I decided to send in a request to remove/replace wires in IT cars

[shwah]

I am sure there are divided opinions on this. The request is pasted below. What do folks think?

Request Details

Title: Allow replacement wiring
Category: IT
Class: IT
Car: none
Request: Please provide an allowance to remove or replace wires and connectors in vehicle and engine wiring harnesses. Prohibit the addition of any functional current/signal path that was not present in the OEM system (you cannot run a new wire path that wasn't already there unless it is already permitted within the rules), in respect of the principles of the class.

The reason for my request is just a basic desire to simplify repair and maintenance of the race car.

While I am aware that there may be some cases where a car could loose some amount of weight through re-wiring, I struggle to convince myself that this could account for more than one or two dozen pounds. Personally as a competitor I don't mind one bit if every other racer in my class is able to achieve minimum specified weight - that would only make the racing more competitive and thus enjoyable. Considering that most oem wiring is routed along the floor and/or frame rails, I am not even convinced that loosing a few pounds there is an advantage vis a vis weight distribution.

As car builders and maintainers we would appreciate the opportunity to clean up the appearance and servicability of our race cars when we encounter a wiring failure or decide to take advantage of an allowance such as installing a replacement ecu. Please allow us to do so.

thank you,
Chris Schaafsma

letter number #3799

[jimbbski]

Chris! Duck! LOL

[Z3_GoCar]

:023: good luck.

[Flyinglizard]

I add wires and cut off ends of the fuel pump circuit, and ignition drive. Anything that makes the car run more often should be legal, IMHO. MM

[RacerBill]

Chris: I appreciate your effort, and agree with your request. I fear, however, that you will probably receive the same answer that I received when I requested that we be allowed to add small plates to allow us to jack our 25+ year old cars safely - 'the rules are adequate as written.'

[tnord]

how does this make the class better if there is already an allowance to remove an old crusty wire (or entire harness) and replace with a new one?

[tom91ita]

Chris,

i am glad you brought up the subject of wiring. i meant to start a thread to ask about what to do with wires that might end up "hot" due to allowed mods.

There is this section in the rules:



Gauges and instruments may be added, replaced, or removed.


as well as this part:




f. Carpets, center consoles, floor mats, headliners, sun roof liner and frame, dome lights, grab handles, and their insulating, attaching or operating mechanisms may be removed.


so i can remove the dome light but not the wires to it. or i can remove a gauge but not the wires to it.

i removed the dome light and crap when i removed my sunroof mechanism, etc. i coiled up the wires leading to the dome light and zipped it to the roll cage. but typically the dome light does not have its own fuse and so when the door opens, the lead to the light is "hot."

so some wires are "hot" because of allowable mods and i taped it off. i would much rather pull the wires back to the source.

sorry to bend the thread but i think there is more to the issue of removing wires than the engine harness.

tom

[StephenB]

"Operating mechanism"

In reality the wire is one of the mechanisms that make it work. No?

Stephen

[G-Man]

Can you snip the hot wire way back in the harness and insulate it? The wire's still there but no current.
Would that work?

[GTIspirit]

Chris,

i am glad you brought up the subject of wiring. i meant to start a thread to ask about what to do with wires that might end up "hot" due to allowed mods.

so i can remove the dome light but not the wires to it. or i can remove a gauge but not the wires to it.

i removed the dome light and crap when i removed my sunroof mechanism, etc. i coiled up the wires leading to the dome light and zipped it to the roll cage. but typically the dome light does not have its own fuse and so when the door opens, the lead to the light is "hot."

so some wires are "hot" because of allowable mods and i taped it off. i would much rather pull the wires back to the source.

I wondered the same thing myself since I've got a hot dome light wire going to the windshield header. Maybe I should pull it back through it's routing and coil it up at the source. But at some point someone needs to take a look at the rules and clean up the ridiculous ones like this.

And I thought jacking plates were not illegal?

[tnord]

what i think is ridiculous is people who drive race cars, which require fire systems/extinguishers, extensive roll cages, nomex, specialty helmets and restraint systems, etc. trying to sell an exposed dome light wire as a safety issue that cannot be dealt with other making wholesale changes to the rules.

:rolleyes:

[lateapex911]

And I thought jacking plates were not illegal?

Depends on how they are done. The ones on my car are completely legal and very functional. The ones I've see on other RX-7s are chassis stiffeners.

(Shhh, look the other way, wink wink, nudge nudge. it's one of them geo-graph-ical deals. ;)

[StephenB]

what i think is ridiculous is people who drive race cars, which require fire systems/extinguishers, extensive roll cages, nomex, specialty helmets and restraint systems, etc. trying to sell an exposed dome light wire as a safety issue that cannot be dealt with other making wholesale changes to the rules.

:rolleyes:

With all due respect I hope you know that this response represents your opinion on behalf of the ITAC. Your on the ITAC that will review that exact letter and you get a chance to vote with your peers on it. Being disrespectful to the membership that YOU represent is ridiculous. This comment that you made is completely useless and has no valuable input on the discussion that the original poster created. I really hope your going to have more input when fulfilling your commitment to represent me and the other "ridiculous " people that are involved in the IT classes.

Stephen

PS: Wholesale change? Really? How long have you been IT racing, I am guessing not long...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Why doesn't the OP consider the wires that lead to the dome light either 'attaching', 'operating' or 'insulating' mechanisms?

I do. Probably all 3.

[Ron Earp]

And what many think ridiculous is
people who drive race cars, which require fire systems/extinguishers, extensive roll cages, nomex, specialty helmets and restraint systems, etc. having to work to justify removing things that don't belong in a race car such as dome lights, OEM wiring harnesses, washer bottles, and so on.

[tom91ita]

Why doesn't the OP consider the wires that lead to the dome light either 'attaching', 'operating' or 'insulating' mechanisms?

I do. Probably all 3.

from Webster's:


Mechanism: a mechanical contrivance; structure of a machine.

to me, the section of "mechanism" can only apply to something like the sunroof as opposed to the carpet. "operating" pretty much speaks to "mechanisms" imho.

to me, "attaching" would be hardware and brackets.

"insulating" might have a far flung hope of applying because the wires are indeed insulated.

tnord, sorry to be playing the "safety" card but it was SCCA that taught me that with the periodic replacement of belts, etc.

if the consensus on the forum is wiring can be removed if the device to which the device was attached can be removed, so be it. but why not have a clear rule set to begin with.

on second thought, i think i'll pull my washer bottle as well and put 3M windoweld in my motor mounts since most here think that those rules are BS as well.

besides, the wires that i can pull because they were "attached" to the dome light are attached to the wire harness that is attached to my washer bottle, ergo, i can pull the washer bottle, right?

[Knestis]

And what many think ridiculous is having to work to justify removing things that don't belong in a race car such as dome lights, OEM wiring harnesses, washer bottles, and so on.

So you're telling me my Golf isn't a race car...?

Seriously, Ron - that's just not an effective test. EVERYONE has a different perception of what a race car "should be." You want to put it out to a vote and end up with body kits and ginormous rear wings? Or let popular perception relegate anything that's over 25 years old to vintage. Or the scrapper. Yeah - THAT'S the rule we should us. Anything with carbs can't possibly be a "racing car!"

K

[Ron Earp]

So you're telling me my Golf isn't a race car...?


In my opinion it be a far more serviceable race car if it was stripped to the bare essentials leaving the core components of IT which you eloquently stated in another post, basically stock suspension, stock motor/tranny/brakes, stock body, and the rest of it - have at it.



Seriously, Ron - that's just not an effective test. EVERYONE has a different perception of what a race car "should be."

Kirk, I realize that. I was born at night but I wasn't born last night. We all have different opinions of what IT should be and about this time every year we all start airing them out.



You want to put it out to a vote and end up with body kits and ginormous rear wings?

I seriously doubt that will happen. The motor mount vote indicates to me that the ITAC/CRB isn't all that interested in what the members want.



Or let popular perception relegate anything that's over 25 years old to vintage.

Sort of like the hot new "National-sort-of-like-IT-for-Hondas" class that everyone is talking about? That one regulates quite a few older cars out of the running.



Or the scrapper. Yeah - THAT'S the rule we should us. Anything with carbs can't possibly be a "racing car!"

I'm with you there. The sun is setting on the carbed cars in ITS with the open ECU rules. As it should. At some point we've got to move on.

[JeffYoung]

I acknowledge we may hurt/ruin IT with any changes like this. But my personal view is we will ultimately improve it and help keep it vital.

We aren't going down the prod road. The biggest "change" to IT in my race career has been the Process -- which is a system designed to ensure stability, and not the opposite.

The second biggest was the ECU rule, and if there ever was creep, more like a leap really, that was it.

But beyond that, Kirk, a question for you - what has fundamentally changed about the IT rule set? And let's leave passenger seats and carpet and stuff like that out of it. What about the core stuff has changed?

In my opinion, since day one of IT, the answer is nothing. That is not true of prod.

We now have an official competitor in STU/STL that in my view is trying to woo the IT crowd.

I don't see anyone other than (and I say this with all due respect) the old guard who really wants to race racecars with dome lights and washer bottles and all of the dual purpose vestiges that serve no purpose other than as symbols of a of a conservative ruleset.

I agree it is a ruleset that has served us well, but if we don't do things that, without violating what IT is truly about, make IT more attractive to newer and new racers, the category will die. Just as if we "prod-ized" it.

[Knestis]

EDIT - Never mind. It's all been said before. I'm not changing anyone's mind.

I want air jacks.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

I don't see anyone other than (and I say this with all due respect) the old guard who really wants to race racecars with dome lights and washer bottles and all of the dual purpose vestiges that serve no purpose other than as symbols of a of a conservative ruleset.

I agree it is a ruleset that has served us well, but if we don't do things that, without violating what IT is truly about, make IT more attractive to newer and new racers, the category will die. Just as if we "prod-ized" it.

Do you REALLY CARE that you have to keep the washer bottle (or insert other *I*-think-its-stupid item) or is it just a thing to bitch about? Really? Who f-ing cares? There is a line in the sand, it DOESN'T HURT ANYONE.

It's been said a million times, everyones 'line' is different for what they think is reasonable. These are STUPID things to be focusing on when they don't make a shits-bit of difference - especially when you have 16V cars in ITB and ITC only getting railroaded with bogus rules.

Geezus.

[JeffYoung]

Well, I listen to you. Not arguing with you, and I do respect your history in the category.

I do think this is an interesting exercise.

A LOT has changed in IT since 1985ish...but has stock engine/suspension/tranny/body parts?

I suspect your response may be that things that were once considered core IT stuff is no longer. Valid point. What would you, as someone who has been in IT longer than anyone I think, consider to be core values we have lost/moved on from?

[JeffYoung]

Not particularly, but I also don't think it's my place to say "no" if membership wants that.

But I do strongly disagree with you about their importance. Not from a performance/build ease standpoint but a perceptional one.

We are more and more being viewed as that crusty old, increasingly irrelevant class that makes you keep your water bottle/wiring harness/stock battery location. We are oging to face competition from the ST classes and I think we need to do what we can to keep attracting racers to our class.

That perceptional issue matters.


Do you REALLY CARE that you have to keep the washer bottle (or insert other *I*-think-its-stupid item) or is it just a thing to bitch about? Really? Who f-ing cares? There is a line in the sand, it DOESN'T HURT ANYONE.

It's been said a million times, everyones 'line' is different for what they think is reasonable. These are STUPID things to be focusing on when they don't make a shits-bit of difference - especially when you have 16V cars in ITB and ITC only getting railroaded with bogus rules.

Geezus.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Not particularly, but I also don't think it's my place to say "no" if membership wants that.

But I do strongly disagree with you about their importance. Not from a performance/build ease standpoint but a perceptional one.

We are more and more being viewed as that crusty old, increasingly irrelevant class that makes you keep your water bottle/wiring harness/stock battery location. We are oging to face competition from the ST classes and I think we need to do what we can to keep attracting racers to our class.

That perceptional issue matters.

So write me a complete list of things that YOU and Ron would change. Then when you draw your new line, we are going to get someone who adds 2 more things. Then the next guy will add 2, and the next guy adds his 1. All for what?

Then tell me who you know of who doesn't race in IT (the SCCA's largest category BTW) because of the 3 things you list.

[tnord]

Not particularly, but I also don't think it's my place to say "no" if membership wants that.

But I do strongly disagree with you about their importance. Not from a performance/build ease standpoint but a perceptional one.

We are more and more being viewed as that crusty old, increasingly irrelevant class that makes you keep your water bottle/wiring harness/stock battery location. We are oging to face competition from the ST classes and I think we need to do what we can to keep attracting racers to our class.

That perceptional issue matters.

some things in here i agree with and some things i don't.

agree;
1) perception matters.
2) we do need to attract new racers

disagree;
1) we're facing any relevant level of competition from ST, not to mention enough to influence IT policy
2) we have to give membership "what they want."


Travis
-who is barely thirty years old, isn't on the ITAC to make friends, and in no way whatsoever can be considered "the crusty old guard."

[JeffYoung]

You gotta stop with that "what Ron and I want" stuff.

It's not about ME drawing the line. It's about listening to membership and if they want something that doesn't run counter to the core stuff in IT, then letting them have it. Yeah, that may suck in some cases but here's a funny thing: I 100% completely agree with Kirk's statement that we get the IT that we want. This is a club. It shouldn't be up to 7 non-elected guys to tell a majority of the folks running in the class no on something that YOU YOURSELF just said was inconsequential and didn't matter.

I'm sure my line will be different than others. My individual wants are irrelevant though. I'm not saying that everyone gets what they want. I am saying that if a majority can agree on a change, and it's not a core item, then we shouldn't say no.

Go back and look at the thread where someone (Ron maybe) ran a poll on this. I think you'd be surprised at the level of support for NO change.

But in my view, we have to get away from the idea that we dictate to membership how THEIR class will be run. I agree there are some foundational principles that we can't/shouldn't change. I agree that in some cases, what those are may be a gray line. But I also think if you got all IT racers in an auditorium somewhere they'd agree on 95% of them.

Travis -- specific question for you. You are ok with the engine mount allowance. But not washer bottles. Or wiring harnesses. Why and how do you draw a line/see a difference between the two?


So write me a complete list of things that YOU and Ron would change. Then when you draw your new line, we are going to get someone who adds 2 more things. Then the next guy will add 2, and the next guy adds his 1. All for what?

Then tell me who you know of who doesn't race in IT (the SCCA's largest category BTW) because of the 3 things you list.

[JeffYoung]

In my opinion, you should check that attitude a bit. Not towards me, but towards members. We are here to serve them, not be jerks/assholes/obstructionist.

It's that precise no.2 that led to a huge hullybaloo over motor mounts. And yes, I do think our overall approach to that stuff has driven off some racers. That's going to happen naturally in some cases I agree, but if quite honestly, my personal opinion is I'd ditch the "washer bottle" (read any inconsequential item) if it kept a few racers in the class.

Why? Because keeping it sure won't.

That said, I have a washer bottle and it sure ain't a big deal to have it.


1) we're facing any relevant level of competition from ST, not to mention enough to influence IT policy
2) we have to give membership "what they want."

Travis
-who is barely thirty years old, isn't on the ITAC to make friends, and in no way whatsoever can be considered "the crusty old guard."

[Ron Earp]

So write me a complete list of things that YOU and Ron would change. Then when you draw your new line, we are going to get someone who adds 2 more things. Then the next guy will add 2, and the next guy adds his 1. All for what?

I suspect that four or five modifications to the rules would capture what 95% of the progressive IT racers would want changed (didn't I write the same thing a year ago?). But, since you already know what is going to happen and know what is best for IT there really isn't any point in discussing it.

I do feel it is narrow minded to maintain the perspective that IT is going to chug along and continue to do well without "modernization" of the rules.

[lateapex911]

I'll tell you one thing, if the ITAC approves of wiring harness removal, but rejects engine mounts,
...I'll need a shrink to help understand the logic....

[Ron Earp]

I'll tell you one thing, if the ITAC approves of wiring harness removal, but rejects engine mounts,
...I'll need a shrink to help understand the logic....

Some of us already need a shrink to understand the "logic".



Open ECU rule with addition of sensors....but must maintain a stock wiring harness.
Spherical bearings....but stock motor mounts.
Fabricated uprights....but gotta keep that heater core intact.
Trick that clutch and pressure plate out so it weighs nothing....but don't touch that stock flywheel.

And so on. Everyone has a different perspective though and I'm sure many don't see contradictions at all within the IT rules set.

[tnord]

Travis -- specific question for you. You are ok with the engine mount allowance. But not washer bottles. Or wiring harnesses. Why and how do you draw a line/see a difference between the two?

i'm fine with washer bottles because that is the "flagship item" that is trotted out time and time again and i do feel helps with the perception problem. it really is a zero effort, zero expense item for everyone.

wiring harnesses on the other hand is not part of the "perception problem," and would be prohibitively expenisive in terms of time and effort for current, existing members, to all get back to the same "level" of only having the minimum amount of insulated copper. i see little to no benefit to the category here.

[tnord]

In my opinion, you should check that attitude a bit. Not towards me, but towards members. We are here to serve them, not be jerks/assholes/obstructionist.



...and i am.

hey kirk, you still keeping that list of what IT would be like if every time a request was sent to the ITAC for a new allowance it was accepted?

[JeffYoung]

So you've made a personal value judgment on two different items. One is ok with you, the other is not.

And you'd take it upon yourself to reject a membership request back by say 50 letters in support on the wiring harness rule because you personally see no benefit (trust me others do)?

[D. Ellis-Brown]

This is a post that I made a few days ago in another debate "It is nice to see that the debate still continues about the removal of brackets.....among other things--- "Things that don't change have the tendency to remain the same". I go back to a request I submitted to the IT Advisory Board a in 2009, to reinstate the verbage under "Intent"..... "Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage"..... I would imagine that 50% plus of the debates aired in this site, would be eliminated. What do you think? Is removing a bracket, welded or bolted, gaining you any competitive advantage? Is removing a horn, windshield washer resevoir, light bulbs or some wiring gaining you a competitive advantage? I think that most of the competitors understand the difference. What do you think?

The Intent of IT is fairly straight forward, but it has evolved from the original intent to find a home for older Showroom stock cars, and the dual use as the current rules state. I would rather see the debate be over "competitive advantage items" rather than nonsense, non value items like dome light wiring, washer bottles, horn, misc. wiring and the like. But that is only my opinion.

How about thinking outside of the box. I beleive that the ITAC should represent and respect the IT racers first, in concert with the stated objectives of the CRB and SCCA. I want and encourage debates over rule changes, fairness, cost to the competitors, keeping a level training field, and the like. But if the ITAC is not going to represent the IT racers, maybe it is time for the competitors to request a change in how the ITAC is staffed, and have the ITAC representatives elected by the registered IT drivers and have representation from each of our Areas. Then if the majority wants a significant change, there should be no one to stand in the way. What do you think?

If we are going to have a debate, let's make it worthwhile.

Respectfully submitted,
David Ellis-Brown
Central Florida Region

[lateapex911]

.... for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage"..... I would imagine that 50% plus of the debates aired in this site, would be eliminated. What do you think? Is removing a bracket, welded or bolted, gaining you any competitive advantage? Is removing a horn, windshield washer resevoir, light bulbs or some wiring gaining you a competitive advantage? I think that most of the competitors understand the difference. What do you think?

Respectfully submitted,
David Ellis-Brown
Central Florida Region
I think that every one of these discussions would still exist because they all are measurable changes and can be argued to alter or create a competitive advantage. Ridiculous, you'll say, but getting 5 guys to agree on the line in the sand on which is, and which is not a competitive advantage will get you 10 lines, because none of those guys will be able to even be consistent in their judgment to draw that line in the same place twice.

It would just add yet another need to define something, something that can be argued from a number of angles, and can never be truly agreed on.
I'm very much opposed.

[Knestis]

I submit - for the 100th time or so, since it's valuable to continue the debate - that you wouldn't have done those things if you didn't see any advantage, David. Did you you intend that any of the things you removed would make your car SLOWER...?

K

PS - Here you go, Travis. This was just for the 2008 calendar year.

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

[shwah]

Kirk, I think that the black or white view you like to take on these types of topics is healthy for conversations like this - really a big part of what makes them good for everyone involved and spurring us to consider extremes of the topic when discussing them, but when someone takes a fundamentalist view like that and applies it to the actual rules review/update process for a category it becomes counter productive. IMO this was a huge underlying factor in the big turnover that the ITAC had recently. Not picking on you individually, just making a general observation that picking battles by everyone involved rather than digging heels in on issues in a fundamentalist manner may have benefited IT racing more than what went down. You see, for instance, there is a huge difference between asking if we can remove wires that don't do anything on our race cars, because the item that they connected to on one or both ends is no longer there (or never was there from the factory floor), and asking for adding a new functional device to the race car - like air jacks. The problem is that just over a year ago we had a group of people on the ITAC that made a decision to draw that fundamentalist line in the sand on any and every item, rather than talking it through. Or at least that is what it looked like from the outside.

As far as this specific topic, just let me clarify, that the intent of the request was only to allow removal of wires that are no longer connected to something on one or both ends, either due to allowed modifications (aftermarket ecu) or OEM configuration (optional power antenna lead). I don't think it would be legal to remove, for instance lighting harness wires if an allowance were made to remove wires, because removing those particular wires would perform a prohibited function - disabling the lighting system.

The request is not intended to enable a GT car wiring harness to work in IT, just to let us remove the stuff we don't need, within the IT rule set, and do a nice clean re-wire of what is left if we choose.

I have read comments about 40# coming off a car if this were allowed.
1. I call B.S. If anyone proves to me that they can do this with a current logbooked IT car, and all of the gain is due to this allowance, I will give them EDIT CONSIDERING THE POTENTIAL WIFE IMPACT OF GIVING AWAY $100, I'M GOING TO REVISE THIS DOWN TO $25 :).
2. Even if we could all remove 40#, BFD. We all have a minimum weight, and if we can meet it, I for one would be leaving the 40# in the floor of my car, and if we can't meet our spec weight, it would be a nice way to help those cars reach the condition under which they were classed. More competitive cars are good for IT racing IMO.

I don't see how this impacts any first principle, considering that everything that would be removed is already non-functional within the rules today.

[Andy Bettencourt]

You gotta stop with that "what Ron and I want" stuff.

It's not about ME drawing the line. It's about listening to membership and if they want something that doesn't run counter to the core stuff in IT, then letting them have it. Yeah, that may suck in some cases but here's a funny thing: I 100% completely agree with Kirk's statement that we get the IT that we want. This is a club. It shouldn't be up to 7 non-elected guys to tell a majority of the folks running in the class no on something that YOU YOURSELF just said was inconsequential and didn't matter.



I was asking you and Ron because you two have been the squeeky wheels in this type of stuff. You are 'newer' to IT and infer that you have your finger on the pulse of the younger crowd that won't try IT because of 'stupid rules' like XXX.

I ask you because you seem to be able to represent that group.

My point is simple. You WILL get what you want. A-Sedan, Production, etc are all born out of member driven requests. LOTS of guys in AS wish they didn't have to spend the money on big motors, crazy suspension kits and monster brake set-ups. Prod hit rock botoom and they developed Limited Prep and there seems to be some growth (or maybe more of a stop-the-bleeding).

If I were king for a day, I would allow the removal/addition of some of these items - but ONLY because I know that locks down my line in the sand and prevents any more creep. But there are plenty of people who ask for stuff I think is redciulous. And I bet in my '5-things', someone will think 1 or 2 of those aren't needed.

Yes, we have to look at this from 10,000 feet and weigh the issues of change. But remember, just like when you add up 10 2hp mods you do to squeek the most power out of your car - when you add up the 10 "washer bottles', you could end up with a product that 'you' (the collective you),didn't envision.

And it's WAY harder to take back than it is to give.

So take a look at Kirk's link from the 2008 rules. Someone asks for alternate body panels to make weight or because they can't find anymore - and you get 12 letters. 11 'for' and 1 'against'. How do YOU vote? If you vote yes, in my opinion you would be wrong. If you vote no, you truly don't believe in giving the members what they want.

It's a tough job.

[JeffYoung]

I think sometimes the answer is not "slower" but rather easier to build/work on. Which I agree is something of a performance advantage because it allows resources to be devoted elsewhere.

An interesting exercise would be for eaach of us to go through those proposed changes and list whether we personally think each affects an IT core value or not. My hyothesis would be that we would have agreement on most items -- but I wonder if I am right or wrong?


I submit - for the 100th time or so, since it's valuable to continue the debate - that you wouldn't have done those things if you didn't see any advantage, David. Did you you intend that any of the things you removed would make your car SLOWER...?

K

PS - Here you go, Travis. This was just for the 2008 calendar year.

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

[Andy Bettencourt]

An interesting exercise would be for eaach of us to go through those proposed changes and list whether we personally think each affects an IT core value or not. My hyothesis would be that we would have agreement on most items -- but I wonder if I am right or wrong?

First you would have to have a majority concensus on core values - and what those meant. I am constantly amazed by the people who come on here and proclaim that IT isn't 'entry-level' anymore and that IT needs to get back to 'low-cost'.

That hurdle is a huge one.

[JeffYoung]

I agree, but I think it is a small (but vocal) minority who takes that position.

Most of us realize these cars are not dual purpose cars driven on the street anymore.

[RacerBill]

The request is not intended to enable a GT car wiring harness to work in IT, just to let us remove the stuff we don't need, within the IT rule set, and do a nice clean re-wire of what is left if we choose.



Just for the record, I was told by a National licensed tech inspector during an annual inspection a couple of years ago, that my stock wiring harness looked messy and that I should consider 'cleaning it up'.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Just for the record, I was told by a National licensed tech inspector during an annual inspection a couple of years ago, that my stock wiring harness looked messy and that I should consider 'cleaning it up'.

Sure, and what he meant was, degrease it, organize it and/or route it through some plastic snakes.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I agree, but I think it is a small (but vocal) minority who takes that position.


Isn't that who votes on these issues?

[RacerBill]

Sure, and what he meant was, degrease it, organize it and/or route it through some plastic snakes.

Actually, it was pretty clean, and was running thru the original plastic snakes!!!!!!!!

[Andy Bettencourt]

Most of us realize these cars are not dual purpose cars driven on the street anymore.

And some would tell you that the 'evolution' of the rule-set was to blame. To redefine the rules to come more in line with where the rules have evolved to or even better - "what people are doing" is, to many, the very definition of creep.

Read: History of Spherical Bearings in Improved Touring

Just sayin'.

DooDs, I agree that we could amend the rules to the greatest common denominator in terms of what we would like allowed. But you best be prepared to define the allowance that encompases 'non essential engine bay components' or however you are going to allow the removal of a WB or whatever else you think the membership wants.

[Knestis]

To your organizational change theory concerns, Chris - I dug in my heels over what I viewed as malfeasance on the part of selected CRB members, bad governance practices imposed by a few folks between the ITAC and the that body, and (mostly) to being told that I shouldn't communicate with members. The actual practices the ITAC was applying were established and had been accepted - hell, endorsed - by the CRB and our liaison. Everything was fine until what we were doing bumped up against a few sacred cows.

To your point about intentions, I'll just refer folks to...

http://www.roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?p=846519#post846519

K

PS - I think that we violated the "core values" of IT when it became essentially impossible to maintain the dual purpose nature of the cars with a car prepared to the limit of the rules. How about that...? Why are the values of the Real Racing Car™ crowd more valuable than mine...?

[JeffYoung]

Kirk, that's a fair point, and it would have a lot of sway with me....if we were back in 1990, or if things hadn't changed before my time.

The reality is the dual purpose language is no longer core IT value. Maybe we shouldn't have changed that, but it was changed (before my time).

Your viewpoint is valid, but that battle was fought and decided.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Your viewpoint is valid, but that battle was fought and decided.

While true, please don't dismiss the history as not pertinent. It is a real example of creep (also known as 'you get what you want').

It WILL continue, no matter how slow, unless someone holds the line.

[Gary L]

As far as this specific topic, just let me clarify, that the intent of the request was only to allow removal of wires that are no longer connected to something on one or both ends, either due to allowed modifications (aftermarket ecu) or OEM configuration (optional power antenna lead).
Chris - I'm going to respectfully suggest that if this ^^^^ was your intent, you need to do a re-write. The letter in your first post says something altogether different, IMO:



Request: Please provide an allowance to remove or replace wires and connectors in vehicle and engine wiring harnesses.


I read that as a proposal to allow removal of any wiring that isn't necessary to make the car function. (Which, BTW, as the owner/driver of a 40 year old car, I would favor highly... selfish or not! :))

[tnord]

In my opinion, you should check that attitude a bit. Not towards me, but towards members. We are here to serve them, not be jerks/assholes/obstructionist.



i am here to serve the category, and SCCA as a whole. we will never be 100% sure what is representative of the drivers of the 1000+ IT cars *out there.* i will absolutely consider member input, but on some issues almost no amount of member input will sway me to change my mind on a few things (like alternate control arms)....hence my "I'm not here to make friends" comment. regardless of the issue, "it's easier," or "real race cars have/don't have," or "this is cool," is not sufficient for me to forego RULES STABILITY in favor of the flavor of the day.

somewhat OT but a relevant comparison....

US politics is totally fucked in part because as soon as they are in office, they're already worried about re-election. they're only worried about the next 2-4 yrs with zero consideration for the implications of their decisions further down the road. an ITAC member is not elected, and i am here to consider BOTH the short term and long term effects of each decision on their own merits.

[JeffYoung]

What is "the category?" It's the members.

I don't think being proud of not being here to make friends is a good idea either. We are on a committee. We need to work with other committee members and membership. I'm not saying you don't do what you think is right -- you should -- but this isn't (or shouldn't be) a head butting contest.

I fully agree with you on rules stability. It's a valid concern, and one that is important to me. But again, it ties back into to "core IT values" for me. If it isn't a core value, and most of membership seems to want it, we need to consider it AND we need to understand that "membership wanting it" can be a sufficient 'why" or reason for the change.

That doesn't mean we do it, but it means that we consider it, and consider the fact that our constituents are asking for it as one factor weighing in favor of the request.

[Z3_GoCar]

K

PS - I think that we violated the "core values" of IT when it became essentially impossible to maintain the dual purpose nature of the cars with a car prepared to the limit of the rules. How about that...? Why are the values of the Real Racing Car™ crowd more valuable than mine...?
But does the ITAC have any power to really maintain the dual purpose nature of IT cars? So in essence you'd like to have a race car with it's full smog gear? How about passing various state safety inspections, Virginia's laws on loud exhausts. So you'd like the ITAC to dial back the rules any time a state legislature/Feds come up with new more restrictive rules?

[Knestis]

... Your viewpoint is valid, but that battle was fought and decided.

NO, it most certainly was *not* fought and NOBODY made a "decision" to move past that first principle. We "creeped" past where that was any longer possible over dozens and dozens of small additional allowances over the years. The dual purpose statement was made obsolete by incremental changes, not because someone sat down and decided it was a good idea to do it in. Nobody knew to fight it because everyone was busy looking forward to their own next request for a neat thing they wanted to do.

Frog. Pot. Burner. We aren't paying enough attention to know we should jump until we're cooked. Travis's comparison to politics is apropos.

K

EDIT - Note here that "dual purpose" was, back in the olden days, the way we operationalized "affordable."

[JeffYoung]

I'm sure that similar arguments against proposed changes were made then as well.

Maybe there was unintentional creep, but I doubt it. You've been around a long time, do you remember discussions over removing the passenger seat, or the cat, or the headliner?

I know these cars were originally showroom stock cars and they've of course gone way beyound that. But I still think they remain much closer to their original purpose and intent than most SCCA classes. Hell, look at SM at this point, after just a few short years. And there is always the Prod example of course.

I read the ruleset you dug up from 1985 or whatever, and other than spherical bearings and ECUs there didn't seem to be a whole hell of a lot of difference in peformance mods then versus now. Safety and convenience have changed a lot, I agree.


NO, it most certainly was *not* fought and NOBODY made a "decision" to move past that first principle. We "creeped" past where that was any longer possible over dozens and dozens of small additional allowances over the years. The dual purpose statement was made obsolete by incremental changes, not because someone sat down and decided it was a good idea to do it in. Nobody knew to fight it because everyone was busy looking forward to their own next request for a neat thing they wanted to do.

Frog. Pot. Burner. We aren't paying enough attention to know we should jump until we're cooked. Travis's comparison to politics is apropos.

K

EDIT - Note here that "dual purpose" was, back in the olden days, the way we operationalized "affordable."

[joeg]

Here are a few others--Threaded Body struts allowed (You used to only be allowed to use a threaded sleeve--ridiculous rule).

Passenger seat removal

BATTERIES ("similar" cca and weight)

Driver seat--One piece race shells (with or without back brace/ FIA)

Mandatory kill switch

Regressive--Ban on separate cannisters for struts

Extra cage bars

Driver door gutting

[Knestis]

I had no window into the rules-making process between the time I left road racing (1990) and returned in 2004, so I don't know, Jeff.

Creep is by definition unintentional, in that nobody sits down and develops a strategic plan for how allowances for new modifications will be rolled out. And you take a much narrower view of what a "performance mod" is than I do. EVERY allowance has improved performance at the margin - otherwise each wouldn't have been requested.

Finally (and sorry I missed it before), back to this...


What is "the category?" It's the members. ...

NO IT IS NOT.

The Improved Touring category has outlived something more than a QUARTER MILLION members. The first obligation of the decision makers is to the well-being and longevity of the program, NOT to the relatively limited number of current participants. Recruiting, retention, and satisfaction of the members is an outcome of program health. See Travis's comparison again. Read it a few times, while thinking about the Club Racing participants who have come and gone just in the time you've (you all) been involved.

They leave for all kinds of reasons, almost none of which are factors controlled by the IT rules-makers. We have no obligation to try to give each of them what he or she wants. You have the responsibility to remember the history and take the long view.

K

[lateapex911]

Regarding the dual purpose nature of the category, I would agree that it was lost due to creep, but I'd suggest that creep was from two sources, and one fed the other, much in the way software development and hardware development were tied together in the early days of computers. (No cool software without increases in processor speed, etc).

Our rules were allowed to creep away from the dual purpose core because, in part, even the most basic form (earliest) of our rules would be illegal to be driven on the road today, in most states.

Further, our sport has seen fundamental shifts in peoples perceptions of, and acceptance of, risk. While we once drove our race cars to the track and nobody gave it much thought*, now, it would go like this:
Husband: "I'm just going to drive the racecar to the track this weekend, so you can have the SUV and take the kids to the beach, honey"
Wife: "WHAT?! Are you insane!? Seriously, have you lost your mind? You'll be killed in that thing! It has no airbags, or traction control or anything!! If it rains and some SUV spins you'll be run over! Flattened!! You have kids, you have responsibility, it's bad enough you take that thing on a track, but on the street!? no way!"

So, I think the rules have evolved to match social norms, technological considerations and legislative standards outside the inner circle of racing and our prep rules as much as anything.

Or, I imagine the rulesmakers thought process could be boiled down to the short story: Why bother having a dual purpose care when nobody will use it like that, and it would be illegal to do in most states anyway?

[RacerBill]

Very well put, Jake!!!!!!

[JeffYoung]

Well, I always respect your viewpoint both historical and in the present, but I couldn't disagree more.

IT is nothing but a name. It means nothing without the folks who are putting their time and money into going racing in it NOW.

The long view is protected by not making basic changes to the rules like the ECU rule, or spherical bearings. Beyond that, our duty is to the members.




I had no window into the rules-making process between the time I left road racing (1990) and returned in 2004, so I don't know, Jeff.

Creep is by definition unintentional, in that nobody sits down and develops a strategic plan for how allowances for new modifications will be rolled out. And you take a much narrower view of what a "performance mod" is than I do. EVERY allowance has improved performance at the margin - otherwise each wouldn't have been requested.

Finally (and sorry I missed it before), back to this...



NO IT IS NOT.

The Improved Touring category has outlived something more than a QUARTER MILLION members. The first obligation of the decision makers is to the well-being and longevity of the program, NOT to the relatively limited number of current participants. Recruiting, retention, and satisfaction of the members is an outcome of program health. See Travis's comparison again. Read it a few times, while thinking about the Club Racing participants who have come and gone just in the time you've (you all) been involved.

They leave for all kinds of reasons, almost none of which are factors controlled by the IT rules-makers. We have no obligation to try to give each of them what he or she wants. You have the responsibility to remember the history and take the long view.

K

[Charlie Broring]

I had dinner with Brian Holtz at NJMP about 18 months ago. Among many things, we talked about his time on the ITAC in it's early days when the rules were still in a formative stage. I remember him saying that he didn't know anything about rule making or feel particularly qualified, but found himself serving in that roll. He didn't say as much , but I sensed that he had a lot of prid in what he did, as well he should.

I think the folks from the early days did a heck of a job writing a rule set that has been as stable as ours is.

[JeffYoung]

I agree. Most successful, long-running, stable multi-marque class in SCCA history in my very rough estimation.

[RedMisted]

This is my take, and it's pretty simple.

SCCA is a CLUB. (Improved Touring is a component of that CLUB.) A CLUB should be run by its MEMBERS. The responsibility of the elected is to the MEMBERSHIP. If the elected decide that, for whatever reason, to ignore the MEMBERSHIP on any given issue, then the MEMBERS have to decide, come election time, whether they want new representation. If new representation is put in, and results in actions detrimental to the club or any part of it, then the fault, at least theoretically, will lie with the MEMBERS.

So whatever befalls IT, the credit/blame should be on US, the MEMBERS of IT. The ITAC should advise US on the issues, but ultimately serve to implement the collective wishes of the IT MEMBERSHIP, ideologies/philosophies/traditions/etc. be damned. This is the democratic way, which is fundamental to just about everything we do as a society today...

Why is this so hard for some to accept?

[lateapex911]

Charlie, I spoke to Brian too, also at NJMP. I hadn't really met him before, but thinking back, I got the impression he was cool, actually more than cool, I think he was pleased with IT's current state. I think it was about when you spoke to him. Does that jive with your talks with him? My chat was a quick one att he edge of the track.

[Knestis]

I agree. Most successful, long-running, stable multi-marque class in SCCA history in my very rough estimation.

...largely because it's been creep-resistant but that horse is likely out of the barn already.

So, at the top of my wish list would be mixing and matching OE gear ratios in the stock box. Cheap and easy to do, and I could improve longevity by picking less fragile 5th gears. Completely within the realm of "street tuner" mods.

Second would be an allowance for aftermarket cams, as long as all of the other valve train parts remain stock. There's NO cheaper hp/$$ improvement to a car, there are lots of aftermarket options available for minimal investment and there's NO more popular modification out there. It would also make policing the rules easier, since we wouldn't have to measure cams in the tech shed, and everyone would be on the same level playing field, so more cars could be competitive.

K

[Ron Earp]

then the MEMBERS have to decide, come election time, whether they want new representation. If new representation is put in, and results in actions detrimental to the club or any part of it, then the fault, at least theoretically, will lie with the MEMBERS.

The ITAC isn't elected though. It is a volunteer position. People are selected, picked, or they themselves ask to be on the ITAC. But there are no term limits and theoretically it could remain static for many many years or turn over every year.

[RedMisted]

The ITAC isn't elected though. It is a volunteer position. People are selected, picked, or they themselves ask to be on the ITAC. But there are no term limits and theoretically it could remain static for many many years or turn over every year.

But they are put in their positions by those who are elected, no? The accountability dynamic is still the same, then. Kinda like if you had a wayward bureaucrat that needed offing, you'd get rid of his elected superior and find someone who will implement a staff that will serve the needs of the electorate.

[JeffYoung]

Kirk, stop. Now you are just being a nattering nabob of negativity.

You know almost all of us would never agree on changing stock gear ratios or cams. And to equate that to washer bottles or wiring harnesses is pretty ridiculous. Equating to ECUs and sphericals, creep from just the last several years, maybe.

And to say there was no creep before is also just wrong. Passenger seats. Headliners. Air dams. Etc. Etc. Etc.

No class is creep resistant. In fact, if you locked IT into what it was in 1985 my personal belief is it would be dead anyway. I don't know anyone who wants to race under that rule set.

The trick, as it seems to me, is to stop fundamental changes to the class. Nothing being discussed now falls anywhere near that category.


...largely because it's been creep-resistant but that horse is likely out of the barn already.

So, at the top of my wish list would be mixing and matching OE gear ratios in the stock box. Cheap and easy to do, and I could improve longevity by picking less fragile 5th gears. Completely within the realm of "street tuner" mods.

Second would be an allowance for aftermarket cams, as long as all of the other valve train parts remain stock. There's NO cheaper hp/$$ improvement to a car, there are lots of aftermarket options available for minimal investment and there's NO more popular modification out there. It would also make policing the rules easier, since we wouldn't have to measure cams in the tech shed, and everyone would be on the same level playing field, so more cars could be competitive.

K

[Ron Earp]

.

So, at the top of my wish list would be mixing and matching OE gear ratios in the stock box. Cheap and easy to do, and I could improve longevity by picking less fragile 5th gears. Completely within the realm of "street tuner" mods.

Second would be an allowance for aftermarket cams, as long as all of the other valve train parts remain stock. There's NO cheaper hp/$$ improvement to a car, there are lots of aftermarket options available for minimal investment and there's NO more popular modification out there. It would also make policing the rules easier, since we wouldn't have to measure cams in the tech shed, and everyone would be on the same level playing field, so more cars could be competitive.

K

And Andy, before you even say it, those two "lines in the sand" that Kirk just threw out there as red herrings would NOT be adopted by the 95 percenters in IT. I'm pretty sure that about 90-95% of folks would agree what the core values of IT are and these two items, gear ratios mix/match and cams, would not be on that list. Give the participating membership some credit for knowing what is important to IT and what isn't.

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

And Andy, before you even say it, those two "lines in the sand" that Kirk just threw out there as red herrings would NOT be adopted by the 95 percenters in IT. I'm pretty sure that about 90-95% of folks would agree what the core values of IT are and these two items, gear ratios mix/match and cams, would not be on that list. Give the participating membership some credit for knowing what is important to IT and what isn't.

R

I wasn't going to say anything because THOSE things are outside my box. But you can certainly see how it's not THAT far of a jump if they are just bolt-on/in under an 'expanded' update/backdate rule.

[GTIspirit]

...largely because it's been creep-resistant but that horse is likely out of the barn already.

So, at the top of my wish list would be mixing and matching OE gear ratios in the stock box. Cheap and easy to do, and I could improve longevity by picking less fragile 5th gears. Completely within the realm of "street tuner" mods.

Second would be an allowance for aftermarket cams, as long as all of the other valve train parts remain stock. There's NO cheaper hp/$$ improvement to a car, there are lots of aftermarket options available for minimal investment and there's NO more popular modification out there. It would also make policing the rules easier, since we wouldn't have to measure cams in the tech shed, and everyone would be on the same level playing field, so more cars could be competitive.

K

While I understand the perspective above, I too firmly believe this is not in the core values of the IT.

As an aside, it's pretty funny what the Spec Miata guys do with "stock" cams, some of which are more "stock" than others...... How much money is spent on an incremental advantage when an incremental advantage does make a difference.

Back on topic, I fully support a proposal to allow removal of wiring attached to components that are allowed to be removed, such as dome light, radio, electric window lift mechanism, etc.

[Knestis]

If I can get a letter writing campaign organized such that 95% of those who write in support my proposals, then will you give it a fair hearing in the ad hoc, Jeff? Do I have your vote?

Seriously - cams are cheap fun and if we're trying to compete with NASA and ST(whatever), we're going to need to give our rides more poop. And it will be cheaper for me to write a check to Techtonics than to have have a stock cam custom ground.

K

[GTIspirit]

Seriously - cams are cheap fun and if we're trying to compete with NASA and ST(whatever), we're going to need to give our rides more poop. And it will be cheaper for me to write a check to Techtonics than to have have a stock cam custom ground.

K

Isn't that the purpose of the new ST* classes? Basically?

[lateapex911]

While I understand the perspective above, I too firmly believe this is not in the core values of the IT.

As an aside, it's pretty funny what the Spec Miata guys do with "stock" cams, some of which are more "stock" than others......
Don't think that hasn't, or isn't happening in IT! I wish I could dig up the company that was advertising BMW IT 'cheater cams", that would pass tech, but, you know, wink wink, nudge nudge,. give you more power or torque. Or, of course, both. They we're obviously massaging the sections that weren't going to be measured.

How much money is spent on an incremental advantage when an incremental advantage does make a difference.
Obviously, it depends. On how popular the class is, how close the racing is, and the budget/desire levels in each competitor. Ideally, the cost/benefit ratio will be pretty out of whack, so the temptation is removed or at least minimized.

Rules CAN maximize that aspect. An example I keep referring to is the IT cage rules that eliminate the ability to tie the front structure of the car in with the cage, making the chassis, in essence, a spring, and eliminating, for the most part, huge spring rates, and the accompanying mega bucks dampers..


Back on topic, I fully support a proposal to allow removal of wiring attached to components that are allowed to be removed, such as dome light, radio, electric window lift mechanism, etc.

I guess this is, in some cars easier than others. I've been mostly fortunate and just went back to the section where the branch split from the loom, and disconnected the connector at that location. Or I've coiled the harness up and stashed it. Maybe I've been lucky, but I just haven't developed the burning desire to change the rule, but that's obviously based on my limited experiences. My method is to 'eliminate" possible issues where I can. For example, there is a wiring harness that is in my engine compartment that does nothing. So I pulled the tape back, then I clipped one wire, moved forward 1/2", clipped another and retaped the harness as I went. Then coiled it out of the way. Took all of 5 minutes, And I don't worry about any loose ends contacting each other and popping fuses that are circuits for things I need.
I suppose this is illegal, as I can't find a place where it says I can do that, but technically, the circuit would be open 4 feet later when the connector dead ends where the component I was allowed to remove used to live, so, it's the same either way.

[JeffYoung]

No, and you know that. I consider you a good track friend, and I don't want to get into a pissing contest with you, but you are really so far afield of what we are actually talking about that it is hard to have a reasonable discussion.

You know that for a long time I've said there are certain core things in IT that even if membership wanted to change, shouldn't be changed. Frankly, I consider spherical bearings and ECUs such items both of which were opened up under your watch, or immediately prior.

If you want to talk about my position, which I've stated over and over -- core value changes we say no, other items we listen to membership -- fine. If you want to set up straw men like cams and gear ratio changes, then I don't see a need to waste my time discussing it with you.

You are angry about something. The good side is I think you are angry that you are seeing changes to a category you enjoy running in and have spent a lot of time and energy trying to protect and develop. If I were trying to make fundamental changes to the category, I could see why some of that anger might be directed at me. As it stands, I don't.




If I can get a letter writing campaign organized such that 95% of those who write in support my proposals, then will you give it a fair hearing in the ad hoc, Jeff? Do I have your vote?

Seriously - cams are cheap fun and if we're trying to compete with NASA and ST(whatever), we're going to need to give our rides more poop. And it will be cheaper for me to write a check to Techtonics than to have have a stock cam custom ground.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Frankly, I consider spherical bearings and ECUs such items both of which were opened up under your watch, or immediately prior.



Respectfully, this shows a little ignorance to history or a refusal to call a spade, a spade.

Letter came in to clarify bushing rule, CRB directed ITAC to write rule specifically allowing them despite the majority of the ITAC being against it.

ECU's rule was the 'anything in the stock box'...which was bad for everyone so a decision had to be made. Nobody WANTED open ECU's but it was seen as the lesser of two evils - open it up (now that inexpensive MS-type stuff was available) or require stock - which handed a huge advantage to 1996 and up cars because of undetectable flashes.

In one case, the CRB opened it up, the other, well - who really would have done it differently given the issues? It sucked for sure, but there was little choice.

In the end, you have seen little resistance to items that are consistant with the rules and core philosophy - like motor mounts. It's the 'who-friggen-cares' stuff that polorizes people. Whay you care abaout, I don't and what I do, you don't. In those cases, leaving the rules alone may be the best way.

[Ron Earp]

ECU's rule was the 'anything in the stock box'...which was bad for everyone so a decision had to be made.

What was the origin of the "anything in a stock box" rule? Not that it matters since it is so much water under the bridge, but I'm interested.

[Andy Bettencourt]

What was the origin of the "anything in a stock box" rule? Not that it matters since it is so much water under the bridge, but I'm interested.

It was written before me but my understanding was it was a failed attempt at a 'chip it' rule that went kablooey when MoTec stareted making units small enough to fit into some stock ECU cases. The units plus the labor to hook them up through the factory wiring harness was HUGE money and created a large 'have' and 'have-not' disparity on the grids.

[JeffYoung]

And on my end, respectfully, about the same as equating washer bottles and wiring harnesses to cam changes and gear ratio changes?

Look, I understand the whys and hows of the spherical bearings (well, I didn't know you guys didn't recommend that but glad to hear you did) and the ECUs, but me saying "that's your fault!" is about as relevant (to me) as saying considering the removal of inconsequential items from what are no longer dual purpose cars is the same as a cam or tranny ratio change.

It's all good though. I know you and Kirk are coming at this from a place of passion for the category, and I appreciate that.


Respectfully, this shows a little ignorance to history or a refusal to call a spade, a spade.

Letter came in to clarify bushing rule, CRB directed ITAC to write rule specifically allowing them despite the majority of the ITAC being against it.

ECU's rule was the 'anything in the stock box'...which was bad for everyone so a decision had to be made. Nobody WANTED open ECU's but it was seen as the lesser of two evils - open it up (now that inexpensive MS-type stuff was available) or require stock - which handed a huge advantage to 1996 and up cars because of undetectable flashes.

In one case, the CRB opened it up, the other, well - who really would have done it differently given the issues? It sucked for sure, but there was little choice.

In the end, you have seen little resistance to items that are consistant with the rules and core philosophy - like motor mounts. It's the 'who-friggen-cares' stuff that polorizes people. Whay you care abaout, I don't and what I do, you don't. In those cases, leaving the rules alone may be the best way.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Just stating, as fact, that what you consider 'easy', some don't...and what you don't consider inside the core - some do.

The hardest part is getting the 'majority' to agree on what is the new line in the sand (LITS).

It's possible, but it will take a lot of work. Start it here, lock it down and push it up the chain.

[JeffYoung]

I do agree that is a fact.

Ron made a good point this morning, either here or in an e-mail discussion, that it's probably true that 90% of ITers would agree with the "basics" -- what core IT values are, what shouldn't be touched/modified, what are inconsequential.

For the remaining 10%, we then spend 110% of our energy discussing them.

I'm not saying that is a bad thing, it just is.

I do think there is far more agreement than disagreement on the overall ruleset than it appears.

It's far better, to me, that we are discussing washer bottles and wiring harnesses rather than reward weights or the appropriate sizes of SIRs for example.

[Tristan Smith]

Not that it matters, but from what I remember, the sphericals were being widely used at the time of the rule change because the rule stated that bushing material was open. That "open" part was then hotly debated as to whether a spherical bearing was a material or a mechanism. We 240sx guys (and I am sure others) had to have them to make our rear suspension work without binding. So obviously we were for them. I even remember Kirk getting rather ?short/snide? with me about the debate (ahh the good ol days).

I think in the end, they were already part of the "build mentality" at that point and the CRB said, let them keep them.

The ecu rule was changed for one simple reason. You could not enforce/police it. So the rules were opened up to give every one the same ability. That "opening up" grew to allowing any internal components when certain ECUs couldn't be "re-chipped".

You could make the argument that that was all rule creep, but in fact it was all happening regardless of the rules. One could have been changed and policed. The other would have been darn hard to.

The core principles of IT were never really being a dual purpose car (well ok when IT first started ,it was). The core purpose was essentially to provide lower cost (and might say entry level) access to racing. By keeping what you can do to the cars limited, you in theory keep costs down.

So perhaps one standard to hold up againt any rule change may be:

Does it cost anything MORE to have it or do it, than it does to remove it or not do it?

AND

Does it change the racing?

Washer bottle removal - no cost to remove it, or to have it.
Doesn't change the outcome of the racing.

Alternate cams?

Definately costs to do it (assumming that it costs you nothing to use stock cams), and it can have an effect on the racing.

meh......... just throwing it out there.

[Knestis]

Are you sure I didn't just tell you to piss off, Tristan? ;)

I am NOT angry, guys. I'm just pulled back into being concerned about first principles and creep, having been cursed with being involved in this deal since before Day One of the National category specs.

If I press hard on points, it's because y'all need to make damned sure you're thinking through some complicated issues. And I worry about decisions that attempt to sort the fly shit from the pepper - getting mired in the minutiae of something like a dome light wire - without first getting REAL clear about the bigger issues, including philosophies that drive rules-making decisions...

Make the big decisions and frankly, decisions in response to specific requests almost make themselves. Leave those larger issues unattended and the little decisions are inconsistent, people get confused, and things slip out of control.

K

[JeffYoung]

And that I fully appreciate.

I 100% agree with you it is easy to miss unintended consequences with this stuff, and you asking the hard questions and making us think about these things is a good thing.

[lateapex911]

Kirks point regarding big decisions is super valid. That's why I wanted the process to get solidified sooo badly, because once that was done, things would be smooth sailing. Except for ITB where, evidently, an alternate universe exists and unique laws still apply.

[JeffYoung]

All I can tell you guys is, that (second sentence) is true so far. We have the tool in place to deal with weight issues quickly, and we did that on the last call.

ITB continues to be an issue for reasons I just don't understand, especially given that at least a cursory look at "on track" suggests we got stuff right. Racing is close with 4-5 chassis running up front.


Kirks point regarding big decisions is super valid. That's why I wanted the process to get solidified sooo badly, because once that was done, things would be smooth sailing. Except for ITB where, evidently, an alternate universe exists and unique laws still apply.

[Knestis]

Sorry if I'm supposed to know this but who's the ITAC liaison from the CRB now...?

K

[JeffYoung]

Jim Wheeler I think?

Josh?

[D. Ellis-Brown]

I beleive that the current rules change denial excuse of “Rules Creep” or outside of the Intent of Improved Touring, is no longer valid… The ECU change, final drive ratio change, adjustable spring perches, etc are significant examples of the evolution of IT and I agree that these changes are good and the ITAC were doing exactly the job for which they volunteered. So please no more “Rules Creep Excuses” for denying a common sense change, “ That ship has already sailed ! “ Any change should be considered if it makes sense and /or the majority of interested parties and stakeholders request the change. Period….

Now lets move on to reality. I come from an Engineering / Manufacturing background…. Changes in Engineering Design and Product Configuration were a way of life. I would like to follow a similar approach from that environment to that of the rule making process for the ITAC. Please follow my line of thinking.

Some change requests where critical and need to be implemented immediately due to product reliability, safety, etc… Critical changes similar to a vehicle recall…. We will call these Class “A” changes. Similar in our racing world too. I believe the CRB and ITAC already addresses these type of changes with a notification such as a tire, that can not be used due to some safety issue, or a seat belt that is suspect, and the like. The CRB and ITAC already have these under control.

Then there are what we will call “Class “B” changes”. These type of changes had a significant impact on the product form, fit or function. In IT rules world these types of changes have an impact on the performance of a vehicle, or group or over the entire IT Classification and will have a cost associated with it’s implementation. These types of changes deserve some serious dialogue and debate between the membership and the ITAC. The ultimate approval and/or rejection of the change should be made with significant input with the membership. If the majority of the membership are requesting the change and it’s implementation impact is clearly understood by all stake holders, then the change should be approved. An example of this type of change would be permitting the relocation of the battery. Costs for implementation should be reviewed and discussed, if the change is cost prohibitive, and would only favor a small number of stakeholders, then maybe the change should be rejected. Let the “stakeholders” participate in the decision making process.

And last but not least is what I will call “Class C changes”. These types of changes really do not change the form, fit or function (in a very liberal sense) of the function of the configuration and the change would be made across the board, to all models, class, groups, etc, have minimal impact on anyone, there are little to no costs associated with their implementation, and favor no particular vehicle. As the wording of the change would be "May" etc, thereby providing and/or permitting the change to be acted upon by a stakeholder. An example of these types of changes would be like the removal of a component, such as the windshield washer bottle, or the Horn, Heater core, and the like. These type of changes could also permit the movement of a component, such as switches, or a fuse panel, and the removal of wiring to a component that is already permitted to removed, like the dome light wiring, or the wiring to the sunroof motor, or the radio and speaker wiring, or the wiring for the power window motors that were in the front doors, and the like… These types of changes are available to everyone, cost little or nothing to implement, and are a convenience to the competitor. Basically removing non-value added items, and / or moving a component that would permit an ease of maintenance of the vehicle, but not provide an unfair or competitive advantage to anyone competitor.

I believe that if the ITAC would adapt an approach like this, It should make their lives a lot easier, permit the stakeholders of IT to feel some ownership in the rules making process, and may even eliminate some of the useless dialogue.

These are some ideas that I would like to recommend. What are your thoughts?


David Ellis-Brown


Lastly, Let me respond to Kirk's question---- Of course not, my approach was to get my car down to the allowed weight. The current rules, in my interpretation, make getting the car down to it's minimal weight, more difficult. Thereby making the constructor go thru extra, and unnecessary efforts to remove the weight. To take full advantage of the rules, we used a "rotisserie" to remove all of the undercoating, hotmelt, and the like from the underside and inside of the fender, wells. Now, does everyone building an IT car have a rotisserie available to them ? I don't beleive they do. Therefore giving a "unfair" advantage to those with such resources. Looks like an unintended consequence of having to retain "non value added" items that keep weight on the car. I have seen photos of your car, and have talked to several folks who have seen your car. Beautiful job, looks professionally built. Most of the IT competitors, don't have the resources that we do. Getting the car down to the minimum weight is the cheapest "horsepower advantage" you will ever get. Less weight helps in the braking area also. If in my interpretation of the rules, a "bracket" can be removed, I will remove it, all of it, whether it is bolted in or welded, since the current wording makes no differentiation, and any debate regarding the removal of welded or bolted bracket is non productive . I build my own cars. I have built 4 IT cars, and one of the first things I learned was to get the weight down to the minimum.

[GTIspirit]

I beleive that the current rules change denial excuse of “Rules Creep” or outside of the Intent of Improved Touring, is no longer valid… The ECU change, final drive ratio change, adjustable spring perches, etc are significant examples of the evolution of IT and I agree that these changes are good and the ITAC were doing exactly the job for which they volunteered. So please no more “Rules Creep Excuses” for denying a common sense change, “ That ship has already sailed ! “ Any change should be considered if it makes sense and /or the majority of interested parties and stakeholders request the change. Period….

Now lets move on to reality. I come from an Engineering / Manufacturing background…. Changes in Engineering Design and Product Configuration were a way of life. I would like to follow a similar approach from that environment to that of the rule making process for the ITAC. Please follow my line of thinking.

Some change requests where critical and need to be implemented immediately due to product reliability, safety, etc… Critical changes similar to a vehicle recall…. We will call these Class “A” changes. Similar in our racing world too. I believe the CRB and ITAC already addresses these type of changes with a notification such as a tire, that can not be used due to some safety issue, or a seat belt that is suspect, and the like. The CRB and ITAC already have these under control.

Then there are what we will call “Class “B” changes”. These type of changes had a significant impact on the product form, fit or function. In IT rules world these types of changes have an impact on the performance of a vehicle, or group or over the entire IT Classification and will have a cost associated with it’s implementation. These types of changes deserve some serious dialogue and debate between the membership and the ITAC. The ultimate approval and/or rejection of the change should be made with significant input with the membership. If the majority of the membership are requesting the change and it’s implementation impact is clearly understood by all stake holders, then the change should be approved. An example of this type of change would be permitting the relocation of the battery. Costs for implementation should be reviewed and discussed, if the change is cost prohibitive, and would only favor a small number of stakeholders, then maybe the change should be rejected. Let the “stakeholders” participate in the decision making process.

And last but not least is what I will call “Class C changes”. These types of changes really do not change the form, fit or function (in a very liberal sense) of the function of the configuration and the change would be made across the board, to all models, class, groups, etc, have minimal impact on anyone, there are little to no costs associated with their implementation, and favor no particular vehicle. As the wording of the change would be "May" etc, thereby providing and/or permitting the change to be acted upon by a stakeholder. An example of these types of changes would be like the removal of a component, such as the windshield washer bottle, or the Horn, Heater core, and the like. These type of changes could also permit the movement of a component, such as switches, or a fuse panel, and the removal of wiring to a component that is already permitted to removed, like the dome light wiring, or the wiring to the sunroof motor, or the radio and speaker wiring, or the wiring for the power window motors that were in the front doors, and the like… These types of changes are available to everyone, cost little or nothing to implement, and are a convenience to the competitor. Basically removing non-value added items, and / or moving a component that would permit an ease of maintenance of the vehicle, but not provide an unfair or competitive advantage to anyone competitor.

I believe that if the ITAC would adapt an approach like this, It should make their lives a lot easier, permit the stakeholders of IT to feel some ownership in the rules making process, and may even eliminate some of the useless dialogue.

These are some ideas that I would like to recommend. What are your thoughts?


David Ellis-Brown


Lastly, Let me respond to Kirk's question---- Of course not, my approach was to get my car down to the allowed weight. The current rules, in my interpretation, make getting the car down to it's minimal weight, more difficult. Thereby making the constructor go thru extra, and unnecessary efforts to remove the weight. To take full advantage of the rules, we used a "rotisserie" to remove all of the undercoating, hotmelt, and the like from the underside and inside of the fender, wells. Now, does everyone building an IT car have a rotisserie available to them ? I don't beleive they do. Therefore giving a "unfair" advantage to those with such resources. Looks like an unintended consequence of having to retain "non value added" items that keep weight on the car. I have seen photos of your car, and have talked to several folks who have seen your car. Beautiful job, looks professionally built. Most of the IT competitors, don't have the resources that we do. Getting the car down to the minimum weight is the cheapest "horsepower advantage" you will ever get. Less weight helps in the braking area also. If in my interpretation of the rules, a "bracket" can be removed, I will remove it, all of it, whether it is bolted in or welded, since the current wording makes no differentiation, and any debate regarding the removal of welded or bolted bracket is non productive . I build my own cars. I have built 4 IT cars, and one of the first things I learned was to get the weight down to the minimum.

D. Ellis-Brown for president! :023: Well said and I totally agree with the suggestions.

[mossaidis]

^^ amen

[lateapex911]

What was the origin of the "anything in a stock box" rule? Not that it matters since it is so much water under the bridge, but I'm interested.


It was written before me but my understanding was it was a failed attempt at a 'chip it' rule that went kablooey when MoTec stareted making units small enough to fit into some stock ECU cases. The units plus the labor to hook them up through the factory wiring harness was HUGE money and created a large 'have' and 'have-not' disparity on the grids.

It's THE poster child for how rules MUST change to adapt to changing technology.

In the beginning, there WERE no ECUs. When they came out, they were ignored. Then the PTB thought that chipping was the equivilent to the "jetting" that carb guys were being allowed. So that became the standard.
(Ignore that SOME cars were classified BEFORE that rule so their weight, which if you assume was set assuming no ECU mods, was now light...a post classification comp adjustment to many people)
Then there were issues/complaints that not all ECUs COULD be chipped and that 'piggy back' boards were needed.
Soooo. ..the next iteration of the rule was "fine, whatever fits in the stock box".
The rest is history, and certain cars benefited hugely form shoving Motecs in there (at, as Andy points out, HUGE money) Other cars could do squat.

Couple this with the fact that the GR was taking place. I always knew the ECu would have to come out of the closet, because how do you class cars when only some can alter their ECUs? All post GR classifications were done based on the assumption that ECUs could be tuned. It's a pretty big 'wart' for some cars if you can't though. And of course limp modes and other invasive modes were becoming the norm. So it really had to be done.

But thankfully the same technology that started the mess gave us a reasonable out: The dropping price of processing power made cheap ECUs much more widespread.

[JeffYoung]

I agree. And any real "problem" with ECUs will be solved as carb'ed cars fade into uncompetitiveness, as the must.

It is a good sign that there are no carb'ed cars (I think) in ITR (maybe the 5.0 Mustang?).

That's how IT needs to go in my view. We won't do anything to cripple the carb'ed cars, but we won't do anything (in my view) to go out of the way to give them an "adjustment."


It's THE poster child for how rules MUST change to adapt to changing technology.

In the beginning, there WERE no ECUs. When they came out, they were ignored. Then the PTB thought that chipping was the equivilent to the "jetting" that carb guys were being allowed. So that became the standard.
(Ignore that SOME cars were classified BEFORE that rule so their weight, which if you assume was set assuming no ECU mods, was now light...a post classification comp adjustment to many people)
Then there were issues/complaints that not all ECUs COULD be chipped and that 'piggy back' boards were needed.
Soooo. ..the next iteration of the rule was "fine, whatever fits in the stock box".
The rest is history, and certain cars benefited hugely form shoving Motecs in there (at, as Andy points out, HUGE money) Other cars could do squat.

Couple this with the fact that the GR was taking place. I always knew the ECu would have to come out of the closet, because how do you class cars when only some can alter their ECUs? All post GR classifications were done based on the assumption that ECUs could be tuned. It's a pretty big 'wart' for some cars if you can't though. And of course limp modes and other invasive modes were becoming the norm. So it really had to be done.

But thankfully the same technology that started the mess gave us a reasonable out: The dropping price of processing power made cheap ECUs much more widespread.

[Knestis]

[Lots of well-considered and -articulated input]

Go ahead and advocate that you want those "Class C changes" fast-tracked and loosened up, David, but please don't perpetuate the falsehoods that...

** They "cost little or nothing to implement"

** They favor no particular vehicle; are available [equally] to everyone

** "Ease of maintenance" is not an advantage

** They do not provide an unfair or competitive advantage to any particular make/model

Each is variously not true by definition, an exaggeration, or not a safe assumption given what we know about unintended consequences.

K

PS - Pablo is still 40# heavy of our minimum race weight but it should be noted that we would still have stripped off the undercoating (etc.) even if we anticipated being UNDERWEIGHT. The freedom to put weight back in where one wants it is a great example of how what you propose would further bias the benefit to cars that require ballast to meet their minimum weights.

[Eagle7]

If the majority of the membership are requesting the change...
Could someone please explain to me what this means? Majority of SCCA members? That would be thousands. Majority of IT drivers? Might still be thousands. Majority of those responding to a poll on IT.com, or majority of those that write in to offer feedback? Not necessarily representative at all.

[JeffYoung]

And that is one of the key issues with my position and that of David's -- how do you know what drivers in IT actually want?

I do boil it down to those that want to be heard on an issue will be, and it is their opinion that matters since they are the ones who actually cared to voice it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Could someone please explain to me what this means? Majority of SCCA members? That would be thousands. Majority of IT drivers? Might still be thousands. Majority of those responding to a poll on IT.com, or majority of those that write in to offer feedback? Not necessarily representative at all.

Well, we have a mechhanism to determine this. It gets published in our official rules-making-asking vehicle - Fast Track. You get asked for your opinion and you DON'T weight in, you are simply not counted - or more appropriately, your vote IS counted - as one who doesn't care either way. Just like a vote for an elected official.

[lateapex911]

And that is one of the key issues with my position and that of David's -- how do you know what drivers in IT actually want?

I do boil it down to those that want to be heard on an issue will be, and it is their opinion that matters since they are the ones who actually cared to voice it.

Further, and beyond the actual polling and feedback from Fastrack, it is why there IS an ITAC. The ITAC members job is to be in touch with, and understand the wants and pulse of the racer. (Among other aspects of the position).
It was one of the reasons I traveled quite a bit, instead of hanging close to home to race. During my tenure on the ITAC, I talked to racers about all things IT in the paddocks of Sears Point, Mid Ohio, Pocono, Watkins Glen, New jersey Motorsports Park, Lime Rock, New Hampshire, Summit Point, VIR, and Road Atlanta. Things are pretty varied geographically. I learned a lot and it helped me understand why people say the things they do.

I was rather annoyed that certain fellow ITAC=ers did not actually race in IT, nor make an effort to communicate with IT racers, either at the track or via boards like this one, yet their vote, however uninformed it was, counted. I think the engine mount debacle, for example, can be blamed on an inability to understand the actual racing scene on the part of certain individuals.

Conversely, it's the ITAC members job, as well, to protect the members from things they think they want, but fail to understand completely, which can result in a reality quite different than what they envisioned. Again, being at the track and racing helps with those judgments.

[AjG]

The freedom to put weight back in where one wants it is a great example of how what you propose would further bias the benefit to cars that require ballast to meet their minimum weights.



But isn’t that bias irrelevant in the “eyes” of the Process?
Weight distribution is an unaccounted-for variable. Minimum weight is much more important because it is part of the classing equation. Any increase in the number of cars that can attain min weight will increase the accuracy of classing cars. There might be a shift in advantage but a total net gain in parity.

[Knestis]

... There might be a shift in advantage but a total net gain in parity.

That's a fair statement. More cars would be able to make their minimum weight, but at the cost of those who already CAN do so gaining even more flexibility re: where they put it back in.

How about that 1.5" OD x .75" wall tubing for the upward cage elements connecting the main hoop feet with the rear strut towers...?

:)

Point being, no change is ever completely "competition-neutral," and likely has both upsides and downsides.

K