering hoses may be replaced with metal braided hose (i.e. Aeroquip)"?

Sorry, SCCA, can't have it both ways...

Oh, and ITAC guys? If you attempt to change this, please note that this is NOT "Errors and Omissions," it's a rule change, that must go through the whole process. Always has been...

GA

[Rabbit07]

Then explain why power steering lines are mentioned in D.1.h, "Reciprocating Engines": "Oil and power steering hoses may be replaced with metal braided hose (i.e. Aeroquip)"?

Sorry, SCCA, can't have it both ways...

Oh, and ITAC guys? If you attempt to change this, please note that this is NOT "Errors and Omissions," it's a rule change, that must go through the whole process. Always has been...

GA

I see your point.

[betamotorsports]

On a completely seperate note I'm intrigued by this notion of dual use cars in NASA CA. You have hordes of gentleman racers building 1/2 prepped cars, racing them on Sunday and the wife PDX's it on Saturday? I have to think 97% of the people reading this are laughing out loud right now at the thought or their spouse driving the car on Saturday. But, I grew up in CA, I know it's different out there..

Its more of a family thing in those situations. Sometimes its wives and husbands, sometimes its fathers and sons, sometimes its mothers and daughters. In more then few cases the person driving in the TT turns faster laps then the person driving in the race. And some of the "gentleman" racers are ex-SCCA divisional and national champs driving fully prepared cars.

[Xian]

OK: Uncle. I have no idea what you guys are talking about.

Just taking notes from you... :p



However, PS coolers are free simply because of D.3.b: "Oil cooler(s) may be added or substituted." Power steering is part of the engine. Power steering fluid is a hydraulic oil. It needs to be cooled.

Thus, power steering fluid radiators are free. Always have been.

GA, whose NX2000 came with a PS cooler from the factory; well, if you consider a steel tube that passes left then right across the front of the car a "cooler". SE-Rs actually have finned coolers stock...

Interesting "read" and sounds relatively solid. Certainly not something I was thinking of. FWIW, my EX has the same sort of PS finned loop.


Christian I never drink on race weekends ( As my nose grows longer) :) I would like to see your idea. My point is that this very creative rules interpretation stuff is why we have a difficult time adjusting rules even if they make sense.

And yeah Neons handle well in a stright line. I can tell you though that my striaghtline speeds are not the highest in the class.

Never drink on race weekends? :lol: Riiiiiight.

That's the tough thing with rules. Make a seemingly simple change and you open up a ton of ways to exploit it. IMO, better the devil we know than the devil we don't.

I doubt that I'm that far off you on pure top speed but your torque would kill me coming off T7... even when I got a decent run on you.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Then explain why power steering lines are mentioned in D.1.h, "Reciprocating Engines": "Oil and power steering hoses may be replaced with metal braided hose (i.e. Aeroquip)"?

Sorry, SCCA, can't have it both ways...

Oh, and ITAC guys? If you attempt to change this, please note that this is NOT "Errors and Omissions," it's a rule change, that must go through the whole process. Always has been...

GA

No need to change. It's in the engine section.

[Rabbit07]

I doubt that I'm that far off you on pure top speed but your torque would kill me coming off T7... even when I got a decent run on you.

Yeah, getting a run on a Neon always seems to make people upset. We are so slow through corners, yet still seem to drive away.............:blink: Seems to be the only advantage we have. Although I have to say that the new brake compounds I am using seemed to have helped in the brake department.