Removal of Charcoal Canisters (fuel tank vents) okay?

[tom91ita]

i pulled mine years ago to get rid of that pollution crap but now when looking at the rules, it seems that there is not as much "emissions" related as i seemed to recall.

is this proper or do i need to find some parts?

[gran racing]

What do the canisters do? I've never heard of these before.

[Knestis]

Mine came out as part of the fuel tank/pump/lines system that got replaced by a fuel cell. I'm not sure what clause one would use to take it out if the stock tank were retained, but I've never thought about it really...

K

[tom91ita]

What do the canisters do? I've never heard of these before.

hydrocarbon emissions vent from the fuel tank.

when the car is not running, any fumes vent through the activated carbon. the carbon captures the fuel vapor.

when you run the car again, it sucks air through the carbon and strips the hydrocarbons back and effectively regenerates it for the next time.

[JeffYoung]

Isn't it essentially an emissions device?

I had one, and removed it.....

[Greg Amy]

Isn't it essentially an emissions device?
It is, but Tom's got a point...read the regs...

somehow, I don't think anyone's going to lose sleep if you remove your wash...er, charcoal canister.

[tom91ita]

it is an emission device but i have not seeing the rule that allows its removal.

or is it a general issue in the GCR and not in the IT rules?

[TomL]

It's always interesting when you go back and reread the rules you thought you knew. I think Tom is right. The only emission controls that are listed for removal are air pumps, EGR (and associated lines) and the catalytic convertor. Maybe Kirk's fuel cell rationale could be applied, but that seems a stretch.

And I don't think there is any general language allowing emission control removal, since the amount of such removals that are allowed vary by category.

Where's the smiley for letting sleeping dogs lie?

[gran racing]

OMG Tom!! You've done it! We should now be able to officially remove the washer bottles because you've come up with a new item to supercede it. :happy204:

I promise to never look at your car wondering where the charcoal canister is. lol

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yup, nothing is in there that allows the removal of any 'fuel tank/system' emmisions. Basically, any emmission device attached to your exhaust system is all you can touch IIRC.

I 100% agree that if you put in a fuel cell, you can remove that and it's compnents and replaced with the cell and what it needs to function.

[Knestis]

...I 100% agree that if you put in a fuel cell, you can remove that and it's compnents and replaced with the cell and what it needs to function.

http://www.indianaopenwheel.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Yay! I'm not a dipshit this time...!

K

[tom91ita]

the roll cage rules for IT are now part of this right?



ROLL CAGES FOR GT AND PRODUCTION BASED CARS


So my IT car is a "Production" based car, right?

So then I can remove the canister per this right?



Factory installed gas tank evaporative emission control devices must be removed from all Production and GT Category cars.

[Ed Funk]

Opinions may vary...:rolleyes:

[Greg Amy]

So then I can remove the canister per this right?
Good try, but...nope.

When referring to the rollcages, it's actually read as "production based cars" (or, more accurately, "production-based"; note lower case, referring to a description of the vehicle); when referring to the evap systems it's "Production" (note capitalized pronoun, referring to a specific category).

It *was* a good try, though.

But, if it's legal to remove evap system with a fuel cell, and given IT is not required to conform to GCR fuel cell specs, then you can declare your stock tank a "fuel cell" and do whatever you want with it...

Just remove the damn thing. No one gives a flying flip.

GA

[joeg]

My Cannister (long gone) was connected to the air filter housing for the stock carb. (Its purpose is to capture gas vapors when the car is shut off and cleanse them--not sure if they really work).

Accordingly, it was removed since ITCS D 1 c permits the removal of air cleaner assemblies..and all kinds of oter stuff (including housings, etc) located ahead of the carb. It was in front of the carb, albeit inside the left fender.

"Etc" is a good enough excuse.

YMMV

[Andy Bettencourt]

My Cannister (long gone) was connected to the air filter housing for the stock carb. (Its purpose is to capture gas vapors when the car is shut off and cleanse them--not sure if they really work).

Accordingly, it was removed since ITCS D 1 c permits the removal of air cleaner assemblies..and all kinds of oter stuff (including housings, etc) located ahead of the carb. It was in front of the carb, albeit inside the left fender.

"Etc" is a good enough excuse.

YMMV

The context of this thread is fuel tank 'emissions'.

[joeg]

Andy--Charcoal cannisters are also connected to fuel tanks.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy--Charcoal cannisters are also connected to fuel tanks.

And that is the point. There is no provision in the rules to remove them.

[DoubleXL240Z]

???
2. Those vehicles which have emission control devices removed and which are not registered and licensed for street operation may use any gasoline meeting the require- ments of GCR Section 9.3 Fuel.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Meaning what Chris?

[tom91ita]

Meaning what Chris?

pretty much my point, i guess. :)

i had trouble at the IT fest with pressure in my tank and had commented that i had removed the charcoal evaporative emissions device around 1993. this is long gone.

but someone asked me where it was in the rules and i was convinced there was language regarding emission equipment but when i looked, i could not find it.

it sort of struck me as odd that something i was absolutely sure about and i could not find any specific thing other than possibly implied via "etc." or those with "emissions controls removed" type of vague hard to stretch into removal.

and i really do not see any where that a fuel cell means you can remove it. maybe not connect it to the cell but not remove it.

look, i am not going to protest anyone and do not expect anyone to protest me but darn i thought this was allowed. :shrug:

[JeffYoung]

Interesting. Yep, when I was a noob and built the car I thought "all emissions" could come off.

I do have a fuel cell so I'm ok, but that is a gotcha one right there with the charcoal canisters.

[DoubleXL240Z]

I thought it sort of implies ( or I inferred) that emission related components could be removed. I have been under the same spell/ thought process that a charcoal canister could be removed. Reread rules twice tonight and this was all I could find. Don't know where I got the original okie dokie for removal!!
ASSUME= ass+u+me!! or just me, Tom, joeg et al

[lateapex911]

i have a fuel cell, and i run the vent to the stock charcoal canister. I'm not sure I see the downside to leaving it in the car? (1 lb?)

[wcmcarlos]

i have a fuel cell, and i run the vent to the stock charcoal canister. I'm not sure I see the downside to leaving it in the car? (1 lb?)

My close friend's 99 Chevy truck sucked the element out of the canister, I dont know how,, and cost him two fuel pumps, two fuel filters, and finally, cost him a gas tank clean out.
Just Sayin,:shrug:

[tom91ita]

i have a fuel cell, and i run the vent to the stock charcoal canister. I'm not sure I see the downside to leaving it in the car? (1 lb?)

circa 1993 when the car was being prepared, the minimum weight for the car (still in ITA) was 1800#'s. it then changed to 1980#'s with driver.

i agree that at 2130 #'s minimum weight in ITB, i could likely install about 150 of the darned things.

[Marcus Miller]

Does that mean.... all those ITA (&7) RX-7' are supposed to thave the rats nest on top of the motor? Or ar we calling that part of the 'Air pump and associated lines'?

huh....

[EV]

Does that mean.... all those ITA (&7) RX-7' are supposed to thave the rats nest on top of the motor?<snip>.
Must be...

[Rud]

Does that mean.... all those ITA (&7) RX-7' are supposed to thave the rats nest on top of the motor? Or ar we calling that part of the 'Air pump and associated lines'?

huh....

It's been a while since I fooled around with an RX-7, but the "rats nest" is all idle control and bypass air stuff, isn't it? Seems like it would have to stay...

edit: on the other hand, seems like leaving all that functional would conflict with "all air entering the intake tract must pass through the carburetor."

[Marcus Miller]

On topic: yow. that was the first thing I threw away ... (car is DOA and has been for years)
off topic: Russ, you should buy my silver car... :)

[tom91ita]

Bringing this back from the dead. i had submitted a request (#4220 on 2/9/11) and it is still not reviewed (not in a hurry really, mostly curious because i know there are more pressing issues).

but also bringing this up since the following info might have some bearing on this issue.


Title: Evaporative Emissions Rules for Improved Touring

Class: IT

Car: none

Request: The evaporative emissions equipment can apparently be removed if a fuel cell is installed as I interpret the current rules.In the past, it had been my understanding that devices associated with the evaporative emissions systems (e.g., charcoal canisters, etc.) could be removed.I have in fact removed them as apparently many others have per various discussions at improvedtouring.comI believe that the rules should allow for their removal regardless of if a fuel cell has been installed.A simple rule similar to that in Super Touring could be implemented."All emission control devices may be removed and the resulting holes plugged."

Thank you for your consideration.

letter number #4220



Letter number #4220 is currently waiting to be reviewed by the IT committee. After the IT committee reviews your letter, the CRB will review it, and it will proceed to Fastrack.

but when in the GCR for an unrelated matter, i came across this nugget under
9.3.27. FUEL CELL SPECIFICATIONS 3. Filler Cap and Vents




Factory installed gas tank evaporative emission control devices must be
removed from all Production and GT Category cars.



now it was my understanding that we could run factory fuel tanks in PROD if it was in front of the rear axle, etc. but this says that we would then have to remove the fuel emissions system. i would assume for safety sake.

if it must be removed from PROD (presumably for safety purposes), why not allow it to be removed for IT?

or is it actually less safe because it is an uncontrolled vent/leak point if the car rolls over?

[Chip42]

Tom,

I think 9.3.27 supports the "understanding" by many that evap components can be removed in IT with the addition of an optional fuel cell. IT rules are a bit wierd at times, but I suspect that tech or the COA would agree with such a reading or at least find it well founded.

but nothing in 9.3.27 or in the ITCS says these devices should be removed without the instalation of a cell. my only argument against their removal would be with rollover fuel containment, but I can't say that all systems are suited to that from stock so...

[23racer]

I don't know if this is my place to comment and no disrespect intended at all, but if you can get 2 pages of responses discussing whether or not it is legal to remove the charcol canister maybe the rule set is far too detailed. Think about it, if I took the charcol canister off of any car, what possible benefit would I gain other than saving a couple of pounds of weight. I can go to the can before the race and drop that weight just as easily.

When I see this kind of discussion about what amounts to an appendix on a race car, it makes me wonder if the rules makers have the focus in the wrong areas. Has anybody thought about the impact that nit-picky rules has on the desire of new competitors to run at SCCA Club Events? I would think about rule sets that are simple, easy to understand and inclusive to what people want to do to their cars, rather than exclusive and just frustrating to a newcomer as they wade through a 200 page rule book.

Just my $.02 Cdn. and just wondering...

Eric

[lateapex911]

Eric, I assume the situation is the result of rules that didn't think specifically about the canister and have morphed over time. I imagine the ITAC should clean it up.............

..............Like they are the engine mount request.
Riiiight guys?

;)

[Greg Amy]

My take is that this discussion, like washer bottles, is not about charcoal canister and not about washer bottles, and not about any other "non essential for racing" items; it's all about philosophy, and how a hard stance on that philosophy has allowed Improved Touring to maintain its quarter-century position as the consistent king of SCCA Club Racing while all other categories have come (and gone). It's about the philosophy of racing in general and how saying "oh, that doesn't affect performance in any way we should allow it" eventually results in 'ship in a bottle' GT cars.

Think that's hyperbolic? Then you haven't been paying attention over the last 50 years of motorsports evolution.

GA, who's going to go over there to the Old Farts Get Off My Lawn Corner...and just watch. With a beer.

"In 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"

[TomL]

Sorry Greg, but I think that's just nonsense. I get really tired of people playing the "we're going to go the way of Prod" card to avoid considering rule changes that, to me at least, seem like obvious ways to simplify IT car building, with no real potential for rules creep. The problems with Prod rules creep are a direct result of allowing things that improve performance (and also usually cost a lot of money). It things like allowing aftermarket gearboxes, or allowing free suspension pickups/arms/everything else that caused all the problems in Prod, not allowing the removal of emission canisters. The only thing that falls into the same category for IT is the (almost) free ECU rule, but that's another (water under the bridge) topic.

Sometimes people forget, but there have been a bunch of rules changes that have been made that: 1) make cars easier to build and/or maintain, 2) cost almost nothing to perform (like removing extraneous items) and 3) don't improve performance beyond allowing you to take off a few pounds. If we're going to discuss "philosophy", why not start by forgetting about the fiction that IT is a place for old SS cars and adopt the philosophy that IT is a class for honest-to-goodness race cars that have limited modifications, but will allow modifications that meet the three criteria above.

The IT rule set has slowly evolved over the years to allow a whole pile of stuff that wasn't originally allowed. When the rules were changed to allow the removal of interior trim panels, was that the time we went down the path of production? Or maybe when passenger seats could come out? No, IT has done just fine with those changes and it will do just fine if emission canisters and washer bottles go away. Just don't allow stuff that does improve performance and we'll be just fine.

BTW, if removal of canisters is going to start the ruin of IT, then the Great Realignment must surely have been the beginning of the end of the world :o.

[Knestis]

Sorry Greg, but I think that's just nonsense. I get really tired of people playing the "we're going to go the way of Prod" card to avoid considering rule changes that, to me at least, seem like obvious ways to simplify IT car building, with no real potential for rules creep. ... :o.

And the ability to not see creep is a necessary condition for it to happen.

I have noticed that we haven't had much pressure on the washer bottle front in the last year. I attribute that largely to STx sucking some of the "what a race car should be" energy - and some drivers - out of IT. It's going to be interesting to watch how those people eventually react to a new ecosystem in which creep will be able to flourish.

Greg - Beer me, dood.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Actually, I see this thread as a very simple thing. The OP asked if something was legal, and it was an interesting and enlightening discussion to some that what they had ASSUMED was legal, wasn't. Why? Because they really didn't know the rule.

Not being able to remove your EVAP canister isn't keeping anyone out of IT.

[joeg]

Let's add horns to the delete list too!

[Andy Bettencourt]

Sorry Greg, but I think that's just nonsense. I get really tired of people playing the "we're going to go the way of Prod" card to avoid considering rule changes that, to me at least, seem like obvious ways to simplify IT car building, with no real potential for rules creep. .

So this kind of statement, while it works for ME - IF I WAS KING FOR A DAY - is exactly why it doesn't work.

My 'kingdom' doesn't look like like your kingdom Tom. You want to remove EVAP, washer bottles and have open motor mounts (all of which I would like too in real life), but *I* was to remove my dash, inner bumpers, etc.

Jake says, 'you guys are dumb'. Screw that piddly stuff. Let's focus on cost! Instead of having to do 20 small and expensive proceedures to make HP, let's just allow open cams, be able to go fast and not break the bank. Same speed, cheaper.

Kirk says, 'morons'. It's always about safety. We need alternate brakes and open wheel sizes.

I know it can be extreme, but each of us in our minds has a line in the sand we think we can lock down and never have to address. Those lines are all over the board, and that is why keeping it where it is has no real problem. Every rule set I have ever read had something *I* thought was dumb. Unless that rule cost me an ass-load of money and prevented me FINANCIALLY from building a car, then I could care less about washer bottles and EVAP cans. Seriously.

[Knestis]

Yeah, you morons.

K

[EV]

Not being able to remove your EVAP canister isn't keeping anyone out of IT.Oh yes it has... <raises hand>

Not specifically the EVAP, but the big picture of how SCCA and IT work. I decided to not race IT when the whole motor mount cluster F went down. It was my last straw.

I stay around, lurking, in hopes a change in management will occur and intelligent decisions will be made based on merit instead of fear that allowing the removal of a washer bottle is paramount to opening Pandora's box.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Oh yes it has... <raises hand>

Not specifically the EVAP, but the big picture of how SCCA and IT work. I decided to not race IT when the whole motor mount cluster F went down. It was my last straw.

I stay around, lurking, in hopes a change in management will occur and intelligent decisions will be made based on merit instead of fear that allowing the removal of a washer bottle is paramount to opening Pandora's box.

So who do you race with currently and why?

[Ron Earp]

My 'kingdom' doesn't look like like your kingdom Tom. You want to remove EVAP, washer bottles and have open motor mounts (all of which I would like too in real life), but *I* was to remove my dash, inner bumpers, etc.


You're right there Andy. But none of our "Kingdoms" look much like what a modern young racer wants. Or racers from other clubs. The SCCA needs to attract these folks so that it can grow and prosper.

Three weeks ago I took my Mustang for a quick dyno session at a local speed shop, Carolina Automasters in Durham. In the course of strapping the car down I was talking with three of the young guys who do driver's education days in their cars and discussing SCCA racing. The topic of minimum weight came up.
Young guy: You won't have any problem meeting weight. Once the dash is out and you strip all of that mess, plus the crap up under the hood you don't need and get lightweight body parts I bet you'll be ok.

Me: I can't do any of that. I've got keep a lot of those parts, with the stock bumpers, fenders, heater core, wiring, and so on. Improved Touring is a very limited modification class.

Young guy: Yeah, but you've got a minimum weight, right? As long as you aren't below that and you've got all the important parts stock like suspension, engine and stuff it seems like you'd be good to go.

Me: Yes, the class has a minimum weight but there are a lot of aspects of Improved Touring that go back to yesteryear with the use and retention of dashboards, horns, washer bottles, and so on. That's just the way it is.

Young guy: Shit, see, now that right there is why we don't fuck around with the SCCA. You guys are too old school.

True tale and the guys in the shop do indeed race and work with NASA racers in the region. And I'm sure you've heard the same from some local racers and car enthusiasts.

I'm with TomL. We can open the class up to modifications to the cars and still keep the core principles of IT - stock suspension, stock brakes, stock engine - which keeps costs low and maintains the accessibility of the class.

[Greg Amy]

You're right there Andy. But none of our "Kingdoms" look much like what a modern young racer wants.
I think it would be SUPER if we included the following modifications to Improved TOURING:

- Allow washer bottle removal
- Allow power steering removal/disable
- Allow alternate engine mounts
- Allow evap removal
- Allow horn removal
- Allow heater core removal
- Allow battery relocation
- Allow shift kits
- Lightweight body parts
- "And so on."

Each of these items (and more!) are in some IT guy's "kingdom"...

It's quite a bit disingenuous to say "I really like Improved Touring" and then in the next breath say "but I'd really like to be able to do this, and this, and that". Hypocritical, really. I especially like the ones that state "well, I don't race SCCA/IT because the rules restrict 'that'" but then don't put their money where their mouth is when 'that' is exactly what is offered elsewhere ("oh no, that's TOO much modification, it'll get really expensive to race THAT!")

Guess what? "That" is exactly what you're asking for; you just can't see it because of the trees...

I need a beer.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

But the way you explained it wasn't unbiased. AND, it also exemplfies the lack of knowledge on the kids part. "As long as it meets min, it doesn't matter" It WOULD matter, to the cars that could get well below min weight with those allowances.

Like I said, if you would rather spend $$$ on alternate body panels than keep your EVAP canister in, then you aren't a racer.

Look, a lot of us are just playing devils advocate here. My line isn't your line. The line has moved consistantly since the original rules were written (and those people were PLENTY happy with it). Until someone says no, the line will keep moving, FACT. All it takes is a quick read of the IT rules about every 4 years to see that is a certainty.

This year, I am king. I allow gutting of the engine bay and motor mounts. 10 years from now, that kid is king. He allows alternate panels, 100% gutted interior, etc...

Why is IT one of the most popular categories in all of amature Road Racing?

[Ron Earp]

But the way you explained it wasn't unbiased. AND, it also exemplfies the lack of knowledge on the kids part. "As long as it meets min, it doesn't matter" It WOULD matter, to the cars that could get well below min weight with those allowances.


Look, you guys know my opinion and I'm still an IT racer. I'm not passing judgement on the guy nor the perception in that shop of the SCCA. I've tried to educate those guys about the finer points of SCCA racing but they see the negatives with rules they consider illogical. I encounter folks like this from time to time and do my best to get them to come out and have look at what we do.

As mentioned already, the kingdoms are surely going to differ from person to person. What we want to do is use the kingdom rules set that captures the largest group of racers. I'm not convinced the current IT rules set is that kingdom. Yes, it has worked for a long time and for the SCCA is the healthiest group, but how large could it become?

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

Look, you guys know my opinion and I'm still an IT racer. I'm not passing judgement on the guy nor the perception in that shop of the SCCA. I've tried to educate those guys about the finer points of SCCA racing but they see the negatives with rules they consider illogical. I encounter folks like this from time to time and do my best to get them to come out and have look at what we do.



And this could be posted on the NASA board in the PT forum by a NASA guy expalining to somebody who 'raises his hand'....

[JeffYoung]

We've had this discussion many, many times. I certainly see the risk of creep, but I think the answer to most of this is as follows.

On a pretty basic level, we all agree on what are IT "core values." Stock motors. Stock suspension mounting points. Stock body panels. Stock tranny ratios. Stock brakes. With limited mods inside each of those categories.

I really do think 99% of us would not have an issue with what everyone else would do if king for a day. Would there be some conflict? Sure. But on items like washer bottles and evap cannisters, no.

[JLawton]

Oh yes it has... <raises hand>

Not specifically the EVAP, but the big picture of how SCCA and IT work. I decided to not race IT when the whole motor mount cluster F went down. It was my last straw.

.



Really?? Really?? You're willing to walk away from some of the best racing in the country, hang with some awesome people at a very limited cost (relatively speaking) because you can't remove all the "crap" from your car??



I was asked by a circle track guy why we didn't have jacking plates. (something we've discussed here as a "harmless" change). He then went on to explain how they use that rule to add extra reinforcement and get the weight lower on the car.........

If I was King for a day I'd go to a spec (i.e. cheap) tire.......... It gives me chest pains to shell out that kind of money for Hoosiers because that's what we have to do to run up front............. In my opinion that makes all the other little shit items silly to even worry about.........

Me? I love racing IT. I couldn't give a crap if we were allowed to remove everything or if we moved back to stock passenger seats, stock ECUs and full interiors......... either way, everyone follows the same rulles and we still have as much fun......... You'll remember it's for fun, right??

[Andy Bettencourt]

We've had this discussion many, many times. I certainly see the risk of creep, but I think the answer to most of this is as follows.

On a pretty basic level, we all agree on what are IT "core values." Stock motors. Stock suspension mounting points. Stock body panels. Stock tranny ratios. Stock brakes. With limited mods inside each of those categories.

I really do think 99% of us would not have an issue with what everyone else would do if king for a day. Would there be some conflict? Sure. But on items like washer bottles and evap cannisters, no.

Let me ask you this:

If the creators of IT were to look at the rules now, what do you think they would say? I think it would be a resounding "How the HELL did THAT happen???"

If you agree, try and rationalize how we got from there to here. And then try and make an arguement on why you think it would STOP.

[callard]

- stock suspension,

Hmm... If I'm allowed to call a threaded body double adjustable coil over strut with relocated spindle and adjustable spring perches a stock suspension then why can't I call:
THE ATMOSPHERE = my evaporative emission system
RAIN CLOUDS = my washer bottle
???????

[JeffYoung]

I don't think it will stop. I just think it will, if we stick to the core principles, morph in a positive way. Which we have for the most part -- I certainly agree a picture of an IT car circa 85 v. 2011 is pretty shocking. But the basics are the same. The engine rules, other than the ECU rule, really have not changed. The suspension rules haven't changed. Stock body panels still. Brake rules essentially the same. Tranny rules essentially the same.

Most of what has changed has been appearance/reliability/safety stuff. Cage v. roll bar. Race seats. Interior gutting.

So on the surface you see a lot of difference. But at the core, not much change.

Which is my point -- because at the core we all tend to agree, quite a bit more than I think we give ourselves credit for.

[RacerBill]

I just thought I would inject this thought into the discussion, concerning costs of racing. Four years ago, I broke a front hub at the IT Spectacular. I was able to get a replacement at NAPA for $35. I replaced them both this year, just as a precaution, and now bearings cost $84, more than double the price! So, I guess that you can put me in the 'keep the costs down' corner.

[JeffYoung]

Just as a follow up, I think the answer on rationalizing how we got here from there is this:

No one would be racing an IT car if the rules were as they were in 1985.

I know a few hold outs who would like to go back to that version of the rules, but they are in a very, very small minority.


Let me ask you this:

If the creators of IT were to look at the rules now, what do you think they would say? I think it would be a resounding "How the HELL did THAT happen???"

If you agree, try and rationalize how we got from there to here. And then try and make an arguement on why you think it would STOP.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Who has a copy of the first set of IT rules?

[RacerBill]

... The suspension rules haven't changed...

My Shelby is probably the only IT car in the country that is running a STOCK suspension (vs threaded body coil-overs). Hopefully, that will be fixed soon. But it is going to cost me $1500 - $2500 just to get my car up to the same level as all the other cars on the track.

If anyone knows any other ITB cars that are running stock suspensions, please let me know so that we can race together.:)

[RacerBill]

Who has a copy of the first set of IT rules?

Weren't they just printed in the last issue of Sports Car?

[StephenB]

This was my conversation with someone a few weeks ago...
I went to an RX8 meet to meet some people and pick up some parts. I was talking with a few of the young guys who do driver's education days in their cars and discussing SCCA racing. The topic of "mods" came up.
Young guy: You won't have any problem meeting weight. Once the dash is out and you strip all of that mess, plus the crap up under the hood you don't need and get lightweight body parts I bet you'll be ok.

Me: I can't do any of that, and to be honest I don't want to! I've got keep a lot of those parts, with the stock bumpers, fenders, heater core, wiring, and so on. Improved Touring is a very limited modification class which is what makes it affordable and so attractive!

Young guy: Yeah, but you've got a minimum weight, right? As long as you aren't below that and you've got all the important parts stock like suspension, engine and stuff it seems like you'd be good to go.

Me: Yes, the class has a minimum weight but there are a lot of aspects of Improved Touring that use and retaint stock parts like dashboards, horns, washer bottles, and so on. That's just one way to keep the modifications simple and easy to understand for anyone.

Young guy: Shit, see, now that right there seems like an exciting class to get into. I would love to keep my "mods" especially my 2 piece brakes but I can see how that adds up and can get expensive!

Me: Don't worry SCCA DOES have a class for your car with all those "mods" the class is just starting to pick up steam, its called ST (U,O,L). The class isn't really for me since I don't have the money to do all those "mods" and to be honest I don't really understand which mods are the best bang for the buck. So I am sticking to IT but you should check it out if you want to keep your "mods"!

Youg Guy: Thanks, Sounds like I have more options than I thought

Me: If you want to go even crazier check out Production... and if you are into tube frame purpose built cars you can check out GT! SCCA really is does have a class for anyone and its REAL racing wheel to wheel! If you need a copy of the rules visit SCCA.com or feel free to e-mail me and I can help you along the way. I would love to see more RX8 drivers at our events!



I know I used half of what you wrote since the conversation wasn't exactly the same but I DID have this same basic conversation at the Grand-AM race last weekend at LRP. (They had a mazda meet on the top of the hill, actually pretty cool, they even had a portable dyno with them!)

I am a BIG believer in personal accountability and I really think WE as IT racers need to embrace what we do have and talk it up, WE need to sell it to others to grow the class, WE need to educate others on why IT is the best class in all of amateur racing. It is up to US to help IT grow and to attract new SCCA members. It is NOT up to the name "SCCA" and or a rulebook to attract racers to OUR club and OUR group of competitors.

My .02
Stephen

[JeffYoung]

But wasn't that technically always "allowed" under the shocks/struts are free rule?

Yes, Bill is correct -- an early version (I don't think it was the one adotped nationally though, it had some odd stuff in it like limits on rear gear ratios, etc.) was in Sports Car last month.

Kirk has what is, I think, the actual set of national rules adopted.

What was most interesting to me about that first rule set was the car classifications. There were cars that are now in ITB and ITC in ITS......Tr7, Fiat X1/9, etc.

In some ways, I'd say the most fundamental change to the rules over the years has nothing to do with prep levels, and everything to do with car classification.



My Shelby is probably the only IT car in the country that is running a STOCK suspension (vs threaded body coil-overs). Hopefully, that will be fixed soon. But it is going to cost me $1500 - $2500 just to get my car up to the same level as all the other cars on the track.

If anyone knows any other ITB cars that are running stock suspensions, please let me know so that we can race together.:)

[Knestis]

This is a PDF of the PROPOSED national rules (not National) for v.1.0 of IT, from SportsCar's introduction to the category.

http://www.it2.evaluand.com/gti/downloads/ThisisIT.pdf

There might have been some differences between that and the first ITCS. Remember that they were separate publications back then (the GCR and category specs).

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that EV probably isn't racing ANYTHING right now. I find that a lot of the complaints about IT rules being "prohibitive" come from people who aren't in a position to actually go racing anyway, or who were on their way out for other reasons ($$) and are arguing purely from a theoretical - or aesthetic - point of view.

K

[Russ Myers]

My Shelby is probably the only IT car in the country that is running a STOCK suspension (vs threaded body coil-overs). Hopefully, that will be fixed soon. But it is going to cost me $1500 - $2500 just to get my car up to the same level as all the other cars on the track.

If anyone knows any other ITB cars that are running stock suspensions, please let me know so that we can race together.:)


My Pinto still runs a stock suspension. Double a-arm, coil springs and tube shocks up front, LEAF springs in the rear. Handles great.

Russ

[EV]

So who do you race with currently and why?
NASA PT class.

It's been hashed about over and over on these boards, but in simple terms, I felt that my car had a better chance to be competitive in PT within my budget than it would with IT. It offered me the flexibility to remain within the rules and enhance my car based on it's weaknesses. I believe that it makes for a more even playing field where many different cars can compete and have a chance to win, "warts and all" isn't in the NASA PT vocabulary. I also like the power to weight caps that limit the bank roll necessary to make the power. I'm sorry, I don't have 5K to build an IT engine just to keep up.

NASA also allows the removal of useless items like washer bottles and evap canisters. The addition of reliability/safety enhancing items like poly motor mounts, and battery relocation.

Sure, there is always room for improvement, but I feel that PT has a better base than IT....at least for me....

[EV]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that EV probably isn't racing ANYTHING right now...
See post above... :P

[EV]

Really?? Really?? You're willing to walk away from some of the best racing in the country, hang with some awesome people at a very limited cost (relatively speaking) because you can't remove all the "crap" from your car??
Ya, really...

Just so you know, I work EV for SCCA and have for 10 years. I still get to hang out with those awesome people you mention, I just don't race with them.

As I said above, it's simple economics for me. I will never run near the front without a 5K Kessler engine that will last for 2 seasons (according to them). Sure I could buy the current car for the class (currently a Miata for ITA) and have a chance to compete equipment wise, but for the car I have and could afford I have zero chance with my current budget.

Next year, after I have the money to update the cage and add a fire system, I will run a few races in SPU. Sure, I won't be competitive, but it's track time and there will be several cars around my lap time to play with.

[Chip42]

I don't think it will stop. I just think it will, if we stick to the core principles, morph in a positive way. Which we have for the most part -- I certainly agree a picture of an IT car circa 85 v. 2011 is pretty shocking. But the basics are the same. The engine rules, other than the ECU rule, really have not changed. The suspension rules haven't changed. Stock body panels still. Brake rules essentially the same. Tranny rules essentially the same.

Most of what has changed has been appearance/reliability/safety stuff. Cage v. roll bar. Race seats. Interior gutting.

So on the surface you see a lot of difference. But at the core, not much change.

Which is my point -- because at the core we all tend to agree, quite a bit more than I think we give ourselves credit for.

I think Jeff nailed it. but further than "a picture of an IT car circa 1985 v 2011 is pretty shocking," a basic mechancial overview of a car circa 1980 v 2006 (the newest cars eligable for IT at the same times as Jeff's "pictures") is pretty shocking.

the philosophical line must not budge, it is what defines IT. but the functional rules have to adapt to the new realities or the class WILL become like production - in the worst way. remember prod, ca. 1995, full of very old, very used up cars with no new blood? they started limmited prep cum prep II in an effort to get newer cars. then the rules creep REALLY blew up in an "effort" to rebalance everythign while keeping the old guys happy. at least that's my perspective from the outside lookign in.

but I fail to see where the removal of unneeded items, like horns, bottles, canisters, etc.. push the philosophical line, really. battery relocation? yes. motor mount rules? if written properly, no. they actually address the current reality much better than the existing rules for answering the same question. no philosophical change.

The ECU rule (outsdie of the original philosophy, IMO) might not have been needed when it changed, but it would be now in order to get currently elligable cars intot the game, happily, and keep us from becoming obsolete. modern ECUs think even the IT rules are too extreme a modification. Just wait until more modern ABS systems come into the fray - that will raise philosophical discussions.

as for me - I lost my evap can in prep of the engine room. I can get another, and likely will, but I'd never protest someone for having it out UNLESS I saw them using that same space for some performance enhancement.

[Andy Bettencourt]

NASA PT class.

It's been hashed about over and over on these boards, but in simple terms, I felt that my car had a better chance to be competitive in PT within my budget than it would with IT. It offered me the flexibility to remain within the rules and enhance my car based on it's weaknesses. I believe that it makes for a more even playing field where many different cars can compete and have a chance to win, "warts and all" isn't in the NASA PT vocabulary. I also like the power to weight caps that limit the bank roll necessary to make the power. I'm sorry, I don't have 5K to build an IT engine just to keep up.

NASA also allows the removal of useless items like washer bottles and evap canisters. The addition of reliability/safety enhancing items like poly motor mounts, and battery relocation.

Sure, there is always room for improvement, but I feel that PT has a better base than IT....at least for me....

And this post is PERFECTLY legit - except I am going to call BS on the lack of allowance to remove the EVAP (or WB or whatever) as the reason you don't race IT. You race PT because of the flexibility of the mods you CAN do (the difference makers, not the 'who cares' stuff)...and that is perfectly fine.

The way I look at NASA vs SCCA is simple: NASA guys like a structure where they can have a place to play (albiet with limited competition) with the mods they like. ie: Race my built car. SCCA guys seek out more competition and build a car to race.

Plenty of room for both....and I understand it's a gross generlization, but at the core, it's what I see.

[EV]

And this post is PERFECTLY legit - except I am going to call BS on the lack of allowance to remove the EVAP (or WB or whatever) as the reason you don't race IT. You race PT because of the flexibility of the mods you CAN do...and that is perfectly fine.

The way I look at NASA vs SCCA is simple: NASA like a structure where they can have a place to play (albiet with mimited comeptition) with the mods they like. ie: Race my built car. SCCA guys seek out more competition and build a car to race.

Plenty of room for both....and I understand it's a gross generlization, but at the core, it's what I see.
Fair enough... In spirit though, it's really the evap/washer bottle mentality that has kept me from focusing on an SCCA build.

I race PT because I can see that possibility that I could run with the lead pack and not spend my daughters college fund to do it. I really wanted to race this coming weekend with SCCA, it's my birthday. I added cams to my car, but otherwise it's ITA legal. I can't run IT because of the cams, and I can't run SPU because I don't have a fire system. The irony is, if swap out to the stock cams, I can run either....

Just doesn't make sense...

On edit... oh ya... I don't have an EVAP either....

[Andy Bettencourt]

Fair enough... In spirit though, it's really the evap/washer bottle mentality that has kept me from focusing on an SCCA build.

I race PT because I can see that possibility that I could run with the lead pack and not spend my daughters college fund to do it. I really wanted to race this coming weekend with SCCA, it's my birthday. I added cams to my car, but otherwise it's ITA legal. I can't run IT because of the cams, and I can't run SPU because I don't have a fire system. The irony is, if swap out to the stock cams, I can run either....

Just doesn't make sense...

So it just needs to be thought through a little. Just because your car isn't 'IT-legal' from a prep standpoint, doesn't mean it can't be entered in SPU AS AN IT CAR USING THOSE SAFETY RULES. Certainly doable if you want to race. Other than a handful of cars I know, I can find something illegal on every one.

Run and have fun.

[Knestis]

I stand corrected, Bill - thanks.


...Sure I could buy the current car for the class (currently a Miata for ITA) and have a chance to compete equipment wise, but for the car I have and could afford I have zero chance with my current budget. ...

And that's a crucial point. It's not the rules that are keeping PT "affordable" at this time. It's the relatively shallow competitive pool. Once someone decides that they want to spend big $$ in ANY of the PT classes, you're going to see escalation (see also, pseudo-factory Honda CRX hybrid at the 25 hours).

Let's be clear that you COULD run IT for what you are spending to run PT, but you recognize that wouldn't run up front. The corollary of that is that if you - or anyone else - spent front-running NER SCCA IT dough on a PT car, you would go faster.

K

[Ron Earp]

Me: Don't worry SCCA DOES have a class for your car with all those "mods" the class is just starting to pick up steam, its called ST (U,O,L).

Actually, I did go on to explain Production, a little, but when he heard about the 3L displacement cap he wasn't interested.

I would have liked to explain something about Super Touring but I don't know all that much, hence my question yesterday in the Super Touring rules section. I've looked at the GCR about ST but with all the information about rules changing I was hoping there was a consolidated list somewhere of old and new rules.

[Greg Amy]

...but with all the information about rules changing...
If you're referring to my post in the ST section regarding verbiage re-org, please read carefully where I note there are no rules changing, only words being re-organized to put them in more-logical and -organized location within the existing ruleset. As noted in the other thread, there are no major changes to rules/philosophy coming down the pike for Super Touring. What you see now is what you get.

As to the 3L limit, note that's been shown to be a "soft" limit; we are allowing 3+ into STU in limited cases. Philosophically, think of it less as a hard limit and more like a performance limit, a la "old" World Challenge Touring. But if you have a 3+ car and you want to play with the big boys (which everyone seems to think they want to do, but don't want to pay the entry fee) then make a request, we'll give you a power-to-weight that'll make you competitive.

GA

[EV]

I stand corrected, Bill - thanks.



And that's a crucial point. It's not the rules that are keeping PT "affordable" at this time. It's the relatively shallow competitive pool. Once someone decides that they want to spend big $$ in ANY of the PT classes, you're going to see escalation (see also, pseudo-factory Honda CRX hybrid at the 25 hours).

Let's be clear that you COULD run IT for what you are spending to run PT, but you recognize that wouldn't run up front. The corollary of that is that if you - or anyone else - spent front-running NER SCCA IT dough on a PT car, you would go faster.

KOpinions vary, this is yours, I have a different one. Enjoy the koolaid.


So it just needs to be thought through a little. Just because your car isn't 'IT-legal' from a prep standpoint, doesn't mean it can't be entered in SPU AS AN IT CAR USING THOSE SAFETY RULES. Certainly doable if you want to race. Other than a handful of cars I know, I can find something illegal on every one.

Run and have fun.I wish I could, but the rules in the GCR state (I paraphrase) your as prepped for IT can run SPU. Since I have made a change that wasn't consistant with IT, I have to comply all ST rules and that means a fire system. Ironic isn't it?

I don't like rule breakers, and know in my heart I am not legal for ST. Karma being what it is, I feel if I run that would be the time "something" would happen. Karma is a bitch....

[lateapex911]

Opinions vary, this is yours, I have a different one. Enjoy the koolaid.


SCCA = lemon/lime koolaide
NASA = Fruit punch koolaide.

Really .....Kirk isn't dim. Now, I don't doubt that for you, at this point in time, and in your geographic location, NASA is the better flavor and results in more satisfaction for you. And that's fine. But, if the competitive environment within the PT category (and specifically your class) were to change, I suspect your like of that flavor might wain....

I'm just trying to remove the cloaking arguments and get to the real crux....

(I'm not trying to argue the merits of IT vs PT, but...understand that, when you examine the rules closely, and get beneath the surface, experienced racers will know that there is a TON of money that would need to be spent optimizing any NASA package....IF, like an auction, two people decided the trophy was shiny enough to warrant the effort and expense. Also, to that end, the rules and p/w 'equilization', are a cheaters paradise. Granted, in general, these issues are not prevelent in large numbers currently within PT. And yes, anyone can cheat in any category....but the PT system makes it pretty difficult to catch anyone)


I wish I could, but the rules in the GCR state (I paraphrase) your as prepped for IT can run SPU. Since I have made a change that wasn't consistant with IT, I have to comply all ST rules and that means a fire system. Ironic isn't it?

I don't like rule breakers, and know in my heart I am not legal for ST. Karma being what it is, I feel if I run that would be the time "something" would happen. Karma is a bitch....
The fire system rule is a leftover from the ruleset of World Challenge from whence the ST concept sprang. It's being changed to make more sense and be consistent with other categories.

[EV]

SCCA = lemon/lime koolaide
NASA = Fruit punch koolaide.

Really .....Kirk isn't dim. Now, I don't doubt that for you, at this point in time, and in your geographic location, NASA is the better flavor and results in more satisfaction for you. And that's fine. But, if the competitive environment within the PT category (and specifically your class) were to change, I suspect your like of that flavor might wain....

I'm just trying to remove the cloaking arguments and get to the real crux....

(I'm not trying to argue the merits of IT vs PT, but...understand that, when you examine the rules closely, and get beneath the surface, experienced racers will know that there is a TON of money that would need to be spent optimizing any NASA package....IF, like an auction, two people decided the trophy was shiny enough to warrant the effort and expense. Also, to that end, the rules and p/w 'equilization', are a cheaters paradise. Granted, in general, these issues are not prevelent in large numbers currently within PT. And yes, anyone can cheat in any category....but the PT system makes it pretty difficult to catch anyone)I guess it all comes down to how you define competition. In the NASA group I run with, any of 5 cars could win, often 3 are nose to tail fighting it out with 3 in close trail. I have yet to see a recent DC region ITA race as close. More frequently the closest race is mid back, and usually not that close. I am not saying Kirk is dim, but he's making blanket statements that are just inaccurate.

I am not going to be convinced that it's easier to catch a cheater in IT. With all you can do to a motor that can't be seen, and having to bank roll the teardown to "see" if you are right, illegal power making mods can and are done all the time in IT. With the NASA P/W rules, it's not prudent to make these invisible mods to make more power as there is a cap you can't avoid and is easily and frequently checked. Why go for the big$$ cheater mods when a $500 cam will do the job? See my point?





The fire system rule is a leftover from the ruleset of World Challenge from whence the ST concept sprang. It's being changed to make more sense and be consistent with other categories.Actually, the fire system rule I read wasn't anything from WC, it's in the GCR.

9.3.23. FIRE SYSTEM
All cars shall be equipped with an On-Board Fire System except
Showroom Stock, Touring, Spec Miata, and Improved Touring.

ST isn't on the list now is it? The rule allowing IT cars to run in ST is the only reason IT cars (as spec'ed) can run without a fire system. Again, my car isn't compliant in IT, so in order to run, I need a fire system....

FYI, I have already inquired about this and here was Gregs answer..

Correct. Once you deviate from IT rules, you're no longer in the IT umbrella and need to be fully compliant to STx.

I have to wonder out loud if we should/could allow fire bottles in ST. Probably not, given that STU and STO can get pretty big and hairy and fast. A fire system is very handy when you're hooking along and it's gonna take a couple hundred feet (or more) to come to a stop so you can grab the bottle... - GA

[RacerBill]

But wasn't that technically always "allowed" under the shocks/struts are free rule?


Actually, IIRR, threaded body shocks/struts were specifically not allowed. The more inventive racers found a way to create an adjustable threaded section that was not attached to the strut. So, someone said, let's let everyone do that with less expensive parts. (Seems to me I heard this argument with regards to ECU's). To quote another famous poster "I ain't sayin, Im just sayin !!!"

Here is the big problem. All of us, to some degree or fashion are in favor of 'rules creep' - primarily if it helps them in some way or form. I would like to see the wheel widths increased in order to take advantage less expensive, readily available wheels, mandated by my car having been moved from ITA to ITB. Request denied since it is perceived that 'everyone' in ITB and ITC would feel that they had to scrap all of the wheels that they already purchased - a form of rules creep. But had I had some skin in the game back when the shock/strut issue was changed to allow threaded bodies etc. I would have been against that 'rule creep' since I was on the other side of the fence.

The rules for IT have changed over the years, some of it has been 'rules creep' while other changes were for safety, etc. I guess when we look at a proposed change, we need to decide if it is really 'rules creep' or if it just makes sense. Now there's another bag of worms - what's your definition of 'rules creep'.

However, the rules stability of IT is one of the factors that makes IT stand out at a class.

[RacerBill]

My Pinto still runs a stock suspension. Double a-arm, coil springs and tube shocks up front, LEAF springs in the rear. Handles great.

Russ

Yeah, I remember running against the Gills from PA in their Pintos! :D

[lateapex911]

With the NASA P/W rules, it's not prudent to make these invisible mods to make more power as there is a cap you can't avoid and is easily and frequently checked. Why go for the big$$ cheater mods when a $500 cam will do the job? See my point?

I completely understand your position regarding mods and "Value"....but
Some will agree with me, others won't, but I feel there is a distinct philosophical difference when it comes to the average competitors willingness to cheat. In Club racing, where we are responsible for policing each other, cheating is, to me at least, breaking a moral code that i have with my fellow competitors.

In Pro racing, where the sanctioning body is in charge of leveling the field and checking compliance, that stuff goes out the window, and everybody gets what they can.

NASA's method of checking is laudable, but some feel it invites the latter behavior. And it's way way easy to 'work around'.


My recent inquiries regarding fire systems indicated that the STAC is looking into changing the requirements. I don't know the specific of the situation, whether it's an across the board ST change or a STL only thing or what.

[Knestis]

...I guess it all comes down to how you define competition. In the NASA group I run with, any of 5 cars could win, often 3 are nose to tail fighting it out with 3 in close trail. I have yet to see a recent DC region ITA race as close. More frequently the closest race is mid back, and usually not that close. I am not saying Kirk is dim, but he's making blanket statements that are just inaccurate. ...

...or I wasn't clear about my point. Sorry for that.

I didn't mean that your PT class isn't currently competitive, as it does appear that the racing is good up front. What I was trying to say is that you've established a sort of detente among that group, where everyone is happy with the status quo, competitiveness- and spending-wise. As soon as someone decides to step it up, you all are going to be forced to decide whether you want to follow along and join the wars, or go all Switzerland and wait on the sidelines.

There are places in the US where a used $3500 MkI GTI will get a guy class wins. There are others (e.g., WDC SCCA) where it takes a bigger commitment. Budgets - at least as measured by the cost to run up front - are NEVER limited by class rules. They are determined by competition.

Go look closely at the case study established by those hybrid Honda CRZ things at the T'hill 25. A great friend of mine associated with the Miatacages E3 car called me from the track asking if I knew anything about them, after they showed up (in PT trim) and clobbered everyone by 3-4 seconds per lap. That's a car that is built to push the rules and it was NOT a cheap effort.

The same thing could happen to your local PT situation next month and the $$ bar would be irrevocably raised.

K

[nj1266]

Good try, but...nope.

Just remove the damn thing. No one gives a flying flip.

GA

I had my charcoal canister removed from back in the day when I raced in the long dead SE-R Cup. I remember that my brother and I yanked that thing in the pits, sealed the lines and went racing.

I am in ITA now. I doubt that anyone gives a darn about the canister, anyway.

[nj1266]

NASA PT class.

It's been hashed about over and over on these boards, but in simple terms, I felt that my car had a better chance to be competitive in PT within my budget than it would with IT. It offered me the flexibility to remain within the rules and enhance my car based on it's weaknesses. I believe that it makes for a more even playing field where many different cars can compete and have a chance to win, "warts and all" isn't in the NASA PT vocabulary. I also like the power to weight caps that limit the bank roll necessary to make the power. I'm sorry, I don't have 5K to build an IT engine just to keep up....

I was with NASA in SE-R Cup until 2007. I raced my first season in RS class with SCCA CalClub. I then moved my 98 SE-R to ITA. It really was not that hard to comply with the rules. Here is what I removed:

CF hood
Gutted and de-winged rear trunk lid
Lexan windshield
Lightweight battery
Cams
Added a glove box (comes in very handy btw)
AD22VF brakes from the NX2000 (I miss those the most. I wonder if there is a way to allows the NX2000 brakes on the 91-98 SE-R for an add weight)

The engines/trannies that I get are from the junkyard. I never built a 5000 engine nor would I ever do that. This is Club Racing and it is supposed to be cheap. My var is very competitive as is and I am thankfull to Greg Amy for bringing it into ITA from its also ran ITS status.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I guess it all comes down to how you define competition. In the NASA group I run with, any of 5 cars could win, often 3 are nose to tail fighting it out with 3 in close trail. I have yet to see a recent DC region ITA race as close. More frequently the closest race is mid back, and usually not that close. I am not saying Kirk is dim, but he's making blanket statements that are just inaccurate.



I think you have to understand something. The DC Region ITA has one of the best prepped and best driven cars in the country. The mid-pack battles are what you are seeing up front in a PT race. NOT neccessarily from a driver-skill level, but from a prep standpoint...

ALL driven by popularity. As soon as a BimmerWorld, Speedsource, etc decide they want to dominate their local PT class and win the Championship, you will understand what Kirk's definition of 'competition' is. It's NOT about 10 good drivers driving mildly prepped cars in a tight pack (like some of our SCCA historians will tell you were the good ole days of IT), it's about ONE guy, ONE team, or ONE company deciding that they are going to run every rule through the X-Ray machine and build a car to win, then pair it with a driver who can extract what they need. Then the price of tea in PT goes out of the reach of the 'average Joe'.

[JeffYoung]

Andy is exactly right.

All of this has happened before....

IT used to be place where until say the mid 90s, you could bolt on some good stuff, and go run up front anywhere in the country. Then, for whatever reason, a number of amateur race shops decided to (a) go pro and (b) turn primarily ITS into a farm league for World Challenge and other US "pro" road race series.

In the early part of last decade, the price of poker went through the roof. I caught the tail end of it, and at the time it seemed 'normal' but looking back now on $50k turnkey ITS cars from Speedsource and Bimmerworld....whew....

And while that era has passed, they ratcheted up the bar for prep level and it won't come back down. It's just done differently now.

This could happen to PT in an instant.

But the key point? For the most part, the rules never changed, and it had nothing to do with them -- or rather, it did have something to do with them since an attractive ruleset attracted the talent and the prep level that B-World and S-source brought to the table.

It's not the IT ruleset per se that creates the need for a $5k IT build motor. It's the level of competition and what they are willing to do under that ruleset that does so.

[RacerBill]

And once the genie is out of the bottle, there ain't nothin getting him back in !!!!!!

[lateapex911]

I think you have to understand something. The DC Region ITA has one of the best prepped and best driven cars in the country. The mid-pack battles are what you are seeing up front in a PT race. NOT neccessarily from a driver-skill level, but from a prep standpoint...



Yea, but EV likes the current status in his chosen class. I called him out a bit on it because, I think, deep down the "rules issues" he's citing as his reasons for leaving IT are red herrings. The real deal reason is, at this point in PT's evolution, he's having fun and racing for what he feels are 'value finishes" considering his financial investment. (And that's FINE!!!)

Now, as you and Jeff point out, Sunbelt engines might decide to go all in on a PT car. They'll build several engines/combinations of the "cheap" power adders to find the setup that, for the points, provides the most power under the curve. Custom ground cams based on hundreds of dyno runs, custom exhausts, special ECU tunes, and so forth. They'll spend a fortune removing driveline friction and drag, as well as looking at rolling resistance. They'll build a suspension that meets the points requirements but flat out works. And gee, they might decide the whole "power cap" thing is so easy to cheat it's like shooting fish in a barrel, and POOF!.....the fun...for the guys with bolt on parts and cams who've been having a good old time racing at the front in 'cheap' cars..... is gone.

And maybe, in his area, there's an IT class that now has great races with 5 guys vying for the win on 12 cycle tires and junkyard engines, and suddenly things like charcoal canisters and washer bottles aren't the end of the world.

Or Sunbelt or whoever might never bother...and he's going to be happy doing what he's doing for a long time to come, and will smile when he sits out in the garage with a beveridge and gazes into his engine compartment and sees the space where his charcoal canister and washer bottle used to be.....and that's FINE.... ;)

Kirk studies policy and policy implementation (If I understand his job sorta correctly), and often sees that the things and reasons people cite for doing the things they do and making the decisions they make are often not the real drivers in those decisions. And i bet he'd tell us that often the people making the decisions don't really know that......

[Z3_GoCar]

I think you have to understand something. The DC Region ITA has one of the best prepped and best driven cars in the country. The mid-pack battles are what you are seeing up front in a PT race. NOT neccessarily from a driver-skill level, but from a prep standpoint...

ALL driven by popularity. As soon as a BimmerWorld, Speedsource, etc decide they want to dominate their local PT class and win the Championship, you will understand what Kirk's definition of 'competition' is. It's NOT about 10 good drivers driving mildly prepped cars in a tight pack (like some of our SCCA historians will tell you were the good ole days of IT), it's about ONE guy, ONE team, or ONE company deciding that they are going to run every rule through the X-Ray machine and build a car to win, then pair it with a driver who can extract what they need. Then the price of tea in PT goes out of the reach of the 'average Joe'.

I hightly doubt that BW would mess with PT. That's what GTS is for.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I hightly doubt that BW would mess with PT. That's what GTS is for.

I doubt it too, mostly because they have no demand. But the point remains valid - as soon as someone contracts them to do so, PT isn't all rainbows and lollypops anymore.

[Z3_GoCar]

I doubt it too, mostly because they have no demand. But the point remains valid - as soon as someone contracts them to do so, PT isn't all rainbows and lollypops anymore.

If one wants rainbows and lollypops, then 24hrs of Lemons is the place to race:

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=20&pictureid=460

[tom91ita]

actually planning on doing a LeMons next year. if their scheduling pattern holds, most likely April at Gingerman. July is too close to now and October has too many other conflicts (GRM 2011 challenge, etc.)

did you know the LeMons rollcage speciications are tougher than SCCA? min wall thickness for under 3500 #'s is 0.12 wall.....

[Chip42]

If one wants rainbows and lollypops, then 24hrs of Lemons is the place to race:

personally - I find that whole crapcan racing thing completely uninteresting. it looks like lets make a deal crossed with deathrace 2000. I'm glad their cage rules are more hardcore than SCCA.

[tom91ita]

personally - I find that whole crapcan racing thing completely uninteresting. it looks like lets make a deal crossed with deathrace 2000. I'm glad their cage rules are more hardcore than SCCA.


what i found interesting/amusing was that their insurance requirements dictate a "thicker" cage (better could be debated....) but they allow Isaacs. that is, SFI 38.1 is not mandated.

[tom91ita]

any update on letter #4220 to allow charcoal cannisters to be removed?

this was submitted in Feb of 2011. and tabled in May 2011.

what is the tracking policy of these types of requests. is more info needed?


Title: Evaporative Emissions Rules for Improved Touring
Class: IT
Car: none
Request: The evaporative emissions equipment can apparently be removed if a fuel cell is installed as I interpret the current rules.In the past, it had been my understanding that devices associated with the evaporative emissions systems (e.g., charcoal canisters, etc.) could be removed.I have in fact removed them as apparently many others have per various discussions at improvedtouring.comI believe that the rules should allow for their removal regardless of if a fuel cell has been installed.A simple rule similar to that in Super Touring could be implemented."All emission control devices may be removed and the resulting holes plugged."Thank you for your consideration.

letter number #4220

[Chip42]

Tom,

we did vote on a new rule during our last meeting in february. it took a while to get to this item and we vetted the wording pretty thuroughly. it was sent up to the CRB, but they haven't had a chance to vote on it yet.

what we recommended was an allowance to remove eveporative system components, with an added requirement for rollover spill protection (vent check valves).

we'll wait to see what the CRB does with the actual wording.

[tom91ita]

posting for completeness. from the June Fastrack Prelim Minutes:




1. #4220 (Tom Lamb) Evaporative Emissions Rules for Improved Touring

Thank you for your letter. Add new section: 9.1.3.D.1.b.1.:

1. Fuel system evaporative emissions systems
may be removed or replaced. Use or addition of rollover spill protection (i.e. check valve) is required.

[Greg Amy]

Note that's a proposed rule change for 2013. Don't go rippin' that s**t out yet... - GA

[tom91ita]

Greg,

if we go back to the beginning of this thread, i freely admitted that i screwed up and removed it years ago.

this rule request was to recognize that many of us had and were technically illegal.

[tdw6974]

posting for completeness. from the June Fastrack Prelim Minutes:


[/LEFT]
Do We get to vote yes on this???

[Chip42]

Do We get to vote yes on this???

write your BoD / the BoD in support if you like. they are the next to vet it. after them, it's official (one way or the other).

[Ralf]

Legal now.

D.1.b.1 pg 464

Fuel system evaporative emissions systems may be removed or replaced. Use or addition of rollover spill protection (i.e. check valve) is required.

[tom91ita]

Any suggestions for a check valve?

[tom91ita]

Did a bit more looking and it looks like something at grainger would work

http://m.grainger.com/mobile/details/?R=1WPE5

http://m.grainger.com/mobile/details/?R=4DJA7

I kind of like the 1/2" ball check and install vertically to allow flow into the tank. This should allow for normal venting and then seal when upside down.

[webhound]

Very cool, useful because my canister is in the way of my new high capacity filter.

I know aquarium supply places have smaller check valves, any input on their suitability? The evap line on my Civic is 5/16 or maybe a little smaller.

[tdw6974]

Any suggestions for a check valve?
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/abt-tf350

[tom91ita]

Very cool, useful because my canister is in the way of my new high capacity filter.

I know aquarium supply places have smaller check valves, any input on their suitability? The evap line on my Civic is 5/16 or maybe a little smaller.

I know it said check valve but really what we need is an excess flow valve. Or perhaps a tip over valve like http://m.summitracing.com/parts/sum-220020

I am thinking the over sized ball check will let vapor out but will stop the gas if the car turns over.

[Chip42]

I know it said check valve but really what we need is an excess flow valve. Or perhaps a tip over valve like http://m.summitracing.com/parts/sum-220020

I am thinking the over sized ball check will let vapor out but will stop the gas if the car turns over.

precisely the idea - let vapors out but keep liquid fuel in. a ball under a conical seat is the typical design, that's what many of the fuel cell roll over valved vents use.

fuel safe makes a good 3/8" in-line roll over valve available from any fuel safe dealer. it's PN RV38. good for guys keeping their stock tanks and plumbing where a valve made for a cell is harder to implement.

[tom91ita]

Chip

Thanks!

Looks like a deal at less than $20 and actually made for cars. and since I started this thread/mess I really ought to take care if this ......

http://www.fuelsafe.com/store/vent-check-valves/rv38.html

[adamjabaay]

thanks tom....no I can clean up that engine bay! Ha

[tom91ita]

Adam,

Lane carries those Fuel Safe RV38's that Chris mentioned.

I think i will get one there likely next trip to Chicago.

Maybe St. Patrick's Day?

[GTIspirit]

Thanks for the update. I too had originally, by not so careful rules reading, removed the charcoal canister from my '87 16V. After everyone pointed out the error of this thinking I put it back in. Now I can officially remove it, non-trivial weight:)

What isn't explicitly clear to me about these suggested check/vent valve solutions is the mounting requirements.
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/abt-tf350
http://m.summitracing.com/parts/sum-220020
http://www.fuelsafe.com/store/vent-check-valves/rv38.html

Assuming that most cars are generally the same, some kind of plastic vent line from the tank to the charcoal/carbon canister, and the carbon canister can be packaged in any orientation, as can the hose between the fuel tank and canister, what are the installation requirements for these devices so they function correctly? Do the first two have to be installed vertically to function correctly? The Fuel Safe Vent Check Valve can be installed in any orientation, but it may not be advisable to install it in the engine compartment if that was where the OEM charcoal canister was mounted, since venting fuel vapors underhood might not be such a good idea......

[adamjabaay]

Adam,

Lane carries those Fuel Safe RV38's that Chris mentioned.

I think i will get one there likely next trip to Chicago.

Maybe St. Patrick's Day?

Pick me up one dood!

[Chip42]

Thanks for the update. I too had originally, by not so careful rules reading, removed the charcoal canister from my '87 16V. After everyone pointed out the error of this thinking I put it back in. Now I can officially remove it, non-trivial weight:)

What isn't explicitly clear to me about these suggested check/vent valve solutions is the mounting requirements.
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/abt-tf350
http://m.summitracing.com/parts/sum-220020
http://www.fuelsafe.com/store/vent-check-valves/rv38.html

Assuming that most cars are generally the same, some kind of plastic vent line from the tank to the charcoal/carbon canister, and the carbon canister can be packaged in any orientation, as can the hose between the fuel tank and canister, what are the installation requirements for these devices so they function correctly? Do the first two have to be installed vertically to function correctly? The Fuel Safe Vent Check Valve can be installed in any orientation, but it may not be advisable to install it in the engine compartment if that was where the OEM charcoal canister was mounted, since venting fuel vapors underhood might not be such a good idea......

the first 2 you linked are cell vents and will be a pain to mount on a line. in both cases the long end would be down into the cell. the fuel save RV38 MUST be mounted vertically, it's not a disriminatory valve, just a ball in a cone. mount it so the cone points roughly UP then the line will choke in a rollover. I mounted mine on the fire wall with an extension line after the valve venting out to a fender

[EV]

My Nissan has one already at the tank OEM (I saw it in the fuel system diagram)

[Chip42]

My Nissan has one already at the tank OEM (I saw it in the fuel system diagram)

quite a few cars do, which is really why the new rule was approved. forcing the bulk of competitors to fit additional equipment was not the intention, I figure maybe 1/3 of current IT cars will actually need to add something.