December 2011 Fastrack

[Dave Gomberg]

Available here: http://www.scca.com/assets/Preliminary_November_CRB_Minutes_v2b%20.pdf and here: http://www.scca.com/assets/Preliminary_December_TB.pdf


Dave

[mossaidis]

Thanks David... I think they got the displacement incorrect for the 2012 Honda Civic Si. It should 2.4, not 2.0.

[Dave Gomberg]

You are correct. The displacement should be 2354 (that got shoved into the wheelbase which should be 2620/2670 (2dr, 4dr). It may be too late to fix that for the December Fastrack, but we'll get it the next time around. Thanks for noticing.

Dave

[Greg Amy]

Full version up (and thread title adjusted accordingly...)

http://www.scca.com/assets/11-fastrack-dec.pdf

[Greg Amy]

Rules passed for 2012:

#3193 – Add a new 9.1.3.D.9.n as follows: “Windshield washer systems, rear windshield wiper systems, cruise control systems, horns and the wiring associated wiring with any of these may be removed. Any holes left in the body must be covered or plugged.”

Wheel rules changed:

#3426 – In 9.1.3.D.7.a.1 change as follows:

Cars may not fit wheel diameters larger than those listed on their spec line. Knockoff/quickchange type wheels are prohibited. Wheels must be made of metal.

[All ITS/ITA/ITB/ITC cars currently listed in the ITCS with a wheel size less than 15 inches would be changed to 15 inches. All ITR cars currently listed in the ITCS with a wheel size less than 17 inches would be changed to 17 inches. The heading on the wheel size column would be changed to “Max Wheel Diameter”.]

#3749 - In 9.1.3.D.9.c, add the following at the end: “Switches to activate the ignition, the lights, the windshield wipers, the starter and other accessories located within the passenger compartment may be replaced and their location changed.”

(multiple) - In 9.1.3.D.1, add a new subsection s as follows: “To allow commonly available engine mount aftermarket inserts, replacement units, or “window weld” like solutions without allowing solid metal or rigid materials or bearings that could result in the driveline becoming a stressed member of the chassis, the following is permitted. Engine, transmission, differential or any other driveline mounts may be replaced. Mounts may use only stock mounting points, must maintain stock location and orientation of the mounted component, and must be non-rigid.Rubber or other inserts in stock mounts may be replaced with any other non-metallic material.”

In 9.1.3.D.2, add a new subsection e as follows: “Alternate mounts are permitted as in 9.1.3.D.1.s.”

[mossaidis]

http://freeemoticonsandsmileys.com/animated%20emoticons/Drinking%20Animated%20Emoticons/cheers.gif

[RacerBill]

Can we interpret 9.1.3.D.7.a.1 to mean that cars that are listed with 15" wheels can run 14" or 13" wheels?

[chuck baader]

APPLAUSE!!!! Chuck

[joeg]

Forgot Charcoal Cannisters...geez louise...

[Knestis]

>> #3193 – Add a new 9.1.3.D.9.n as follows: “Windshield washer systems, rear windshield wiper systems, cruise control systems, horns and the wiring associated wiring with any of these may be removed. Any holes left in the body must be covered or plugged.”

>> Body – All parts of the car licked by the air stream and situated above the belly / floor with exception of the roll bar or cage. (GCR Technical Glossary)

That big hole resulting from removal of the washer bottle is going to let a lot of nice cool air in from inside the fender.

K

[StephenB]

Damn.. waisted $50 bucks last year on one that I used for 3 races :( I didn't even realize it was up for a rule change. Oh well I need to lose some lbs so this helps :)

Stephen

[Chip42]

Can we interpret 9.1.3.D.7.a.1 to mean that cars that are listed with 15" wheels can run 14" or 13" wheels?

thats how I read it. have fun trying to find affordable 13x6 wheels, and please let me know if you do!

[Ron Earp]

That big hole resulting from removal of the washer bottle is going to let a lot of nice cool air in from inside the fender.

K

Dammit, just when I start building a car that has cold air induction from outside the engine bay as stock.

[CRallo]

interesting...

[Bill Miller]

Not IT related, but I find it interesting that they threw out the 2.5 participation rule yet again to save T3, but "the CRB has no intention of returning GP to the GCR"

[Dave Gomberg]

Not IT related, but I find it interesting that they threw out the 2.5 participation rule yet again to save T3, but "the CRB has no intention of returning GP to the GCR"
The BoD made the decision to retain T3 in 2012, not the CRB.

Dave

[924Guy]

Cool...

[JohnW8]

So after all the arguing, haranging, harassment and ridicule
for the damages of rules creep, we can now legally remove our windshield washer bottle and defunct horns and use custom, non rigid driveline mounts? :shrug:

Ya know, we're all starting to look a lot like congress.

[TomL]

Best bunch of rule changes I've seen in a long time. I was just about to send in what I expected to be another no-hope request to allow deletion of washer bottles, and what happens? Thank you!! :happy204:

[shwah]

I don't like the motor mount rule.
I don't like the wheel rule.
I am ambivalent to the horns/washers/etc rule.
I would rather see the charcoal canister get addressed over all of these...

[Russ Myers]

Further rules creep,you can now ditch your stock lights, wipers, and other electrical switches.

Russ

[JeffYoung]

How do you figure?


Further rules creep,you can now ditch your stock lights, wipers, and other electrical switches.

Russ

[Knestis]

So after all the arguing, haranging, harassment and ridicule
for the damages of rules creep, we can now legally remove our windshield washer bottle and defunct horns and use custom, non rigid driveline mounts? :shrug:

Ya know, we're all starting to look a lot like congress.

We get the IT we (collectively) want.

The problem - or benefit, depending on where you come down on the issue - is that the most orthodox anti-creepers are off the ITAC.

Watch for the next round of requested allowances from the guy who asked for these. He'd already done most of them on his car, even absent these additions to the rulebook, but I don't think all of his wish-list has been addressed.

K

[Harvey]

Kirk

They will never see what you are speaking of, its not the individual items but the cummilitive effect.

[tom91ita]

.........I would rather see the charcoal canister get addressed over all of these...

submitted that request 2/19/11.

status changed to "Tabled" on 5/23/11

last response was:


This automated response has been sent to let you know that your letter has been reviewed by the IT committee, and tabled for further review. After additional research, the committee will send a recommendation to the CRB. Your letter details are below:

Letter #4220
Title: Evaporative Emissions Rules for Improved Touring
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.com I 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.
Attachment:

Thank you,

Club Racing Board



website tracking yields this:


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.

my estimation is that this will take a year to cycle through which would mean a response (up or down vote) before racing in 2012. at least for those of us facing winter in Michigan and not Florida.....

[Knestis]

Kirk

They will never see what you are speaking of, its not the individual items but the cummilitive effect.

Oh, I understand that, for sure. Note here that in the SCCA membership survey, the longest-duration response option for "How long have you been a member?" was "7 years or more." A vast majority of drivers don't last more than 3, so historical perspective isn't our strong suit. Some of 2012's new IT driver-members will have their own new ideas about how the cars should be so will contribute to the next wave of new allowances.

K

[JeffYoung]

I don't think this ITAC is any "less creep" than others. We all evaluate rules changes our own way. I would have never been in favor of the ECU change, or sphericals, and was absolutely not in favor of using things like a simulation to "model" deducts and adders to the cars. I find all of that to be far more dangerous -- in my opinion -- than removing the washer bottle, etc.

I've said it before but I will continue to repeat it. I think that we can agree about 95% on what IT's core values are. Stock motors, body panels, suspension pickup points, trannies, brakes. Limited mods to each. Nothing that has been done by this ITAC has infringed on any of those.

We do get the IT we want. Not beating on you Kirk, but I can tell you what I am very sure the largest -- and more importantly the youngest -- portion of the IT community wants, and that is NOT to have a dual purpose race car that is driven on the street and has a headliner, a passenger seat, a washer bottle, etc.

IT would not have the popularity it has now, particularly in attracting younger racers, if we had some of the things that existed in the ruleset in 1985. I remain firmly convinced of that.

I could really care less about the water bottle. As you (Kirk) have accurately stated, it's more perceptional than anything. You perceive it as creep. I perceive ditching it as a statement that we aren't going to hang on to rules that appear to the 20/30 year old crowd we are trying to attract as being completely silly so long as those rules are not part of the IT core.


We get the IT we (collectively) want.

The problem - or benefit, depending on where you come down on the issue - is that the most orthodox anti-creepers are off the ITAC.

Watch for the next round of requested allowances from the guy who asked for these. He'd already done most of them on his car, even absent these additions to the rulebook, but I don't think all of his wish-list has been addressed.

K

[Knestis]

As I said, some - maybe most - will see this as a good thing. And so it goes.

If it's a strategic position of the ITAC that this is our future, maybe we should (seriously) just jump in and rewrite the entire ITCS from scratch and get to the point you describe, rather than letting the rulebook get nibbled to death by ducks...? At least that way, someone building a new car won't have to iterate changes as they go.

I'm past caring so as they say, "In for a penny..."

K

[Ron Earp]

I've said it before but I will continue to repeat it. I think that we can agree about 95% on what IT's core values are. Stock motors, body panels, suspension pickup points, trannies, brakes. Limited mods to each.

I perceive ditching it (*washer bottle rule*) as a statement that we aren't going to hang on to rules that appear to the 20/30 year old crowd we are trying to attract as being completely silly so long as those rules are not part of the IT core.

Right said Fred.

Time moves on, rules hopefully adapt and change. That new washer bottle rule won't be the death of IT.

And wouldn't you know it, I'm going to keep my washer bottle now. After years of being illegal I'm going to keep the bottle in the Rustang to wash my windshield.

[JeffYoung]

I find my self using that Vonnetgutism (so it goes) a lot myself these days.....

I think you may be on to something with the last point.


As I said, some - maybe most - will see this as a good thing. And so it goes.

If it's a strategic position of the ITAC that this is our future, maybe we should (seriously) just jump in and rewrite the entire ITCS from scratch and get to the point you describe, rather than letting the rulebook get nibbled to death by ducks...? At least that way, someone building a new car won't have to iterate changes as they go.

I'm past caring so as they say, "In for a penny..."

K

[Harvey]

2

[tom91ita]

.....A vast majority of drivers don't last more than 3, so historical perspective isn't our strong suit. Some of 2012's new IT driver-members will have their own new ideas about how the cars should be so will contribute to the next wave of new allowances.

K

i actually think there is a chance for an influx of 'new' drivers much like Street Touring took off with Solo.

also, i am curious how they categorize those that go in and out of SCCA? sort of reminds of the difference between being on a diet for 12 months vs. being on a diet for a month 12 times.

if i rejoin or buy a weekend membership, where would i fit in any surveys?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I don't think this ITAC is any "less creep" than others. We all evaluate rules changes our own way. I would have never been in favor of the ECU change, or sphericals, and was absolutely not in favor of using things like a simulation to "model" deducts and adders to the cars. I find all of that to be far more dangerous -- in my opinion -- than removing the washer bottle, etc.



So understand your history a little is you want to trot this out as fact. NOBODY wanted open ECU's, but since they were already defacto 'open' to those with big money to afford a hig-end MoTec, and were somewhat case-dependent, it was a problem. Add in the fact that a 'flash' to an OBD2 car was virtually undetectable, something had to be done. to keep the field as level as possible. Trust me, if there was an equitable way to have everyone 100% stock, it would have gone that way.

Sphericals: Most of the ITAC didn't believe that interpretation was legal and we asked the CRB for their intent of the rule so we could either tighten it up are specifically allow. They wanted to specifically allow. Whether or not they didn't have the nuts to make something a VERY small group pf people were doing specifically illegal is unknown, but it was a CRB decision.

The simulation model was run as an exercise and fully supported the thought process that there were no FWD cars in any of the faster classes that were competitive. The data tweaked our SWAG of -100/-50 just a touch and gave it actual merit. Would do it again in a heartbeat. And that really has nothing to do with allowances and creep...

[JohnW8]

How do you figure?

#3749 - In 9.1.3.D.9.c, add the following at the end: “Switches to activate the ignition, the lights, the windshield wipers, the starter and other accessories located within the passenger compartment may be replaced and their location changed.”

[JeffYoung]

I wrote it, so I know. I thought Russ was saying lights and wipers could be removed. They cannot.

When we looked at the rules we determined that, for example, aftermarket ignition switches -- which we all use -- are not legal.

This makes it clear that if you want to make a switch panel, you can, and you don't have to leave the stock switch in.


#3749 - In 9.1.3.D.9.c, add the following at the end: “Switches to activate the ignition, the lights, the windshield wipers, the starter and other accessories located within the passenger compartment may be replaced and their location changed.”

[JeffYoung]

The simulation absolutely is rules creep. It added a completely unknown, undefined, and not understood computer model to what was a very simple weighting process. And, to base it on the idea that there were no cars competitive in S and R is just flat out wrong Andy. Seck, Ira and Zsolt had competitive Integras in S, Ruck a competitive Prelude in S, the Bildon guys a competitive Corrado in S, etc.

I am actually ok with a FWD break. I was astounded we did it the way we did. We trusted a program to generate percentages by checking a box on the program that said "FWD" without any understanding of what that actually did to the program. Bizarre to say the least.

ECUs? I get your thinking but still creep to allow it. We could have simply said no and let the process police itself. Sphericals? Could have recommended to the CRB not to approve.

But I'm fine with the above. ITACs do their work and make the best call they can at the time. However I will brings this stuff back up when the claim is made that "this" ITAC is engaging in more creep than others. That's nonsense.


So understand your history a little is you want to trot this out as fact. NOBODY wanted open ECU's, but since they were already defacto 'open' to those with big money to afford a hig-end MoTec, and were somewhat case-dependent, it was a problem. Add in the fact that a 'flash' to an OBD2 car was virtually undetectable, something had to be done. to keep the field as level as possible. Trust me, if there was an equitable way to have everyone 100% stock, it would have gone that way.

Sphericals: Most of the ITAC didn't believe that interpretation was legal and we asked the CRB for their intent of the rule so we could either tighten it up are specifically allow. They wanted to specifically allow. Whether or not they didn't have the nuts to make something a VERY small group pf people were doing specifically illegal is unknown, but it was a CRB decision.

The simulation model was run as an exercise and fully supported the thought process that there were no FWD cars in any of the faster classes that were competitive. The data tweaked our SWAG of -100/-50 just a touch and gave it actual merit. Would do it again in a heartbeat. And that really has nothing to do with allowances and creep...

[Knestis]

I wrote it, so I know. I thought Russ was saying lights and wipers could be removed. They cannot.

When we looked at the rules we determined that, for example, aftermarket ignition switches -- which we all use -- are not legal.

This makes it clear that if you want to make a switch panel, you can, and you don't have to leave the stock switch in.

Countdown to "Since we are allowed to disable the lights, please change the rules to allow their removal, on both cost and safety grounds" in 5, 4, 3...

I think I'm on my sixth(?) left headlight assembly.

Whee! :026:

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

The simulation absolutely is rules creep. It added a completely unknown, undefined, and not understood computer model to what was a very simple weighting process. And, to base it on the idea that there were no cars competitive in S and R is just flat out wrong Andy. Seck, Ira and Zsolt had competitive Integras in S, Ruck a competitive Prelude in S, the Bildon guys a competitive Corrado in S, etc.

I am actually ok with a FWD break. I was astounded we did it the way we did. We trusted a program to generate percentages by checking a box on the program that said "FWD" without any understanding of what that actually did to the program. Bizarre to say the least.

Disagree. One car here and there is not competitive. The figures in place were simply a wild-ass-guess with ZERO data to back them up. The simulation validated lower powered cars and supported the theory that higher powered cars needed more delta. It was niceto actually put some data behind an 'adder'. Creep? Hardly!!! The allowance was already there, this was simply a tweak to it that didn't take the rule any 'further'.


ECUs? I get your thinking but still creep to allow it. We could have simply said no and let the process police itself.

Are you forgetting it was already allowed prior to the 'Process Gen ITAC'? It was already a rule so you either had to put it back in the box, which created un-policable inequity, or you rewrote it so that EVERYONE could take advantage. Not creep from what was handed to us. A true lose-lose.


Sphericals? Could have recommended to the CRB not to approve.

Not sure it works like that. We told them how we thought the rule read and asked for their clarification on intent. They told US what the rule should allow and we rewrote it as such.


But I'm fine with the above. ITACs do their work and make the best call they can at the time. However I will brings this stuff back up when the claim is made that "this" ITAC is engaging in more creep than others. That's nonsense.

Each one of your examples is not valid IMHO. HOWEVER, there were plenty that you could use I bet. The first revision on the 'up to 15' wheel sizes was done. Creep? You bet. Justified by the wheel market. Intake rules? Creep. Vent window removal? Creep. Etc.

My point is that it will never stop. Each group will determine what suits their needs and the classes needs and push through agendas. There is 'good creep' and 'bad creep' (all determined in the eye of the beholder) but it's ALL creep.

[Bill Miller]

I find my self using that Vonnetgutism (so it goes) a lot myself these days.....


I have to chuckle Jeff, because I bet 90% of that 20-30 y/o crowd won't get that reference.

And just for the record, I liked Billy Pilgrim too!


Andy,

The CRB has had no problem stuffing the genie back in the bottle in the past. Engine coatings and 3x adjustable RR shocks are the two big ones that immediately jump to mind. Those cost some people some serious coin.

Dave (Gomberg),

That may very well be the case, but they also state that the CRB will now manage the classes going forward (w/ approval from the BoD).

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

[Greg Amy]

I was astounded we did it the way we did.
Ancient ITACs decided that interiors were sacred. Not-so-ancient ITACs did not.

Old ITACs decided that rubber bushings were sacred. Prior ITACs did not.

Prior ITACs decided that washer bottles were sacred. Current ITAC does not.

Current ITAC decides that lights are sacred, as are a whole host of pennies being lined up for consideration. Without that black line, who's to say what future ITAC's will decide is sacred?

Sacrilege is what you make of it. Line's been philosophically crossed.

Game on.

GA

[Dave Gomberg]

...

Dave (Gomberg),

That may very well be the case, but they also state that the CRB will now manage the classes going forward (w/ approval from the BoD).
Did you read the Member Advisory concerning the Touring and Showroom Stock categories in the CRB Minutes? That tells you (and everyone else) how the CRB plans to manage those categories after 2012.

Dave

[JeffYoung]

Since I don't want IT to be made up exclusively of ancient drivers, I'm mostly ok with this.

Visiting a NASA paddock is eye opening. I'm still confident the best competition is to be found with the SCCA, but the average age of a NASA racer has to be 10, 15 maybe 20 years less than at an SCCA event.

When you talk to the younger guys about IT, what do you hear? Yeah, they complain some about limited aero mods and no engine swaps and stuff, but mostly it is about "BS rules" like the washer bottle or the nonsense (my opinon) with engine mount material.

That to me seems like a significant impediment to getting and keeping the younger crowd in IT.

Over the last 2-3 years, I've seen a trickle of drivers start to come back to IT from Spec Miata. Couple that with making our class even somewhat attractive to the PT racer from NASA and I think you will see us growing again if the economy starts to turn.

We are still the biggest class after SRF and SM and the biggest multi-marque class in SCCA. The question is how to keep that healthy and growing. 15 car fields at VIR this year were encouraging. But we can't stagnate. I see three ways to continue to grow:

1. A "real" national championship. Check. ITNT on tap.

2. Promotion. We have some of the closest multi-marque racing out there that is very different from spec class racing. Moser and Price at the ARRC. The multi-car battles from start to finish in ITS in the SEDiv this year. The ITB guys at the Labor Day Double at Summit. Pretty amazing racing.

3. Modernization. I'm not here to run off the old cars, like some folks think. But I don't think our class can survive if we spend a lot of time and squeeze on keeping drum braked, live axle, carbureted cars from the 70s competitive. Not saying they can't be competitive, just saying in my opinion we should not be going out of our way to make sure a TR8 or a 240z or Volvo 142 or a BMW 2002 is on more than a roughly even power to weight playing field with newer cars.

And Modernization includes rule modernization. There is a tension -- a needed one -- between making sure creep doesn't do to us what it did to Prod, and having stasis kill the class. If we had the ruleset we had in 85, this class would be dead. We have addressed AWD, and we are going to have to deal with Turbos.

Which is why in the grand scheme of things I'll never get the idea that the washer bottle is some line in the sand. The core values are. They have remain unchanged and if we keep a nice rolling transition on the ITAC with the more experienced folks getting the newer guys up to speed on the Ops Manual and how we work we should be fine.

The present ITAC is an EXCELLENT group. We work well together, and have the excellent tools provided to us by Jake, Andy, Kirk, Josh, and crew. I'm very confident these guys will carry this thing on into the future without any hitches.

I've always felt membership on these committees should have a shelf life, and my time is approaching -- next year will be my fourth on the committe and my last. There are two things I want to achieve next year. They are:

1. A development of an IT "core values" document like the Ops Manual that will make it clear to future ITACs what the guys in the past thought we should not touch.

2. A plan for a class above R, and turbos.

We'll see how it goes.

But I don't get the angst, at all, over washer bottles, or even the perception allowing their removal creates.


Ancient ITACs decided that interiors were sacred. Not-so-ancient ITACs did not.

Old ITACs decided that rubber bushings were sacred. Prior ITACs did not.

Prior ITACs decided that washer bottles were sacred. Current ITAC does not.

Current ITAC decides that lights are sacred, as are a whole host of pennies being lined up for consideration. Without that black line, who's to say what future ITAC's will decide is sacred?

Sacrilege is what you make of it. Line's been philosophically crossed.

Game on.

GA

[Flyinglizard]

Nice job. I have been hoarding the 13x6 wheels (JW) and scared about not having my rear window wiper on. I am pretty sure that my charcoae thing is in there someplace.
It is about time that SCCA has let the racers decide what is the best way.

[Knestis]

Bookmark this post, as I'll stand by it 5 years from now: Additional allowances will not decrease the mean age of IT entrants in a statistically significant way between now and 2016.

The only thing it will do is shift what some minority of people will complain about, from washer bottles to stock bodywork, boring old stamped steel control arms, glass windows, and stock brakes. Will the ITAC accept requests for those changes when they are the "only thing keeping young racers from racing in IT?"

NASA's advantage in the market has one primary cause: Their integrated HPDE and racing programs, that make it very easy for someone to learn and make the transition to W2W racing if they want. That new NASA racers trend younger than SCCA is largely because it's a newer organization, they are better at attracting new racers of all ages, and new racers tend to be younger than those who have done it for a long time. (That should be largely self-evident.)

And with respect to history, the B Spec rule set looks VERY much like IT c.1990 or thereabouts (post seat and headliner allowances; big whoop). It will be a success despite those "primitive rules."

K

[JeffYoung]

Will we ever be able to proved statisically that eliminating the washer bottle rule caused x number of younger races to race SCCA? No, we won't -- I agree with you on that.

Is there a perception that the SCCA is an unfriendly, hard to deal with, anachronistic organization that is not racer friendly? Yep. Is the washer bottle rule in IT one small part of that? Yep.

We all have a different vision of the fringes of what IT prep should look like, but we aren't talking about the things that continually get listed as the "next step" in IT allowances and when they are brought up -- cams, wings, fiberglass body panels -- they are almost unamiously shouted down.

The B-Spec ruleset may appeal to some, or even a lot of folks. Will be interesting. I have no interest because I have no desire to race that type of car, but I'm not sure why it has anything to do with IT. It looks like it is going to be a close-ish to showroom stock series with manufacturer support for econoboxes. Again, that doesn't interest me, although I wish it well, but I see little if any parallel to IT.

[RacerBill]

Just my opinion here, since someone brought up the difference between NASA and SCCA. What I see as the big difference is that NASA allows racers to make the changes that they feel will make their cars faster with a structure that provides for a driver to determine what class he wants to run in, where SCCA provides a class structure that defines what you can do to a car to make it faster and you build within that framework. Two philosophical positions. Not saying if one is better than another. I prefer the SCCA framework. Others will like NASA. I do agree that we need to do a better job getting drivers to move up from autocross, to PDX, to W2W.

[lateapex911]

I don't think this ITAC is any "less creep" than others. We all evaluate rules changes our own way. I would have never been in favor of the ECU change, or sphericals, and was absolutely not in favor of using things like a simulation to "model" deducts and adders to the cars. I find all of that to be far more dangerous -- in my opinion -- than removing the washer bottle, etc.

I've said it before but I will continue to repeat it. I think that we can agree about 95% on what IT's core values are. Stock motors, body panels, suspension pickup points, trannies, brakes. Limited mods to each. Nothing that has been done by this ITAC has infringed on any of those.

We do get the IT we want.

Soapbox moment:

"We get the IT we want"....
Who is we"?
Well, it's this ITAC, the last ITAC, the ITAC before that, the ITAC before THAT, (which are, lets call them: the Sirota ITAC, the Bettencourt ITAC the Jordan ITAC, and the Pocock ITAC, going backwards (2011- 1999 or so)....and the CRBs before that, going back to 1984 or so.

Time marches on and the current ITAC rules over a category of over 300 cars, spanning 25 plus years of technological changes.

ANY category with such a broad base and deep history will have issues and MUST change to remain relevant.

Jeff, we've been nailed by the words our predecessors used. And we've had to do things we didn't want to. The spherical situation is a classic. When they wrote the rule they wrote, nobody in their wildest dreams would have jumped to the spherical conclusion. If the ITAC failed, it was not reacting fast enough. But as Andy points out, apparently the PTB were fine with the situation.

The ECU was another. The Jordan and Bettencourt ITACs inherited wording regarding the ECU that was untenable. Trust me, I certainly didn't want to go where we went, but as you know, I championed the rulechange, I felt it was the best option. Had to do it. And as for the option you suggest of just saying "No"?!
Uh, respectfully, are you nuts? LOL. After telling the membership for a number of years that they are allowed to do XYZ, and watching them spend tens of thousands doing XYZ, you're not going to have me tell them to pound sand, take it all out and put the old stuff they sold on eBay back in!. Talk about sending members to NASA!
It's one of the costs of maintaining a 300 car, 25 yr old category.
"B Spec" category rules is easy peasy in comparison!
So, to sum up, we (the collective 10 yr ITAC s), tripped over ourselves on the ECU, but, in the end it's where it should be.

In contrast, we allowed "Any shock" back in the early days. Then people started putting on mega $ Remote res dampers. Rather than swallow hard and wait for the infant technology to come down in price and let it be, they decided to outlaw them. And I can name guys who said "FU!" and walked away. Not that waiting for the cost to drop was important, because if you want to spend $ on dampers, there's nothing stopping you from doing so with single double or triple adjustable versions, now or then.


(If we want to contain damper return on investment, we will draw the line at coupling the front chassis structure to the cage forever, as it leaves the chassis as a big undamped spring, negating super high spring rates and somewhat makes super pimpy dampers a waste of coin. Effective rule that, but we'll forever have people wanting to change it to make their cars 'more like a real race car" and they'll play the safety card as well. )

We have to be smart enough not to let the Genie out of the bottle in the first place, but realize, times change and the ruleset must adapt or the category will die.

I'm with Andy on the whole lap sim thing. We had FWD adders. They make sense. They are used by Pro Racing orgs to equalize competition. They were our best estimates. Lap Sim was used as another source to back up those numbers. Even so, I'm not sure I see absolute parity, even now, for FWD cars in ITS, or ITR.
I'd certainly say that using Lap Sim was in no way rules creep, nor has it resulted in a mistake in classifications resulting in overdogs.

Overall, IT is in good shape. That our average racer isn't a young gun is not symptomatic of issues with the IT ruleset. As Kirk points out, NASA has a MUCH better entry into racing system than we do.
1- MANY people who are 'casual' racers want to race their favorite car, with their favorite mods. MANY racers fit this category. NASA PT fits them well. Ultimately, it's a gameable category, but, it works for a lot of people at a certain level of competitiveness.
2- The entire "car guy" crowd and mentality has shifted. We are an entitled society. EVERYone gets trophies and awards at school these days...for showing up to whatever event is handing out awards. "Participation" trophies...makes it fun for everyone. I think we see that in the Drivers Ed mentality...buy more power and keep the little guys behind you. "I won the National HPDE ChampionshiP! Weeee!"
3- Guys who want to race...to prove they are legitimately and measurably better, don't whine about wings or washer bottles. They get busy. But that population, in general, is getting scarcer, I think.

SCCA is trying to cater to both crowds, and it's tough. There will be fallout.

[Knestis]

Will we ever be able to proved statisically that eliminating the washer bottle rule caused x number of younger races to race SCCA? No, we won't -- I agree with you on that.

Is there a perception that the SCCA is an unfriendly, hard to deal with, anachronistic organization that is not racer friendly? Yep. Is the washer bottle rule in IT one small part of that? Yep.

We all have a different vision of the fringes of what IT prep should look like, but we aren't talking about the things that continually get listed as the "next step" in IT allowances and when they are brought up -- cams, wings, fiberglass body panels -- they are almost unamiously shouted down.

The B-Spec ruleset may appeal to some, or even a lot of folks. Will be interesting. I have no interest because I have no desire to race that type of car, but I'm not sure why it has anything to do with IT. It looks like it is going to be a close-ish to showroom stock series with manufacturer support for econoboxes. Again, that doesn't interest me, although I wish it well, but I see little if any parallel to IT.

I won't even as for attribution - or even correlation with "age" as a single factor. I'll bet you a nice dinner that IT entrants won't be any younger in 5 years. Period. I'll kind of win either way because we'll get to have dinner but I'll buy the drinks and be designated driver, too. :)

The problem here is that if "attracting youth" is the rationale for "updating" the rule set, we're setting ourselves up for an ongoing game of Whack-a-Mole. New racers will bring incremental desires to continue that process and will simply - I guarantee it - ask for whatever is next. If the rationale for the policy holds today, it will hold in 2 years. You haven't removed the line in the sand; you've just moved it to a new arbitrary location. And most new drivers won't last more than 3 years anyway, so you're writing rules that will barely have a chance to be read before your target audience has moved on to mountain biking or some such.

Spec B doesn't appeal to you (Jeff) because of the type of car that's involved. Point, Kirk. It's not the rule set that makes the final determination of popularity. It's the sum of a complex pile of factors. I absolutely do not believe that, had this most recent set of new allowances been in place 3 years ago, that IT fields would be any larger than they are now. Viewed differently, the rules, while someone can ALWAYS find something to whine about, have not in and of themselves chased off anyone who wouldn't have gone to do something else anyway. And new classes simply further dilute the existing pool of willing racers.

But again, it's all academic at this point. We haven't done ANYTHING to change the root causes of the big issue - unfriendly, hard to deal with, anachronistic - so we're chasing shadows.

K

[JeffYoung]

This has been a good discussion.

Let me try to sum up one thing though. I'm not in favor of just granting allowances whenever asked. But I'm also not in favor of a completely static result that is not in some way responsive to member input.

There is a tension there and a needed balance between a 'whack a mole" situation where we are updating the rules every 2-3 years on the one hand, and a situation where we make no changes over a 20 year period and drive members off in frustration.

I'll be honest -- I think I show respect for the reasons why we don't want the former, but soemtimes I think there is a willing to die by principle in favor of the latter.

Let me expound a bit on B Spec. The car set doesn't appeal to me, and neither does the ruleset. That's not a knock on B Spec, it is just a personal preference.

Maybe there is an interest in a showroom stockish type situation like that. I don't see it. At least on the regional level, showroom stock is not doing well and racers appear to prefer a different level of prep.

I do think this. I think a reasonably updated ruleset that does address some member's concerns is a pretty key part of addressing the "anachronistic, unfriendly, ...." issue.

I am not one of the NASA Haters, but I do find their rulesets goofy, too fluid and too willing to create-a-class on a whim. That said, there is SOMETHING going on over there that we could learn from without destroying our culture, and to me the key thing is doing what we can to keep rulesets reasonably "fresh."

Josh was absoluitely right that one of the things we must do is work to ensure that IT does not become a vintage class. Sometimes I think it is in danger of that, and then I see things like what has happened in B, and is happening in S, with newer cars coming in and being very competitive.

Dinner and beers on me. I owe you and Andy and Jake -- with the process in place we now actually finish our ITAC calls early, get cars classed quickly, and the CRB loves us!


I won't even as for attribution - or even correlation with "age" as a single factor. I'll bet you a nice dinner that IT entrants won't be any younger in 5 years. Period. I'll kind of win either way because we'll get to have dinner but I'll buy the drinks and be designated driver, too. :)

The problem here is that if "attracting youth" is the rationale for "updating" the rule set, we're setting ourselves up for an ongoing game of Whack-a-Mole. New racers will bring incremental desires to continue that process and will simply - I guarantee it - ask for whatever is next. If the rationale for the policy holds today, it will hold in 2 years. You haven't removed the line in the sand; you've just moved it to a new arbitrary location. And most new drivers won't last more than 3 years anyway, so you're writing rules that will barely have a chance to be read before your target audience has moved on to mountain biking or some such.

Spec B doesn't appeal to you (Jeff) because of the type of car that's involved. Point, Kirk. It's not the rule set that makes the final determination of popularity. It's the sum of a complex pile of factors. I absolutely do not believe that, had this most recent set of new allowances been in place 3 years ago, that IT fields would be any larger than they are now. Viewed differently, the rules, while someone can ALWAYS find something to whine about, have not in and of themselves chased off anyone who wouldn't have gone to do something else anyway. And new classes simply further dilute the existing pool of willing racers.

But again, it's all academic at this point. We haven't done ANYTHING to change the root causes of the big issue - unfriendly, hard to deal with, anachronistic - so we're chasing shadows.

K

[Knestis]

The primary influence on ANYTHING participation-wise right now is the economy. It would take "new cars" - not young drivers - to keep IT from vintification but there's zero motivation to build "new cars" at the moment, with the combination of tight discretionary-money situations and a glut of useful cars on the used market.

I was a little surprised to learn this week that a perfectly reasonable, early MINI can be had now off the street for less than $3000. It's essentially the same beast as is in the dealers today but nobody is going to build one.

...but y'all have what we call in my business a "lack of consensus regarding your theory-of-action." You're using the rules as a policy lever to result in SOMETHING - you all just aren't in agreement what it is, and how removing the washer bottle gets us there. Put differently, it's called "strategic ambiguity." It allows deflection of one closed argument of logic to be deflected to another. The less clear we are about how the action is supposed to influence the outcome - with more factors and logical paths to results in play - the less we can be sure we know what we are trying to do. It's easier to defend but less likely to be efficacious.

K

[tom91ita]

i am not sure why but it bothers me that i think i understood this....


The primary influence on ANYTHING participation-wise right now is the economy. It would take "new cars" - not young drivers - to keep IT from vintification but there's zero motivation to build "new cars" at the moment, with the combination of tight discretionary-money situations and a glut of useful cars on the used market.

I was a little surprised to learn this week that a perfectly reasonable, early MINI can be had now off the street for less than $3000. It's essentially the same beast as is in the dealers today but nobody is going to build one.

...but y'all have what we call in my business a "lack of consensus regarding your theory-of-action." You're using the rules as a policy lever to result in SOMETHING - you all just aren't in agreement what it is, and how removing the washer bottle gets us there. Put differently, it's called "strategic ambiguity." It allows deflection of one closed argument of logic to be deflected to another. The less clear we are about how the action is supposed to influence the outcome - with more factors and logical paths to results in play - the less we can be sure we know what we are trying to do. It's easier to defend but less likely to be efficacious.

K

[JeffYoung]

Honestly, in a lot of ways "strategic ambiguity" = "commitee work."

[lawtonglenn]

.


3- Guys who want to race...to prove they are legitimately and measurably better, don't whine about wings or washer bottles. They get busy. But that population, in general, is getting scarcer, I think.

SCCA is trying to cater to both crowds, and it's tough. There will be fallout.


Amen.... I call this the difference between:

people who want to race, and

people who want to be racecar drivers

and I find it very difficult to believe that you will ever create/modify a ruleset
so that both groups are happy...

For GSMmotorsports, Bob and I would race RX7s, or Ford Fiestas, or
John Deere Lawnmowers, it is the competition that matters, not the tool...
and so leave in or take out the washer bottles, either is fine.
change the wings, or the motormounts, whatever.... it merely changes the cost....

I understand the philosophical wrangling, and even think it is healthy, but in the end,
after the rule changes are made (or denied) there will be whiners, and racers

Glenn

.

[Knestis]

Honestly, in a lot of ways "strategic ambiguity" = "commitee work."

True dat.

The challenge is steering the committee around to being wobbly about HOW something will be accomplished, rather than WHAT accomplishment is desired. It's interesting to force individuals to be explicit about how they really define "success" - and how they will measure it - from any initiative.

K

[DavidM]

I'm usually on the anti-creep side of things, but I don't have an issue with removing the washer bottles, carbon canister, or other ancillary crap. If it makes space for someone to put in a pimpy intake then so be it. I was against the motor mount rule as I thought it was unnecessary, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

I agree with Jeff that there is set of core attributes, like motor, body, suspension, etc., that should be closely guarded. I thought the ECU rule infringed on these and was adamantly opposed to it. I thought (and still think) the new ECU rule was a mistake and should have been left alone. Yeah, the old one had a loop-hole, but it was the same loophole for everyone. The new rule is what it is, though, and we all have to deal with it now. I do think we're approaching a point where there's very little fat left to carve off the ruleset. I don't see a whole lot of washer bottle type situations left in the rules. I think we're close to having a core set of rules that won't change except when new things like turbos get addressed. Having said that, should I submit a rule request to allow short-throw shifters? :D

[lateapex911]

.



Amen.... I call this the difference between:

people who want to raceCOMPETE, and

people who want to be racecar drivers

and I find it very difficult to believe that you will ever create/modify a ruleset
so that both groups are happy...

For GSMmotorsports, Bob and I would race RX7s, or Ford Fiestas, or
John Deere Lawnmowers, it is the competition that matters, not the tool...
and so leave in or take out the washer bottles, either is fine.
change the wings, or the motormounts, whatever.... it merely changes the cost....

I understand the philosophical wrangling, and even think it is healthy, but in the end,
after the rule changes are made (or denied) there will be whiners, and racers

Glenn

.

Even better. I meant to write 'compete' but got lost in my other mental diarrhea, LOL

[lateapex911]

True dat.

The challenge is steering the committee around to being wobbly about HOW something will be accomplished, rather than WHAT accomplishment is desired. It's interesting to force individuals to be explicit about how they really define "success" - and how they will measure it - from any initiative.

K

One 'easy' answer to making a committee more 'pure' is keeping the size appropriate. I've come to feel that I'd MUCH rather have 4 or 5 good sharp guys who know the subject on the ITAC rather than 7 or 8 guys who are showing up most of the time.

(But then I'm the kind of person who only votes on things he feels he's researched and understands )

[coreyehcx]

I thought I would contribute a little bit since Im a newcomer at 31 y/o and fit into this so called crowd of new members that are wanted I assume by some in the club.

Feb I will be going to get my license so Im as green as it gets outside of HPDE's.


In my case I originally looked into IT classes because thats what my friends were running here in central FL. I also looked into the NASA program because of Honda Challenge.

I ended up getting frustrated with all of the changes I was going to have to make to de-tune my already somewhat tuned vehicle to be legal for ITB. I also was annoyed by some of the "silly" rules I read through for the class. I know at some point they were valid or still could be valid but obviously in the case of the wiper bottle it is no longer valid.

It would have cost me more money to put stock items back on my car which led me searching for an alternative that was more friendly to a street tuned vehicle.

I agree with if the people want to race they will drive whatever and not worry. In my case I wanted to race my specific car in the form it was in or close to it. I had no desire to race a car I had no idea how to work on etc just so I could race.

I was very pleased to find out about STL last year and slowly started to make changes to prepare for the class. I look at STL as an opening for people like myself that have engine swaps and the typical upgrades us honda fanbois like to do that are common (ex. camber plates). If STL wasnt offered I would have gone to Honda Challenge even though its very weak in the south east area or done time trials.

So if STL was partly added to attract people like myself it worked. I think it could easily have a pretty decently sized group in my area if people start to hear about it more.

[jjjanos]

I ended up getting frustrated with all of the changes I was going to have to make to de-tune my already somewhat tuned vehicle to be legal for ITB. I also was annoyed by some of the "silly" rules I read through for the class. I know at some point they were valid or still could be valid but obviously in the case of the wiper bottle it is no longer valid.

It would have cost me more money to put stock items back on my car which led me searching for an alternative that was more friendly to a street tuned vehicle.

Bingo. That's why most people who have gotten serious about NASA HPDE won't think of IT. The already have modified the car they want to race beyond the rule set. IT won't attract those people until the first car is wadded up beyond repair and alot of folks simply walk away at that point.

[Knestis]

The Dark Prince of STL has lured away another one. Damn you Dark Prince!

K

[GTIspirit]

Rules passed for 2012:

#3193 – Add a new 9.1.3.D.9.n as follows: “Windshield washer systems, rear windshield wiper systems, cruise control systems, horns and the wiring associated wiring with any of these may be removed. Any holes left in the body must be covered or plugged.”

Wheel rules changed:

#3426 – In 9.1.3.D.7.a.1 change as follows:

Cars may not fit wheel diameters larger than those listed on their spec line. Knockoff/quickchange type wheels are prohibited. Wheels must be made of metal.

[All ITS/ITA/ITB/ITC cars currently listed in the ITCS with a wheel size less than 15 inches would be changed to 15 inches. All ITR cars currently listed in the ITCS with a wheel size less than 17 inches would be changed to 17 inches. The heading on the wheel size column would be changed to “Max Wheel Diameter”.]

#3749 - In 9.1.3.D.9.c, add the following at the end: “Switches to activate the ignition, the lights, the windshield wipers, the starter and other accessories located within the passenger compartment may be replaced and their location changed.”

(multiple) - In 9.1.3.D.1, add a new subsection s as follows: “To allow commonly available engine mount aftermarket inserts, replacement units, or “window weld” like solutions without allowing solid metal or rigid materials or bearings that could result in the driveline becoming a stressed member of the chassis, the following is permitted. Engine, transmission, differential or any other driveline mounts may be replaced. Mounts may use only stock mounting points, must maintain stock location and orientation of the mounted component, and must be non-rigid.Rubber or other inserts in stock mounts may be replaced with any other non-metallic material.”

In 9.1.3.D.2, add a new subsection e as follows: “Alternate mounts are permitted as in 9.1.3.D.1.s.”

Good thing I read this thread because when I perused the prelim copy of the Dec 2011 Fastrack I missed these rules changes.

Washer bottle isn't a big deal to me, was a silly rule to those new to IT but didn't have much benefits or detriments, for my VW Golf. Horn(s) on the other hand, those suckers are heavy and didn't work with the quick release steering wheel so that will be a nice weight reduction opportunity. :)

Wheel diameter rules needed to change to accommodate newer cars with factory wheel larger than their respective IT* class allowance. It's not like the width was changed. What I don't agree with is the implementation of the rule that allowed smaller wheel diameters for certain cars, smaller diameter than was presently allowed. There is a definite advantage here for those who want to spend the money.

Motor mount rule seems like a good compromise between making an allowance for poly inserts and such and inhibiting solid mounts of different geometry than stock.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yeah, the old one had a loop-hole, but it was the same loophole for everyone.

Not true at all. At the time, you have to remember the technology available. The MoTec system was able to fit in SOME OEM housings. AEM stuff didn't fit in anything.

So while the loophole was THERE, only certain cars could take advantage of fully programmable units. THAT is a huge inequity. HUGE. Horrible for the class. Leaving it alone was the worst idea of the 3.

[chuck baader]

I understand how/why NASA attracts younger drivers. The perception of their ruleset is one of low entry cost. If you want to drive around rather than race, you can do so at a very reasonable cost. However, if you want to be competitive, that is another story.

GTS, for example, is strictly money classes. People are starting to realize that and are looking hard at alternatives.

Spec E30 is a great class with a very restrictive ruleset. Racing is very good but, other than Skeen, I don't see a skill level necessary to run up front in IT. Either way, you have to build a real race car to run up front, just like SCCA, and the perceived costs are lower in NASA....which is not necessarily the case. Chuck

[Z3_GoCar]

The Dark Prince of STL has lured away another one. Damn you Dark Prince!

K

ITR peaked in 2010 for So-Pac, this year it's dead. The class to race in '11 and '12 is STU. I left because of a combination of the motor mount rules, a lack of my car being correctly classed, and the ease and cost of a motor swap vs rebuild the 2.8.

[Knestis]

ITR peaked in 2010 for So-Pac, this year it's dead. The class to race in '11 and '12 is STU. I left because of a combination of the motor mount rules, a lack of my car being correctly classed, and the ease and cost of a motor swap vs rebuild the 2.8.

How competitive are you?

K

[Ron Earp]

So while the loophole was THERE, only certain cars could take advantage of fully programmable units. THAT is a huge inequity. HUGE. Horrible for the class. Leaving it alone was the worst idea of the 3.

No doubt. And with newer ECUs being cracked in some cases and being fully programmable, while most of the old ones were non-programmable, folks with newer ECUs could have a huge advantage.

[downingracing]

I understand how/why NASA attracts younger drivers. The perception of their ruleset is one of low entry cost. If you want to drive around rather than race, you can do so at a very reasonable cost. However, if you want to be competitive, that is another story.

GTS, for example, is strictly money classes. People are starting to realize that and are looking hard at alternatives.

Spec E30 is a great class with a very restrictive ruleset. Racing is very good but, other than Skeen, I don't see a skill level necessary to run up front in IT. Either way, you have to build a real race car to run up front, just like SCCA, and the perceived costs are lower in NASA....which is not necessarily the case. Chuck

The one thing people seem to forget about cost is the potential cost to run with a group. Come to Mid-Ohio and run an SCCA weekend. If you have a big off and oil the track, trash a guardrail and tire wall bundle and maybe even get a few fire bottles emptied on your car - That sucks! Your car is probably trashed and you are having a bad weekend. Now make that another club (like NASA) and have the same off. Not only are you having a bad weekend because of your car being trashed - you've got a bill coming for the damage to the facility. I know what the cost for those items is from the track to repair/replace/use... Some groups (MVPTrackTime) have things like this in their rules: "Track Damage: Accidents can happen, should you encounter one while at an MVP Track Time event you will be responsible for paying any damages you cause that may occur to the track facilities or your automobile. Any damage between cars is between the owners of the vehicles.". I read that to say: if you hit my 911 in your Neon - you are responsible for the damage to my car. Good luck getting your insurance to pay - that one is coming out of pocket.

Just something else (one of many) to consider when picking an organization to run with.

[Knestis]

... "Track Damage: Accidents can happen, should you encounter one while at an MVP Track Time event you will be responsible for paying any damages you cause that may occur to the track facilities or your automobile. Any damage between cars is between the owners of the vehicles.". I read that to say: if you hit my 911 in your Neon - you are responsible for the damage to my car. Good luck getting your insurance to pay - that one is coming out of pocket. ...

Track damage $$ is - I think - a function of the terms applied by any given track and the contract between the track and the club. Re: the "damage between cars" clause you cite, I do *not* take that to be at all prescriptive; that drivers must split costs or determine fault so financial responsibility. That's just the organizers saying, "It's not OUR problem."

K

[Z3_GoCar]

How competitive are you?

K

In which class?

[downingracing]

Track damage $$ is - I think - a function of the terms applied by any given track and the contract between the track and the club. Re: the "damage between cars" clause you cite, I do *not* take that to be at all prescriptive; that drivers must split costs or determine fault so financial responsibility. That's just the organizers saying, "It's not OUR problem."

K

I agree that track damage is an issue between club and track. The club I run with does not pass that expense back to the drivers. It is taken care of by the club or by insurance.

The whole quote is:

"Track Damage
Accidents can happen, should you encounter one while at an MVP Track Time event you will be responsible for paying any damages you cause that may occur to the track facilities or your automobile. Any damage between cars is between the owners of the vehicles. MVP Track Time is not responsible for any damage to any vehicle or the track facilities caused by any attendee."

The last sentence is them saying "It's not our problem". I read the one before it as saying "It is between the owners to figure out who owes who for what". Just my .02¢ on what their rules say. I know I wouldn't want to be in an incident during one of their weekends and then try and figure out what that means. :)

[Knestis]

In which class?

...in STU?


The club I run with does not pass that expense back to the drivers. It is taken care of by the club or by insurance. Sure they do. They HAVE to, as those costs can't just disappear and the club's revenues come from the members/drivers. Heck, the club IS the members. EDIT - They may of course not be itemized to the individual driver responsible for bending the rail, but instead be apportioned out to the entire program as subsidized by all participants.

K

[downingracing]

...in STU?

Sure they do. They HAVE to, as those costs can't just disappear and the club's revenues come from the members/drivers. Heck, the club IS the members. EDIT - They may of course not be itemized to the individual driver responsible for bending the rail, but instead be apportioned out to the entire program as subsidized by all participants.

K

Sorry - when I said the 'club', I meant the region. I know my region covers the cost for some track damage. It comes from any profit the event might have or comes from the treasury. Other track damage expenses are covered by the insurance policy paid for by the region for the event.

And I'm very happy to pay a few bucks more (entry ee) to not be socked with a bill for thousands of dollars for an incident that I may get involved in. The loss of the car is bad enough and I can afford to write it off if needed. It gets harder when you are writing off the car AND writing a check for a few thousand dollars for the damage to the track.

[Z3_GoCar]

...in STU?

K

Ha ha, you mean to Run-Offs 2nd place finishing Marc Hoover? Not bloody likely. However, I did finish 2nd in STU regionally. Unlike IT, STU gives me options when my cars incorrectly classed. If I'm getting beat up buy 2.5liter's because they've got a better intake manifold, and can be had for $500 less than the IT legal 2.8liter motor. Then I'll bolt one of those in, easy.

BTW, I noticed that Marc will be at the 25hrs at Thunder Hill next weekend with a team of 5 cars. Now that's some cubic dollars.

[Knestis]

So, by "place to race," you might mean "place to go get stomped on by someone spending a gajillion dollars." New classes tend to be interesting to folks early on because a lot of the early adopters can have some success without making big $$ commitments. When (if) they get popular, competition drives spending, the cost to be competitive goes up, and people get less happy.

K

[Z3_GoCar]

So, by "place to race," you might mean "place to go get stomped on by someone spending a gajillion dollars." New classes tend to be interesting to folks early on because a lot of the early adopters can have some success without making big $$ commitments. When (if) they get popular, competition drives spending, the cost to be competitive goes up, and people get less happy.

K

Doesn't matter if I get stomped buy the gajillion dollar spending guy in STU, or have a totally non IT legal car that's still not competitive because asuptions are made and there's no way to prove a negitive.

[Knestis]

Sorry, James - I'm not following...

K

[Z3_GoCar]

Sorry, James - I'm not following...

K

They're both places to race from my perspective. With my budget, might as well use the class that allows me to use the less expensive solid flywheel, the solid motor mounts instead of replacing the stock ones every few months or money shift the motor, and swap to a less expensive motor that my competition is using. Then there's the fact that anything other than ITA is dead, there are zero ITR regional champions this year, one each in ITS and ITC, two in ITB, and three in ITA.

[jumbojimbo]

Sorry, James - I'm not following...

K

Near as I can tell he's making the point that if his car is classed wrong in IT (due to some percieved injustice that just can't get corrected no matter how obvious it is) that even if he cheated he couldn't keep up. IE, IT is too fricking restrictive.

Whereas in STU he can just slap on some cheap go fast part and be as fast as anyone. Well, except the guy who slapped on two go fast parts and actually developed his car. A point which he is conceeding. So I guess the point is he'd rather be outclassed by someone spending more money than by someone who chose a more appropriate car for the class. :shrug:

[JeffYoung]

We addressed the 2.8 power issue.

We have a 2.8 Z3 roadster here in the SEDiv that is very competitive; it's won the regional championship each year since we started ITR.

[JS154]

So, by "place to race," you might mean "place to go get stomped on by someone spending a gajillion dollars." New classes tend to be interesting to folks early on because a lot of the early adopters can have some success without making big $$ commitments. When (if) they get popular, competition drives spending, the cost to be competitive goes up, and people get less happy.

K
That is what has killed a bunch of major racing series over the decades....off the top of my head, Can/AM, early DTM, and recently World Challenge once GM got involved with cubic d,000,000,000llars

[chuck baader]

In addition, that is what is killing BMWCCA racing and also NASA GTS series...slowly. Chuck

[Knestis]

That is what has killed a bunch of major racing series over the decades....off the top of my head, Can/AM, early DTM, and recently World Challenge once GM got involved with cubic d,000,000,000llars

It's inevitable - if and only if a series is successful.

Competitiveness (big fields full of teams that want to win, and have the capacity to really try) drives up the cost of running up front. People whine about NASCAR but they at least address the load of technology on those costs.

The only way to guarantee that costs to run up front will stay low, is to design classes to be unpopular and small. (See also, "elimination of SCCA's 2.5 rule.")

K

[lateapex911]

It's inevitable - if and only if a series is successful.

Competitiveness (big fields full of teams that want to win, and have the capacity to really try) drives up the cost of running up front. People whine about NASCAR but they at least address the load of technology on those costs.

The only way to guarantee that costs to run up front will stay low, is to design classes to be unpopular and small. (See also, "elimination of SCCA's 2.5 rule.")

K

Which has spawned a not unexpected response from the exiled G Prod guys who couldn't manage to get 2.5 cars to show up to a race:

http://prodracing.com/prodcar/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=12985

[Knestis]

Which has spawned a not unexpected response from the exiled G Prod guys who couldn't manage to get 2.5 cars to show up to a race:

http://prodracing.com/prodcar/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=12985

That thread should be required reading for every Club Racing participant.

I'm going to submit a request: "Please, for the sake of all that is holy, do not reinstate GP as a National class."

K

[JeffYoung]

Seriously.

I signed into that board and typed up a post that basically said: "PLEASE take your G Prod cars and go vintage racing" but chickened out.

Wow. Talk about the scarifying future of the Club. I know someday my car goes to the scrap heap. These guys literally want to race 60 year old cars in our premier racing series......

[Ron Earp]

http://www.pratherracing.com/gallery1.jpg

Last produced in 1962. Time for the SCCA to let go.

[Knestis]

But the issues are bigger than that, by a long shot.

There were years when the RubOffs pole-winning times in adjacent Prod classes were smaller than the difference between first and second within a class. Cars get moved or re-spec'd based on performances against one or two other cars, at one race. And ultimately, classes that couldn't get enough entries to field a pick-up basketball team at their average event get a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP.

And instead of fewer classes, we get more...

K

[Ron Earp]

There were years when the RubOffs pole-winning times in adjacent Prod classes were smaller than the difference between first and second within a class. Cars get moved or re-spec'd based on performances against one or two other cars, at one race. And ultimately, classes that couldn't get enough entries to field a pick-up basketball team at their average event get a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP.

K

Wow, I didn't know about that. I think I was less down about the SCCA before I knew that factoid.

Can someone tell me in three sentences or less why the 2.5 average participation rule was removed?

[Greg Amy]

Can someone tell me in three sentences or less why the 2.5 average participation rule was removed?
They said it explicitly in the release: to keep Touring 3 from losing National status.

GA

EDIT: link to news item.

http://www.scca.com/news/index.cfm?cid=50874

[Harvey]

Bod

[JeffYoung]

NASA is going to hand us our butts.

[tom91ita]

don't worry. i have it on good authority that G Prod is not coming back....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wD-NUjVMJc

[Ron Earp]

EDIT: link to news item.

http://www.scca.com/news/index.cfm?cid=50874

So the club makes a rule, the minority affected complain, and the rule gets changed. Yay.

[Harvey]

So the club makes a rule, the minority affected complain, and the rule gets changed. Yay.

OMG it would be so nice if that was all there was to it.

[Harvey]

NASA is going to hand us our butts.

Here ya go. I really get tired of seeing that card played. We have 2 very different organizations, chose 1.

[Greg Amy]

I kinda found this interesting as well. From that news article:

"The suspension of the rule means that Touring 3, which failed to meet the 2.5 minimum over the 2010 and 2011 National Club Racing seasons, will continue as a National class..."

And then I found this:

SCCA BoD Grants T3 Reprieve, Will Compete at 2009 Runoffs

"TOPEKA, Kan. (Dec. 8, 2008) - Sports Car Club of America’s Board of Directors voted unanimously Friday to permit Touring 3 to compete at the 2009 SCCA® National Championship Runoffs®.
...
Touring 3 was first recognized as a National class in SCCA Club Racing in 2006."

http://www.scca.com/news/index.cfm?cid=45322

I really hate to pick at a sore subject, but did T3 ever make 2.5?

GA

[JeffYoung]

The reality card?

The reality card is that if we continue to devise rules to make 60 year old chassis compeitive and focus on THAT instead of newer cars, cleaner rule sets and younger drivers, we are dead.

Better get used to that card. I've made my choice and it is to improve THIS organization.


Here ya go. I really get tired of seeing that card played. We have 2 very different organizations, chose 1.

[tom91ita]

maybe we could combine GP with T3 to make it viable?

[joeg]

Tom--Great idea!!

[Ron Earp]

Better get used to that card. I've made my choice and it is to improve THIS organization.

I need to send them a letter about the SCCA website.

Go to www.scca.com and click "Tour Website".

Select your car and you can find out what you can do with it. Except IT doesn't figure in there for domestics.

1998 V6 Mustang - AutoX only, no road racing options
1997 V6 CAmaro - AutoX only, no road racing options
1995 V8 Mustang - Autox, Touring, and Super Touring - no mention of IT or American Sedan.

System seems to work well for imports though, Miata, 240sx, Hondas, etc.

It doesn't allow you to select anything older than 1980 either.

[Knestis]

T3 had the juice. GP didn't have the juice. Live by CRB and BoD politics, die by the same forces.

For me, it all comes back to a lack of big-picture policy clarity and consistent application of rules and procedures. Rule X will get used as a hammer to clobber one idea, then get ignored as an exception to the same rule is back-channeled to facilitate someone's pet agenda.

Every time someone tells me about some minor victory they've achieved through the back channel, I try to remember to ask them if they'll still love the game when they aren't winning.

K

[seckerich]

Can anyone remember the last time a T1,T2,T3 or SS anything ran regionals? It is all manufacturer driven on a National level. GP, etc would have been fine if it had been reduced to regional status per the rules and given a chance to regain its numbers. I ran GP for years and only left because IT cars are so much more reliable. It was stupid for the BOD to kill it completely. Now the pet classes that everybody seems to not give a crap about get continued special deals.

The statements about 60 year old cars has some truth, but if they have the numbers and pay their dues, they have just as much right to race in the club they built while many of you were in diapers.:rolleyes: They are racers, paying dues, and if the rules for participation are followed by everyone they deserve their class. Many left due to continued screwings by the CRB every time they worked hard to get fast. Try winning an IT championship and getting #150 on a whim just to slow you down. No, we have a reasonable process and have a pretty stable rule set. Production, GT, etc get screwed on a weekly basis and frankly I wonder why any except the inside crowd continue to take the abuse. When you have more than 10 years in this club then you have a better picture of the problem.

But wait, we will have a whole new crop of BOD this year to reverse everything and tip the ship even further, stay tuned.

PS. Spit my drink out at the truth in the Hitler video, classic.:023:

[JeffYoung]

To be clear -- I have no problem with 60 year old cars racing in the SCCA. I do have a problem with setting up classes and rules to continue to ensure they are competitive against modern stuff.

[Harvey]

So your answer is to make ONLY newer cars competetive and let the older ones die completely rather than trying to classify newer cars where they belong to fit the envelope as a whole.

[JeffYoung]

No.

For IT, my answer is not allow things like weight breaks for drum brakes, or carburetors, or allow cars to switch out to alternate parts when things no longer become available.

I'm not in favor of special allowances for new cars or old cars. I want a consistent ruleset that doesn't make a distinction between the two. In my opinion, that will naturally result in a constant but slow turnover in the class as older cars age out and newer cars come in while not forcing everyone to ditch their old cars yearly for the "car of the year."

The Prod guys know their classes better than me and can of course do what they want with them. But dropping minimum participation requirements just so a "legacy" class can still go to the runoffs to me isn't very smart.

You guys need to go to a NASA event. I'm a dyed in the wool SCCA guy. I have no interest in running NASA. But their fields are full, their cars are newer, and their drivers have to average at least 10 and maybe 20 years less than us.

That is a bad, bad sign.

[seckerich]

To be clear -- I have no problem with 60 year old cars racing in the SCCA. I do have a problem with setting up classes and rules to continue to ensure they are competitive against modern stuff.

Nor does anyone. Set the power to weight and let them go at it like we do in IT. If they engineer better than a newer car they win. With todays SCCA they engineer to the front and get a boat anchor to bring them down to the slower cars. Set the rules for everyone equal. These 60 year old cars in production have the brakes, motor, etc of newer cars and can run with them. The newer cars are given the special treatment to bring them up to speed, not the other way around. You are misinformed at best.

[Robbie]

NASA is going to hand us our butts.

From a guy who races with NASA, it isn't all roses and unicorn farts.

[Harvey]

OMG the world is ending

[Andy Bettencourt]

...But their fields are full, their cars are newer, and their drivers have to average at least 10 and maybe 20 years less than us.

That is a bad, bad sign.

From what I have seen, they have full run groups, but about 10 classes in each group. Looking at some of the schedules I have seen, it's a million HPDE cars and only a couple real racing groups.

[Russ Myers]

When you condem the older cars to uncompetitive status, you drive out the owners and drivers who have a LOT of time and money invested in them. I can count on one hand the number of drivers stil playing since I started this nonsence, and most of the ones who left say the same thing. "I'm not going to spend anymore money on this ^&#$@#." I am about in the same boat what with the cost of tires, gas, travel, parts, and now an unneeded(in my opinion) H&N deal. And now some are saying my antique Pinto, with it's drum rear brakes, live axle, and carb. should just go quietly into that good night. OK, I'm parked.

Russ

[SPiFF]

"I'm not going to spend anymore money on this ^&#$@#." I am about in the same boat what with the cost of tires, gas, travel, parts, and now an unneeded(in my opinion) H&N deal. And now some are saying my antique Pinto, with it's drum rear brakes, live axle, and carb. should just go quietly into that good night. OK, I'm parked.

Seems like the same people who are already struggling to buy tires and modern safety gear are the ones who want to keep newer cars from coming in and rendering the antiques to the back of the grid. Now if you park because the H&N thing and the Pinto is the car to have, who is going to replace you? Not sure any of the younger crowd is going to searching Google for the coolest Pinto to race ... LOL. They will find some cool cars in NASA and in the new STU/L classes however.

But, in really it shouldn't be about old v new. Progress means old will eventually be uncompetitive. I don't like the whole "anti new" mentality that, until the last few years, has kept IT to be more like Improved Vintage then anything else.

There are however 2 fundamental problems outside of the great work Jeff and crew are doing to clean up the ancient crusty rules. One is there are a lot of crappy cars in all the classes which means that most decent cars and any new cars are lead sleds. Two, the power to weight for the IT classes is out of whack with any car produced in the last 10 years. Number 2 feeds #1.

Seems like we should be putting new cars in at the top, rebalancing the classes, and pushing the heaps down in classes. To really do this, we do have to have have the ability to recalculate the spec weights for all cars in the ITCS with a deterministic formula and actually know what each car list is actually capable of. Not sure we are there yet.

So, for example, put the 350Z, Hyundai Genesis Coupe, etc in ITR. Drop all the weight of the other cars who can make it, push the rest down to ITS, and repeat down to ITC.

[mossaidis]

So, for example, put the 350Z, Hyundai Genesis Coupe, etc in ITR. Drop all the weight of the other cars who can make it, push the rest down to ITS, and repeat down to ITC.

That or add ITU or something similar.

[Andy Bettencourt]

When you condem the older cars to uncompetitive status, you drive out the owners and drivers who have a LOT of time and money invested in them. I can count on one hand the number of drivers stil playing since I started this nonsence, and most of the ones who left say the same thing. "I'm not going to spend anymore money on this ^&#$@#." I am about in the same boat what with the cost of tires, gas, travel, parts, and now an unneeded(in my opinion) H&N deal. And now some are saying my antique Pinto, with it's drum rear brakes, live axle, and carb. should just go quietly into that good night. OK, I'm parked.

Russ

So I will disagree that this is happening. IT is a power-to-weight-based calculation. Some items are considered for 'adders' and some are not. Straight axles, new or old, don't get a break. Drum brakes on a RWD car could be up for debate and carb-ed cars are already allowed an upgrade from stock.

It's not about rendering them uncompetitive, it's about deciding how 'focused' this classification process can be without dipping our collective toes into Comp-Adjustments. I am sure the ITAC would entertain a well thought out proposal on a categorical modification to the process re: drum brakes keeping in mind that configuration is not a disadvantage in a FWD application.

The point Jeff made was in regard to the multitude of letters that come in every year asking for alternate brakes, plexi windshields, altrnate fenders, etc for cars where supply is drying up.

[mossaidis]

The point Jeff made was in regard to the multitude of letters that come in every year asking for alternate brakes, plexi windshields, altrnate fenders, etc for cars where supply is drying up.

I hate to say it but.... maybe it's time for STL/U, Prod or GT for those folks. One day I will be there as well and that decision should be made for me.

[Matt93SE]

But, in really it shouldn't be about old v new. Progress means old will eventually be uncompetitive. I don't like the whole "anti new" mentality that, until the last few years, has kept IT to be more like Improved Vintage then anything else.

There are however 2 fundamental problems outside of the great work Jeff and crew are doing to clean up the ancient crusty rules. One is there are a lot of crappy cars in all the classes which means that most decent cars and any new cars are lead sleds. Two, the power to weight for the IT classes is out of whack with any car produced in the last 10 years. Number 2 feeds #1.

Seems like we should be putting new cars in at the top, rebalancing the classes, and pushing the heaps down in classes. To really do this, we do have to have have the ability to recalculate the spec weights for all cars in the ITCS with a deterministic formula and actually know what each car list is actually capable of. Not sure we are there yet.

So, for example, put the 350Z, Hyundai Genesis Coupe, etc in ITR. Drop all the weight of the other cars who can make it, push the rest down to ITS, and repeat down to ITC.

My thoughts are similar here too..
Instead of hobbling the new cars with 500lb of ballast, build the cars to IT spec and see what they can do, then classify them without ballast.

If the old IT cars can't be competitive anymore, then give them a break- lower the weights for those that can lose weight, give them better brakes (almost every car out there has a rear drum-to-disc conversion for sale or easily doable), and such. Maybe cams or a slight compression bump as a line-item allowance so the cars can make more power.

If they still cant compete with the newer stuff, then bump them down a class or create an IT-vintage class where these older cars can still play without the hassles of trying to keep up with the new stuff.

yup.. more classes. that's what we need. ;)

[Matt93SE]

doh.. double post.

[Andy Bettencourt]

My thoughts are similar here too..
Instead of hobbling the new cars with 500lb of ballast, build the cars to IT spec and see what they can do, then classify them without ballast.

If the old IT cars can't be competitive anymore, then give them a break- lower the weights for those that can lose weight, give them better brakes (almost every car out there has a rear drum-to-disc conversion for sale or easily doable), and such. Maybe cams or a slight compression bump as a line-item allowance so the cars can make more power.

If they still cant compete with the newer stuff, then bump them down a class or create an IT-vintage class where these older cars can still play without the hassles of trying to keep up with the new stuff.

yup.. more classes. that's what we need. ;)

I say no on almost all counts. Create a class above ITR if that is what's needed. If it can't stand on it's own, it's not worth creating.

Competition adjustments by spec line???? That IS Prod.

IT-V? I could get behind it but some will be happy and some won't, because if it's a single class, you will have to create one target Pwr-weight and nobody will be happy with that.

[JeffYoung]

You misunderstand. That is exactly what I am saying. Same rules, consistent across all classes and without any concessions for older (or newer) cars.

I just dealt with a situation where, in my opinion, there was a large push to help "older" cars in ITB with weight brakes for carburetors. I also personally think the live rear axle deduct was a mistake.

That's the only push I've seen -- in IT -- for allowances for individual cars. I know nothing, as in ZERO, about Prod other than like Kirk said I see weights changing too frequently and I see cars and drivers that on average appear far older than those making up our competitor's fields. That to me is not a good sign for the future, and declining car counts for classes other than SM, SRF and IT seem to prove that point.


Nor does anyone. Set the power to weight and let them go at it like we do in IT. If they engineer better than a newer car they win. With todays SCCA they engineer to the front and get a boat anchor to bring them down to the slower cars. Set the rules for everyone equal. These 60 year old cars in production have the brakes, motor, etc of newer cars and can run with them. The newer cars are given the special treatment to bring them up to speed, not the other way around. You are misinformed at best.

[JeffYoung]

Russ, I drive an "old" car. I fully understand that I have to play by the same rules as the newer cars, and don't think asking for weight breaks for archaic design elements is appropriate in IT.

If that "condemns" older cars to uncompetitive status, then that is a natural function of our ruleset, and in my opinion far more preferable than trying to figure out what disadvantage a Hitachi carb is to a Bosch L-Jet system.


When you condem the older cars to uncompetitive status, you drive out the owners and drivers who have a LOT of time and money invested in them. I can count on one hand the number of drivers stil playing since I started this nonsence, and most of the ones who left say the same thing. "I'm not going to spend anymore money on this ^&#$@#." I am about in the same boat what with the cost of tires, gas, travel, parts, and now an unneeded(in my opinion) H&N deal. And now some are saying my antique Pinto, with it's drum rear brakes, live axle, and carb. should just go quietly into that good night. OK, I'm parked.

Russ

[JeffYoung]

Depends on the class.

BUT -- there is nothing over there that interests me class or competition wise. My friends and my preferred ruleset are with SCCA. I stay here, and I like it here.

That doesn't mean though that we/I shouldn't ask why NASA attracts younger drivers and newer cars.

I also fully agree with Robbie NASA has a ton of warts.


From what I have seen, they have full run groups, but about 10 classes in each group. Looking at some of the schedules I have seen, it's a million HPDE cars and only a couple real racing groups.

[SPiFF]

My thoughts are similar here too..
Instead of hobbling the new cars with 500lb of ballast, build the cars to IT spec and see what they can do, then classify them without ballast.

If the old IT cars can't be competitive anymore, then give them a break- lower the weights for those that can lose weight, give them better brakes (almost every car out there has a rear drum-to-disc conversion for sale or easily doable), and such. Maybe cams or a slight compression bump as a line-item allowance so the cars can make more power.

If they still cant compete with the newer stuff, then bump them down a class or create an IT-vintage class where these older cars can still play without the hassles of trying to keep up with the new stuff.

yup.. more classes. that's what we need. ;)


NO NO NO! That is not what the IT core phyosophy(*) is. There are already a bunch of classes where one can spend cubic dollars re-engineering some ancient heap.

What I am suggesting is to allow the power to weight targets for the IT sub classes to be a sliding scale so new cars can be added without having to create more sub classes.

(*). I also strongly feel that the IT phyosophy should be printed at the beginning of the ITCS. What is there now is a joke.

[JeffYoung]

I am working on an IT "Core Values" statement of what the class is about, and what I/we (the present ITAC) think should not be changed in the future. We'll see how that works out.


NO NO NO! That is not what the IT core phyosophy(*) is. There are already a bunch of classes where one can spend cubic dollars re-engineering some ancient heap.

What I am suggesting is to allow the power to weight targets for the IT sub classes to be a sliding scale so news can be added without having to create more sub classes.

(*). I also strongly feel that the IT phyosophy should be printed at the beginning of the ITCS. What is there now is a joke.

[lateapex911]

I *think* NASA has a younger demographic because of several reasons, and they aren't always obvious.


1- HPDEs. This IS obvious. It's their entry gate. Easy in. Then once in and familiar with the organization, and having friends there, it's easy to take the next step, their racing program. They've made that step seamless by providing a classing structure that accepts all cars (essentially) with varying mods and attempts to balance them on a points system.
2- Because MOST people getting INTO racing/track stuff are younger, we need to look at the mindset of the average 20 something, compared to the average 20 something 20 years ago. It's quite different. I'd suggest that the competitive edge is rather different. Video games give you extra 'lives' when you screw up. Real racing does not. I'd suggest many (not ALL!) are more interested in being a "Racing driver" than competing in a race car. Many will not 'get' the distinction.
3- Friends. Once IN NASA, you develop friends and comraderie, just like Jeff said he's done in SCCA. If you're not a rabid competitor, you stay.


SCCA is an organization built around that distinction. It's classes are designed to compete against each other...... in racing cars.
It used to be that SCCA was the only game in town....so we had many who were here, but it wasn't ideal for their wants.
Think about the marque crowd. They LOVE their Porsche*...but whine that the SCCA doesn't class them 'fairly'. Back in the day, they were stuck. Now, with the advent of marque club racing programs, they go to PCA, or POC and they have 40 classes to choose from. And most have 3 or 4 guys, and the trophies are pretty.
*Or Alfa or Honda, etc...

Honestly, the G Prod guys are the same. They want to 'race' THEIR car. ....it's not about actually RACING! How can it be? If less than 2.5 cars show up to an event, there isn't anyone to beat! It's about showing up and driving the 'old dear' around and getting a trophy. Mental masturbation in the real world.

In the end, I think that people who want to win so badly they are ok with losing are rare*. Most want the participation trophy.

(In other words, they want to win something significant, and feel that coming in 2nd in a large field and rabid competition is better than beating a couple other slackers)

Many scoff at Spec Miata, but it's successful and thank the stars for that. It's removed a significant hurdle on the path to competing: the reliability /hassle building part of race car ownership.

[Russ Myers]

Jeff.
I'm not going to ask for anything for my car exclusivly. I will be honest enough to admit that I really don't have the time or money to do a full workup on my car. But it seems to me that we place such am emphesis on NEW, that when we work real hard to attract all that is new, we run off all that has been in the club for a bit of time. We'll put Brand-x in ITZ just to attract all the kids who are tuning them and if geezers SUX -500 is now uncompetetive, well, he can either get a brand-x or just go away. nevermind the time and money he has put into that beast and, to an extant, what he has given to the club. Reading posts here and on the prod site, I sometimes get the feeling I'm not really wanted. My car is OLD & SLOW and in the way of real race car drivers.

Russ

[lateapex911]

My thoughts are similar here too..
Instead of hobbling the new cars with 500lb of ballast, build the cars to IT spec and see what they can do, then classify them without ballast.

If the old IT cars can't be competitive anymore, then give them a break- lower the weights for those that can lose weight, give them better brakes (almost every car out there has a rear drum-to-disc conversion for sale or easily doable), and such. Maybe cams or a slight compression bump as a line-item allowance so the cars can make more power.

If they still cant compete with the newer stuff, then bump them down a class or create an IT-vintage class where these older cars can still play without the hassles of trying to keep up with the new stuff.

yup.. more classes. that's what we need. ;)

I'd suggest you've just made another category ...it's called Prod. Where line item allowances are made and politics rule the day.

Here's the thing. ALl this talk about "I don't want to race this new cool car because it will have too much ballast for ITX" is a bunch of poppy cock, I think.
I'd bet that, if the car weighed less, that person STILL wouldn't race it. because excuse #2 would rear it's ugly head. (Choose from: It's too expensive to build a new car and wreck it, or: Tires cost too much, or: I just found out what a rebuild of the Broward Super engine costs and that's nuts!, or, My son just got on the traveling baseball team and my weekends are tight, or: Used race cars are cheaper, etc etc etc.)

Old cars don't need, or should get, special dispensation. CERTAINLY not line item things. In the end, old cars will fade away. They rust, they crash, whatever. They've had their day in the sun. Nothing lasts forever.

IF there are more powerful cars that don't fit in the current class structure, because the weights will be excessive, tehn start a movement to create a class above the existing ones.
At this point though, even though there are many choices, I'm not seeing huge and diverse ITR fields. So, is there really a need for a faster class?

[lateapex911]

Jeff.
I'm not going to ask for anything for my car exclusivly. I will be honest enough to admit that I really don't have the time or money to do a full workup on my car. But it seems to me that we place such am emphesis on NEW, that when we work real hard to attract all that is new, we run off all that has been in the club for a bit of time. We'll put Brand-x in ITZ just to attract all the kids who are tuning them and if geezers SUX -500 is now uncompetetive, well, he can either get a brand-x or just go away. nevermind the time and money he has put into that beast and, to an extant, what he has given to the club. Reading posts here and on the prod site, I sometimes get the feeling I'm not really wanted. My car is OLD & SLOW and in the way of real race car drivers.

Russ

See, I don't get this....your car is in ITB. It's recently been looked at by the ITAC and evaluated, and it's process weight should be appropriate. So it SHOULD be in the ballpark. That's not "old and slow and in the way".

But, you say that's how you feel. Yet you admit you haven't put the effort into the program to make it as fast as it can be.
Now, many point that the new cars are easier to make fast. Yup. Probably true. But EASIER to make fast doesn't mean faster.

Oh, and when I look at the Prod board, I see guys who want to get a trophy for showing up. Sorry, but asking for a class to be reinstated that couldn't get 2.5 guys out to race (for 2 years in a row) is laughable.*

*But I don't get why the class wasn't just made Regional.

[Chip42]

But it seems to me that we place such am emphesis on NEW, that when we work real hard to attract all that is new, we run off all that has been in the club for a bit of time.
not my experience.

1, as Zsolt said, the new cars typiclaly are too heavy for their power, and wind up a class low and artificially fat, or a class high and unachievably light. new cars also tend to have a ton more power than even 10 years ago, and some of that is leading to cars outside of thr current IT envelope.

2, In my short time on the ITAC, the newest car we have dealt with was 10 years old, the second newest was 17. we look at 84's and early 90's with as much care as late 90's and early 70's, and often the earlier cars require more work as the documentation and measuremnt standards werent as good, leaving some serious open ends. older existing classifications often got overlooked in the realignment, ITB and ITC specifically (were not fully realligneded, as I undertsand it) and thus show some serious inconcistencies. write it, give data, we will do what we can to fix them!

3, many cars that are "popular" on the street never make it to IT, at least not in the hands of those who you might identify with the popular culture (think honda/JDM tuning, hard parking VW fans, etc...) and I've seen very few of the past few automotive trends turn into anything within IT (or racing in general). I see ST allowing engine swaps, AND I THINK THATS GREAT, but it's not right for IT.

4, the "NEW" that we WANT to see is new members. I've felt no pressure in the past few months to make an IT to attract "them". just to keep IT pure and get the cars run to process based on good data.

but, eventually you wont be able to find some parts for most cars as they age. sometimes it's a really common thing, like a wheel hub or brake drum, other times its an oddball. this will sideline the survivors and eventually it wont make sense to run them. no one I know is looking to change the IT core to accomodate this obolescence more than we have currently.

[Knestis]

When you condem the older cars to uncompetitive status, you drive out the owners and drivers who have a LOT of time and money invested in them. I can count on one hand the number of drivers stil playing since I started this nonsence, and most of the ones who left say the same thing. "I'm not going to spend anymore money on this ^&#$@#." I am about in the same boat what with the cost of tires, gas, travel, parts, and now an unneeded(in my opinion) H&N deal. And now some are saying my antique Pinto, with it's drum rear brakes, live axle, and carb. should just go quietly into that good night. OK, I'm parked.

Russ

You've got a LOT of factors smushed into one discussion here, Russ.

** It's not fair to use the word "condemn," when what is happening is not an active process. Nobody has made a rule to prevent a Pinto from being competitive. Instead, the ITAC - quite correctly, I believe - has taken the position that it isn't going to get in the business of allowing spec-line allowances to solve make-model problems that surface as a matter of course over time (see, "Mazda RX3 brake parts shortages"). Those are a naturally occurring force and the cost of upsetting the basic premises of the category aren't outweighed by the benefits to the few (or to the resulting entry lists).

** That's problem exists partially because there's a pretty important correlation between "age of make/model" and "degree of build" in IT. Folks inclined to do a whole-hog build (so more likely to commit the $$ to get up front) are *not* likely to do so with a car for which they can't reliably buy parts or tuning know-how. I've said it a hundred times but if I had access to all of the parts in the world, plus a couple of guys in the old country, I am absolutely confident that an ITB Fiat 130 or 124 would kick ARRC ass. Or any number of other cool old options - Alfas, even a Pinto - could be competitive with the right build and effort. No question.

** Given equal budgets, it's not a carb, solid axle, or drum rear brakes that is keeping a Pinto - or anything else - from being competitive. I have a very difficult time believing that a 2.3 Ford can't be made to squeeze out 125hp at the wheels. At that point it's GAME ON with the rest of the B cars, with the wheels driving the right end of the car, even. The first-gen RX7 has demonstrated how to make the rear axle work. A look at what Jeff has achieved with the TR should be evidence enough...

Ultimately, it costs $$ to go fast. If someone is going to outspend you, they'll find a way to do it and probably be able to buy some advantages. The "you burned it to a cinder" replacement price of my Golf is $25K. That's what it would cost to replicate it - a conservative cost, if you consider trail and error, R&D $$ and dumb stuff that didn't work out. You can ask if I'm insane or not, and there's no chance anyone would buy it from me for that price, but at the end of the day how fast could a $25K ITB Pinto be...?

K

[Matt93SE]

I guess my comment wasnt' that well thought out-- just throwing out ideas. some are often quite bad. :D I agree spec-line allowances in IT is a bad idea- but it's still an idea. Since it's SO bad, I bet the CRB and BOD will shove it down your throats in 2013.

I was trying to brainstorm ways to help the older cars stay around and be competitive- whether it's with each other or vs. the new stuff.

The guys that are building new stuff around here are mostly going to Touring and STU. The T3 guys moved to STU and the T2 guys are crying over beers. The fast T2 guy is turning his car into a World Challenge GTS car.

All of those classes have been very poorly subscribed here, but T2 at least had ~3entries/race.

Anyway, I'm just trying to think of ideas.. do you help the older cars keep up, or do you let them die and "force" people to buy newer cars? Or do you relegate them to the back of the field?
OR do you create even more poorly subscribed classes so the older cars can compete against each other while newer, faster cars have a place to play as well. Or do you just tell the old cars to run in Prod and shove the problem off to them?

too many problems, not enough solutions.

[lateapex911]

not my experience.

. older existing classifications often got overlooked in the realignment, ITB and ITC specifically (were not fully realligneded, as I undertsand it) and thus show some serious inconcistencies. write it, give data, we will do what we can to fix them!





Just for historical accuracy, it went like this:
The entire spectrum of IT had many "WTFs" classification-wise. A group of guys here on IT.com along with a couple key members of the ITAC who were active on this forum championed a system and structure to work within the existing class structure, in an attempt to disrupt as few cars as possible, yet fix the greatest number of issues. In the actual real world of IT racing, 10% of the cars were causing 90% of the issues.

The CRb warned the ITAC that wholesale changes wouldn't fly, and that the ITAC should take a good solid first crack at it, and see how that went. Opinions vary on whether more changes were expected, and certain CRB members indicated years later that the ITAC was changing weights based on the PRocess with no actual rights.

In any case, the Great Realignment was certainly not an across the board deal, and it tried to hit the obvious cars that were clearly out of line. Overdogs were the main focus. An entrenched belief at the time was that you could not "prove a negative" and that uncompetitive cars should be ingnored.

In any case the political capital wasn't felt to be significant enough to do more than what was done. (Actually, just getting ONE car changed was a major doing, the Great Realignment was equivalent to a massive earthquake as far as the CRB and IT were concerned. It took a Looong time and a lot of work to get there. It was A BIG DEAL)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well it's easy to know what appeals to people about the NASA structure. You can bring the car you already built, and race it as is with cars that are 'similar'.

Now the downsides to that structure are well documented but it for sure makes the barriers to entry much easier to jump.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Reading posts here and on the prod site, I sometimes get the feeling I'm not really wanted. My car is OLD & SLOW and in the way of real race car drivers.

Russ

Everyone is wanted. We all just have to realize that no matter what we drive, old POS or new POS, if we aren't willing to give it the 'full work-up', then we really don't have much to go on to 'help'. Or said differently, it's tough to hear complaints about competitive balance from racers who don't have first hand experience with fully built cars. You and your Pinto are what make Club Racing great, but to affect change, there has to be more info.

Every race is made up of great people and cars from the front to the back. Every racing organization needs them all.

[Knestis]

>> Anyway, I'm just trying to think of ideas.. do you help the older cars keep up, or do you let them die and "force" people to buy newer cars? Or do you relegate them to the back of the field?

The rules don't "relegate them to the back of the field," or "...'force' people to buy newer cars." Old age - racing a car for which parts are scarce or expensive - increases costs. People don't want to spend the money or go to the lengths necessary to find parts, so they throw less money at their cars than they would otherwise have to in order to stay competitive. They end up at the back of the field.

I PERSONALLY think that rules or other excuses become proxies for other reasons that people back off or quit - most often lack of funds or emerging interests in other things. Like not having the wife pissed off about how much Fiat heads cost on eBay.

Again - it's about competition. A guy/gal can get out there for damned little money. If one wants to win, one has to compete with others who want to win. If one of those others is willing to spend dough to do whatever it takes to win, anyone who wants to be competitive has to do the same thing.

Once more speaking frankly, a LOT of the people I've talked to who are complaining about the rules or costs actually want to be able to go back to a level of competitiveness in their class when they could win with equipment that just doesn't represent current levels of preparation or commitment. We CANNOT do anything about that. It's the curse of success for a racing class.

Now, if we try to make it easier (for example) for the RX3 guys to solve their brake parts problem by allowing them aftermarket bits, I WANT THE SAME ALLOWANCE. And I will eventually get it because that's the way these things work. The net result is that we're all spending money on the arms race and the guy who spends more than Joe RX3 is STILL going to have a hardware edge.

We've just moved the curve.

K

[Robbie]

To go back to Jeff's point about bringing young people to racing, HPDE's being done on race day is a great way to do that. In my NASA region there have been many young guys who have gotten sucked into racing (myself included) because they could watch how awesome it is to race in a competitive group. I started out as a guy who wanted to drive on the track and now I'm a racer.

Running PDX's with regional IT guys and having the racers Interact with the de guys is a great way to get you get people into racing.

[lateapex911]

Yup, it is. Without a doubt. The proble for many SCCA regions is how to fit 200 or 300 racers into a weekend AND run an HPDE. Track time runs out.

And it's worse for certain regions that have shorter tracks with strict time limits. OF course, having too many racers is a good problem to have.
Ultimately there needs to be a balance.

Kirk points out that member retention is a problem for SCCA. I wonder how NASA fares in this regard.

[Knestis]

It's almost too soon to see a pattern in NASA retention, Jake.


I am working on an IT "Core Values" statement of what the class is about, and what I/we (the present ITAC) think should not be changed in the future. We'll see how that works out.

Just so I know it's been said, the minute that gets loose, it's Katie-bar-the-door on every allowance that's NOT on that list of constraints. So you know what kind of nuclear device you've got you trigger finger on...

K

[Terry Hanushek]

Can someone tell me in three sentences or less why the 2.5 average participation rule was removed?


They said it explicitly in the release: to keep Touring 3 from losing National status.

It's not quite that one dimensional. Certainly the pending downgrade / dissolution of T3 was a factor. Added to it was the lack of a coherent plan to manage the Touring and Showroom Stock categories (how to manage the former T3 cars, how to introduce B Spec into SSC, what to do with the existing SSC cars, how to merge the two categories). Another major factor was that there were another 4-6 classes that would have gone on probation for missing their 2.5 target. Probation under the 2.5 rule can be the death knell for class since existing competitors can pull back and potential new competitors reconsider their plans. The fact that so many classes were in trouble in the same year suggested that there is a problem with National racing (economy, ???) and not just a weakness in a single class. The situation is complicated and not just one of allowing Spec Borgward to remain as a National class.

Terry

[jjjanos]

No.

For IT, my answer is not allow things like weight breaks for drum brakes, or carburetors, or allow cars to switch out to alternate parts when things no longer become available.

So, Nash and Packard build cars on the same platform except the Nash has drums and the Packard has discs... you would classify the cars exactly the same?

With all due respect, that's just stupid.

[jjjanos]

The point Jeff made was in regard to the multitude of letters that come in every year asking for alternate brakes, plexi windshields, altrnate fenders, etc for cars where supply is drying up.

Because people have lots of $ tied up in spare parts for a particular car. The inability to find one part means that they either need to sell the entire inventory of Nash Rambler parts and the Nash Rambler too and start from scratch with an entirely different car or invest a hell of a lot of money in converting the car to another class.

Many people will simply pack it in at that point.

[preparedcivic]

Because people have lots of $ tied up in spare parts for a particular car. The inability to find one part means that they either need to sell the entire inventory of Nash Rambler parts and the Nash Rambler too and start from scratch with an entirely different car or invest a hell of a lot of money in converting the car to another class.

Many people will simply pack it in at that point.

Um, no.

The reality is they were ready to throw the towel in anyway. There are directions to go in if alternate parts are a necessity, which depending on the car, are in ST and Production.

I drive a 24 year old car with very tough to find plastic body panels. It is what I chose, warts and all. When they are no more, I have the choice to convert to a worse aero steel tub 3g Civic, or go with aftermarket fiberglass and switch classes.

The SCCA cannot be in the business of guaranteeing competitiveness to a 1966 Superzoomy GT that was the shiznit back in the day, that now wouldn't even run with a B-spec car before modifications.

[JeffYoung]

Actually, it's very smart.

Quantify the difference for me in a repeatable objective way across 300 chassis of drum brakes v. disc brakes. Then get back to me.


So, Nash and Packard build cars on the same platform except the Nash has drums and the Packard has discs... you would classify the cars exactly the same?

With all due respect, that's just stupid.

[Chip42]

I might be willing to hear an argument for a weight brake on FRONT drums, but anyone requesting such a car for IT in this age really isn't looking to race, they're looking to parade around in their pet car.

[JeffYoung]

Not aware of a single front drum braked car in the ITCS. Corvair maybe?

[jjjanos]

I drive a 24 year old car with very tough to find plastic body panels. It is what I chose, warts and all. When they are no more, I have the choice to convert to a worse aero steel tub 3g Civic, or go with aftermarket fiberglass and switch classes.

Which, to maintain you current level of competitivness involves another load of cubic money.


The SCCA cannot be in the business of guaranteeing competitiveness to a 1966 Superzoomy GT that was the shiznit back in the day, that now wouldn't even run with a B-spec car before modifications.

Ummmm... allowing fiberglass fenders for cars that no longer can find the plastic ones isn't guaranteeing competitiveness... it's allowing the car to run.


Actually, it's very smart.

Quantify the difference for me in a repeatable objective way across 300 chassis of drum brakes v. disc brakes. Then get back to me.

Easy... cars with rear drum brakes reduce their weight by X lbs or y%. OR cars with front brakes increase their weight by X lbs or y%.

Repeatable? Yep. Objective? As objective as these...


FWD cars get a percentage-based subtractor: 6% for ITR, 5.5% for ITS, 2% for ITA and ITB, and 0% for ITC. Note that AWD cars should not get this adjustment.

Cars with double-wishbone suspension get a 50 lb. adder.
ITR cars with both FWD and front struts get -50 lb.
Live axle RWD cars in ITR get -50 lb.
Mid-engined (engine between driver and rear axle) cars get +50 lb.
Cars with abnormally small or large brakes for their class get -50 lb. or +50 lb.

[JeffYoung]

You crack me up Pants. You forgot the quantify part. The devil is in what to put in that "x."

Also, I didn't like ANY of those you list above in the first place. Like a "brake deduct" far less.

You set drums up right and they are not a disadvantage on the rear. Maybe even an advantage. For a while.

Quantify that. Good luck.

[jjjanos]

You crack me up Pants. The devil is in what to put in that "x."

Difficult isn't impossible.


Also, I didn't like ANY of those you list above in the first place. Like a "brake deduct" far less.

And yet those are in the manual....

[Matt93SE]

You set drums up right and they are not a disadvantage on the rear. Maybe even an advantage. For a while.


Until you can't buy them anymore.
Just for grins, find a reasonable source for replacement drums for a 240Z...
The guys that have them know what they're worth, and it's like finding a Nolan Ryan rookie card.

[JeffYoung]

I am well aware of the situation with Z car drums. My racing buddy Ron Earp ran one (and I drove it and helped maintain it) for many years, and my good friends Ed Palombo and STeve Parrish also still do.

You can find the aluminum ones on occasion, and the steel ones you can still get at parts stores.

But that's really not the point. The point is it is not possible to quantify the performance advantage or disadvantage of drums v. discs, particularly on the rears.

Parts availability is a whole different issue and we have steadfastly refused to grant allowances for disc brake replacements or fiberglass panel replacements due to a lack of parts. It's not class philosophy to allow that, and I completely and fully agree with it.

Does it mean that things like the extinction of the RX3 from ITA happen? Yes, it does. But I think it would be far more damaging to start allowing these things and having to sort through what should be allowed and what should not, and what performance differences they may.

We remain a basically "improved" showroom stock class.

[billf]

Not aware of a single front drum braked car in the ITCS. Corvair maybe?


Although I was sure the 71-73 Pinto had drums, I was wrong. It is only listed with Disc/Drum.

HOWEVER, In ITC is the lowely VW Super Beetle with....Drum/Drum.

Aside from the Corvair, the VW is the only other car I found.

Bill:024:

[lateapex911]

Which, to maintain you current level of competitivness involves another load of cubic money.



Ummmm... allowing fiberglass fenders for cars that no longer can find the plastic ones isn't guaranteeing competitiveness... it's allowing the car to run.



Easy... cars with rear drum brakes reduce their weight by X lbs or y%. OR cars with front brakes increase their weight by X lbs or y%.

Repeatable? Yep. Objective? As objective as these...


FWD cars get a percentage-based subtractor: 6% for ITR, 5.5% for ITS, 2% for ITA and ITB, and 0% for ITC. Note that AWD cars should not get this adjustment.

Cars with double-wishbone suspension get a 50 lb. adder.
ITR cars with both FWD and front struts get -50 lb.
Live axle RWD cars in ITR get -50 lb.
Mid-engined (engine between driver and rear axle) cars get +50 lb.
Cars with abnormally small or large brakes for their class get -50 lb. or +50 lb.


So, really, how much of a weight deduct should rear drums carry, pants?
If you're going to point to the answer, show us your math.
And don't get all lawyer-y and start trying to move the spotlight and demand answers on other things.

Just answer the question.
Can you do that?
Do THAT, and we will explain the other things.

[Matt93SE]

Do THAT, and we will explain the other things.
What is the meaning of life? :026:

[erlrich]

What is the meaning of life? :026:

You didn't say the magic word :018:

[Knestis]

What is the meaning of life? :026:

http://www.it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/2011/arrc3.jpg

K

[Russ Myers]

Life is the cereal that Mikey likes.

Russ

[JeffYoung]

Ahh...I get the 42 now.

Thanks for all the fish!



http://www.it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/2011/arrc3.jpg

K

[jjjanos]

So, really, how much of a weight deduct should rear drums carry, pants?

If I was one of you supersmart kids, I'd be pulling adders and ITB/ITC HP ratio targets out of my ass too.

Since the manual seems to like complicated shit like special ITB multi-valve multipliers and different adders based on class..

12.25 kilos for ITR
9.53 kilos for ITS
1.14258 stones for ITB
0.535714 stones for ITC

Do these make sense? Doesn't matter... it's repeatable and totally objective because I have no idea of the impact on the classes.


If you're going to point to the answer, show us your math.

Same place the adders double-wishbones, ITR FWD/struts, live axles RWD ITR cars and mid-engine cars came from... thin air.

The only adder that has any basis as being objective is the FWD multiplier.

You want a HP-ratio classification system. Great. Let's go for it. Leave the power-train modification rules in place and open everything else up... according to you, they don't matter. The only thing that matters is hitting that HP ratio.

The purpose of the OEM replacement on body panels, glass, etc was to limit cost. The purpose of the OEM replacement on body panels, glass, etc wasn't to limit cars to OEM replacement body panels, glass, etc. Once the supply of parts is gone, the rule no longer achieves its purpose for that car. It is, in fact, counter-productive as drivers either must pay high prices for the few remaining parts or spend boat-loads of cash to move to another class.

[Matt93SE]

The purpose of the OEM replacement on body panels, glass, etc was to limit cost. The purpose of the OEM replacement on body panels, glass, etc wasn't to limit cars to OEM replacement body panels, glass, etc. Once the supply of parts is gone, the rule no longer achieves its purpose for that car. It is, in fact, counter-productive as drivers either must pay high prices for the few remaining parts or spend boat-loads of cash to move to another class.
I'm glad someone else sees it the way I do..

So how about you let Joe Blow use fiberglass fenders on his 1978 Whatzit, but he bolts a hunk of steel behind the fender that makes the car weigh the same... there's no performance advantage, fiberglass fenders, and chunks of scrap steel are both cheap. :023:

[JohnW8]

I wrote it, so I know.

Sorry, I didn't know you wrote it.


When we looked at the rules we determined that, for example, aftermarket ignition switches -- which we all use -- are not legal.

My car still has a key. :(

[JohnW8]

I was trying to brainstorm ways to help the older cars stay around and be competitive- whether it's with each other or vs. the new stuff.

Those older cars can still easily compete in time trials events or with some of the Historic/Vintage groups.

[Knestis]

... The purpose of the OEM replacement on body panels, glass, etc was to limit cost. The purpose of the OEM replacement on body panels, glass, etc wasn't to limit cars to OEM replacement body panels, glass, etc. Once the supply of parts is gone, the rule no longer achieves its purpose for that car. It is, in fact, counter-productive as drivers either must pay high prices for the few remaining parts or spend boat-loads of cash to move to another class.

The purpose of that allowance was to provide SOME relief, in terms of availability, ease, and cost, while constraining the parts to the "equivalent" of OEM parts - to take advantage of the aftermarket parts stream that follows cars around the marketplace.

What you're missing - or more likely don't agree with - is that while that logic could be extended to include plastic windows (etc.), the perceived risk to the stability and consistency of the category is judged to be too high relative to the benefits to individuals likely to result.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

K

[jjjanos]

The purpose of that allowance was to provide SOME relief, in terms of availability, ease, and cost, while constraining the parts to the "equivalent" of OEM parts - to take advantage of the aftermarket parts stream that follows cars around the marketplace.

What you're missing - or more likely don't agree with - is that while that logic could be extended to include plastic windows (etc.), the perceived risk to the stability and consistency of the category is judged to be too high relative to the benefits to individuals likely to result.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

K

Mark 2:27 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

You sound like a Baptist who wants to outlaw fornication because it might lead to dancing.


What is the philosophy of the category?
Improved Touring classes are intended to provide the membership with the opportunity to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition. To that end, cars will be models, as offered for sale in the United States. They will be prepared to manufacturer’s specifications except for modifications permitted by these rules.When the price of replacing a fender or bumper or window glass becomes expensive, the rules no longer meet the category purpose -- competition in low cost cars. The equivalent rule made sense when such parts existed. In an increasing number of cases, and probably at an accelerating rate, the availability of such parts is becoming problematic. The purpose allows for limited modifications. The purpose calls for low cost cars.

The idea of creep went out the window long ago. Shocks, exhausts, spherical bearings, alternate final drives..... clinging to a prohibition for alternate window material is like someone claiming they are a virgin because it's only been the tip.

[Andy Bettencourt]

When we looked at the rules we determined that, for example, aftermarket ignition switches -- which we all use -- are not legal.

This makes it clear that if you want to make a switch panel, you can, and you don't have to leave the stock switch in.

Hmmm.

"Any ignition system which uses the original distributor for spark timing and distribution is permitted". I use a key, but I think it's legit that the 'switch' that activated the whole she-bang is part of the system. Especially when you read the definition of Ignition System in the Glossary. It rolls from battery all the way through.

You could also make an argument that an ignition switch is an 'instrument', which is also free.

I like my key.

[Knestis]

Kirk 9:52

"I like fornication. I don't like dancing"

[Andy Bettencourt]

When the price of replacing a fender or bumper or window glass becomes expensive, the rules no longer meet the category purpose -- competition in low cost cars. The equivalent rule made sense when such parts existed. In an increasing number of cases, and probably at an accelerating rate, the availability of such parts is becoming problematic. The purpose allows for limited modifications. The purpose calls for low cost cars.



Please write a rule that will address current Hoosier pricing...thanks.

[tom91ita]

Hmmm.

"Any ignition system which uses the original distributor for spark timing and distribution is permitted". I use a key, but I think it's legit that the 'switch' that activated the whole she-bang is part of the system. Especially when you read the definition of Ignition System in the Glossary. It rolls from battery all the way through.

You could also make an argument that an ignition switch is an 'instrument', which is also free.

I like my key.

i always thought the part about disabling the steering wheel lock/switch meant you could redo the ignition switch.

that disables the lock, right?

[JeffYoung]

A starter button and ignition switch is not an "instrument."

MAYBE an ignition switch is party of the ignition system, defined as:


Ignition System – A system which converts on-board storage battery
supply voltage into a timed sequence of high voltage pulses suitable for
igniting engine combustion mixtures in a controlled manner.

But I would say it is not since the switch has zero to do with converting voltage into a timed sequence of pulses.

In no way is a starter button part of the "ignition system."

Nor is there presently any allowance for switch panels with switches for lights, wipers, etc.

Why intorturate? Instead, write the rule clearly like we did.


Hmmm.

"Any ignition system which uses the original distributor for spark timing and distribution is permitted". I use a key, but I think it's legit that the 'switch' that activated the whole she-bang is part of the system. Especially when you read the definition of Ignition System in the Glossary. It rolls from battery all the way through.

You could also make an argument that an ignition switch is an 'instrument', which is also free.

I like my key.

[Ron Earp]

i always thought the part about disabling the steering wheel lock/switch meant you could redo the ignition switch.

that disables the lock, right?

No, the lock can be disabled without relocating the switch. I do not think the language supported relocation of the switch. Nor do the IT rule set support removal of the carbon canister and other little items.

It appears that racers take action on these issues based on the rules they "heard", but didn't read. Or, because it is "the right thing to do". I'm guilty as charged.

[Andy Bettencourt]

A starter button and ignition switch is not an "instrument."

MAYBE an ignition switch is party of the ignition system, defined as:


Ignition System –

A system which converts on-board storage battery
supply voltage into a timed sequence of high voltage pulses suitable for

igniting engine combustion mixtures in a controlled manner.

But I would say it is not since the switch has zero to do with converting voltage into a timed sequence of pulses.

In no way is a starter button part of the "ignition system."

Nor is there presently any allowance for switch panels with switches for lights, wipers, etc.

Why intorturate? Instead, write the rule clearly like we did.

Jeff, when you look at your ignition switch, it certainly can INDICATE if you have activated the system. I can see how some saw that.

I see no way how you don't think the ignition switch is part of the 'system', especially when the definition states that the system starts at the battery in the form of stored power. It is, in fact, an integral part of getting that power to the 'timed pulses'. Without it, nothing happens, by GCR definition.

I am all for clearing up the rules, but alternate ignition switches have certainly been legal.

To me, it's another part that can fail when you have a perfectly good solution from the OEM so I use my key but 'real racecars' don't use keys. :D

[gran racing]

When disabling the lock system, one of the methods (at least in Hondas) it to drill out the button. With my previous Prelude, I accidently went a tiny bit too far and it broke the ignition. So I didn't have to replace the whole ignition, I used a start button although I believe it still needed a key in the switch for some reason. The point being is sometimes people remove the switch to "be cool" while others do it somewhat by accident.

Wow, it's only December. Feb's threads are gonna be interesting! lol

[tom91ita]

No, the lock can be disabled without relocating the switch. I do not think the language supported relocation of the switch. Nor do the IT rule set support removal of the carbon canister and other little items.

It appears that racers take action on these issues based on the rules they "heard", but didn't read. Or, because it is "the right thing to do". I'm guilty as charged.

i agree it can be but the rules do not say it must be disabled without relocating.

i still have my stock switch but pulled it apart and buggered it up to get the locking pin out of it.

the charcoal canister is gone but i did find a very similar one from a parted out later Honda that will be installed. expect the ruling to allow it to be removed at install date plus 3 months.

[JeffYoung]

Everyone on the existing ITAC, including our CRB liasions disagreed with you.

So at a minimum, I'd say there is a reasonable disagreement over this.

At a maximum, I'd call you a bumbling, rules nerd lummox! :)

Just no reason not to make this clear.


Jeff, when you look at your ignition switch, it certainly can INDICATE if you have activated the system. I can see how some saw that.

I see no way how you don't think the ignition switch is part of the 'system', especially when the definition states that the system starts at the battery in the form of stored power. It is, in fact, an integral part of getting that power to the 'timed pulses'. Without it, nothing happens, by GCR definition.

I am all for clearing up the rules, but alternate ignition switches have certainly been legal.

To me, it's another part that can fail when you have a perfectly good solution from the OEM so I use my key but 'real racecars' don't use keys. :D

[gran racing]

What's the true benefit of making this clear? We know some people in the paddock already do this, I can't see an advantage of doing it, so let it go.

THIS is a wonderful example of what younger people are complaining about.

[Ron Earp]

What's the true benefit of making this clear? We know some people in the paddock already do this, I can't see an advantage of

So it'll be 100% legal and we won't waste time on frivolous protests or arguments?

Sure, people already do it, no doubt about that. I had a remote ignition, lots of toggle switches relocating factory switchgear, and no carbon canister or anything that was remotely emissions related. Everyone else I race with had exactly the same setup.

But just because most of us do it doesn't make it legal.

[gran racing]

we won't waste time on frivolous protests

Have there been multiple protests on this? Otherwise seems like we're doing the opposite of what your goal is.


But just because most of us do it doesn't make it legal.

Never said that but again, I can totally see now how the nitpicking and revising rules such as this produces the perception some have about the category.

[Flyinglizard]

When most of the class does something,It is the new rule.

What you should do is to have a note book with the rules as written and the rule as it really is. Have the racers sign the book and send a copy to the rule nerds, AB.

This whole conversation is why new guys go else where. Slippery slope yada .

[jjjanos]

What's the true benefit of making this clear? We know some people in the paddock already do this, I can't see an advantage of doing it, so let it go.

Because Fernado Gofast is going to throw paper at Michael Cobbler about his illegal cam, pistons and the removal of the key. Fernado thinks the cam and pistons are illegal, and thinks there are other things illegal but isn't sure. Just in case the cam and pistons are legal, Cobbler is going to get bounced for that starter button.


THIS is a wonderful example of what younger people are complaining about.

Wait until one of them gets DQ'ld from the ARRC or IT*Fest for the starter button.

[JeffYoung]

Something like that happened to the ITS ARRC winner a few years back.

He had the ballast in the passenger floor, when it was supposed to be in the footwell.

Pretty ticky-tacky, but it cost (was it James Clay?) them an ARRC win.

[chuck baader]

Was actually Kip VanSteinburg that got DQed from the ARRC after winning ITS. Bad part about it was that he asked a steward about the placement of the weight before the race and was told it was good. He's still pissed. Chuck

[D. Ellis-Brown]

I find I find the dialogue on this subject quite amusing. I would dare say, That prior to this rule change, less than 10% of the IT cars that show up would pass a protest. I could be wrong, but I have been a competitor in IT since 1985, and adding / relocating of switches has be done for a long time. Why, because the rules as written were interpreted to permit it. Several years ago, 2006, the IT rules would permit "non competitive" modifications to the car as long as you did not gain a performance advantage. Under B Intent, the rule read "Other than those specifically allowed by these rule, no component or part, found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered or removed for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage". Now, was the relocation of a switch, or for that matter a replacement of same, which did (or does) not have a definition in the glossary, gain a competitor a competitive advantage. In my judgement, No. The Intent statement was modified in 2007, and was published in the ITCS in 2008. Numerous rule changes have been made to offset the elimination of the aforementioned verbage. In the past I have referenced many of the parts that are now permitted to be removed as "non value added" for a purpose built race car. Windshield washer bottles, horns, undercoating, cruise control, etc. etc. can now be removed. I believe that the ITAC & CRB have better things to address.

I believe in the general philosophy of IT, limited modifications to the engines, transmissions, retaining body configuration, and the like to keep costs down, and a continuation of of that philosophy should remain. I believe that modifications should be made for the purpose of saftey, useful to keep costs down, and that would also include maintenance, in time and money.

Is it the intent of the ITAC and the CRB to review, discuss, debate and act upon each and every part that may be installed on newer IT cars for consideration for removal? Let's start with " Can security systems be eliminated? Can rain activated windshield wiper systems be disabled? Can traction control systems be disabled?,etc. etc. and the list goes on, or is it time to use some common sense and permit " a component or part, found on a stock example of a given model may be disabled, altered, or removed as long as no competitive advantage is obtained". I believe that the current ITAC participants, along with inputs from IT competitors can come with acceptable verbage and address this potential issue once and for all and potentially head off many hours of conference calls. Only my opinion.

Sincerely, David Ellis-Brown

[Z3_GoCar]

Funny, there's no allowance to change the oil. Yet find me a racer that doesn't do this?

[ShelbyRacer]

Funny, there's no allowance to change the oil. Yet find me a racer that doesn't do this?


Not to be nitpicky, but-

ITCS 9.1.3- D.1.h - Oil pans, pan baffles, scrapers, windage trays, oil pickups,

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

[Matt93SE]

9.1.3.D.1.h
..............Engine oil and oil additives are unrestricted.

edit.. damn! beat me to it...

[ShelbyRacer]

Ha ha, beat ya. :)

Must be a Matt thing...

[Andy Bettencourt]

I don't believe the ITAC and CRB members could have looked at the Ignition System rule and all agreed it was illegal. It clearly is. The definition of Ignition System puts the ignition switch CLEARLY in line of the point-A to point-B allowance. The switch that activates a 'system' is undeniably part of said 'system'.

Regardless, the purpose of clearing up rules is twofold at least. First, you revise the rule to better portray the intent AND if rules read easier and make more sense, there may be less resistance to initial entry into a class from inside or outside the Club.

[JeffYoung]

We absolutely did. We all sort of had an "ah-hah" moment with that and I was asked to do a quick rewrite.


I don't believe the ITAC and CRB members could have looked at the Ignition System rule and all agreed it was illegal. It clearly is. The definition of Ignition System puts the ignition switch CLEARLY in line of the point-A to point-B allowance. The switch that activates a 'system' is undeniably part of said 'system'.

Regardless, the purpose of clearing up rules is twofold at least. First, you revise the rule to better portray the intent AND if rules read easier and make more sense, there may be less resistance to initial entry into a class from inside or outside the Club.

[Andy Bettencourt]

We absolutely did. We all sort of had an "ah-hah" moment with that and I was asked to do a quick rewrite.

Lay off the egg-nog, it's killing brain cells.

:biggrinsanta:

[Matt93SE]

I don't believe the ITAC and CRB members could have looked at the Ignition System rule and all agreed it was illegal. It clearly is. The definition of Ignition System puts the ignition switch CLEARLY in line of the point-A to point-B allowance. The switch that activates a 'system' is undeniably part of said 'system'.

I dunno.. my opinion of the "ignition switch" is that it is a "system power switch". It's also a "steering wheel lock key", if you will.
IMO, it's intorturation to take "ignition components are free" or whatever it says to "you can scrap the entire ignition key and everything around it."

But hey, that's just me and my opinion. you have your opinion. Bob has his, and Jeff his. That's why the rules need to be clear and concise.

[Chip42]

it's a clarification as far as I'm concerned. are we really on Pg2 of this topic???

Andy, I think you managed to outhink yourself on this one. Even if the ignition component of the switch was open, the current rules to NOT address the non-ignition circuit components of the key switch nor the adding or relocation of switches for existing vehicle functions, like overide for the fans, wipers, etc... to improve their accessibility in the car or replace a finiky witch with a positive action one. The "ignition" switch circuit also breaks power to the ECU, injectors, and many other components of the car NOT included in the ignitions systems rule.

[Andy Bettencourt]

it's a clarification as far as I'm concerned. are we really on Pg2 of this topic???

Andy, I think you managed to outhink yourself on this one. Even if the ignition component of the switch was open, the current rules to NOT address the non-ignition circuit components of the key switch nor the adding or relocation of switches for existing vehicle functions, like overide for the fans, wipers, etc... to improve their accessibility in the car or replace a finiky witch with a positive action one. The "ignition" switch circuit also breaks power to the ECU, injectors, and many other components of the car NOT included in the ignitions systems rule.

Right back at you my friend!

The rule states that any ignition system may be used (with other non-pertinent limitations). The GCR then defines the ignition system as "A system which converts on-board storage battery supply voltage into a timed sequence of high voltage pulses suitable for igniting engine combustion mixtures in a controlled manner".

To say that the very switch that actually gives the 'permission', or makes the connection if you will, between said voltage supply and the ignition distribution device - is NOT part of the 'system' is absolutely crazy IMHO. I have no idea what grounds you guys think you are standing on here.

On fans: you are killing me with that example. Fans are indeed FREE. You can remove them, replace them or add electronically controlled units. You most certainly can add a switch and make your fan system do whatever you want, however you want it, from whatever switch you want to do it with.

Wipers? No current provision for a relocation of the switch, I agree.

Clearing up the rules? No problem. The wording looks good and makes things more concise, but it certainly doesn't make something like ignition switches of fan switches any more legal than they are now.

Is the new rule creep? Sure is - but it's creep *I* like. LOL

[lateapex911]

When i built my car I had a conversation with my friend, who was the chair of the CRB.
Me:" I see lots of cars use separate ignition and starter switches. Does that fall under the 'free ignition systems' rule".
Him: "Does your ignition system work if that switch isn't ON?
Me: "Uhh no.
Him "Duh"
Then he whacked me upside the head....

I find the ability to turn the engine over while not having the ignition system energized is very useful.

[Ron Earp]

Jeebus we can be some pedantic to a fault hobbyists.

Build your car. Make sure your engine is legal. Suspension, chassis, and body too. Race above minimum weight. Have fun.

Does it have to be more difficult or involved than that?

[JeffYoung]

You forgot brakes and transmission. Is there something you aren't telling us?

Seriously, I do sometimes wonder if all the "discussion" here over rules like this doesn't drive people away.

We didn't really have this kind of "discussion" back when this Board started it. It was almost exclusively a big rah rah club for IT racing. That wasn't entirely good either, and a ton of good work has come out of the hard discussions on this board, but I do think the pendulum has swung too far towards "rules nerd" and I'm as guilty as anyone.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think some guys get their panties in a wad over the debate of minutia - way to easily. It's an internet board. It's what it's for, discussion. Somebody asks a question or states something as fact, it's a place to debate it.

It's eleventy-billion miles away from what we care about when we are actually racing. Take it for what it is, healthy debate. I have actually been told by more than a few lurkers I have met that they have LEARNED how to read the ITCS from these discussions. Angles, intent, etc.

Were alternate switches for windshield wipers legal? No. But when someone asks here, we go at it from the book. When at the track, we don't care. Simple.

[gran racing]

Seriously, I do sometimes wonder if all the "discussion" here over rules like this doesn't drive people away.

It's not exactly a turn on to the category.

[Ron Earp]

You forgot brakes and transmission. Is there something you aren't telling us?


Doh, yea, the 6 pot Wilwoods and six speed Tremec.

Forgot, sort of counted those in chassis/suspension, but yeah, have some legal brakes and a legal transmission.



Were alternate switches for windshield wipers legal? No. But when someone asks here, we go at it from the book. When at the track, we don't care. Simple.

But, it'd be nice to have the website and real life agree. If we can do that by cleaning the rules up I think it is definitely worth it.

[red986s]

Seriously, I do sometimes wonder if all the "discussion" here over rules like this doesn't drive people away.

We didn't really have this kind of "discussion" back when this Board started it. It was almost exclusively a big rah rah club for IT racing. That wasn't entirely good either, and a ton of good work has come out of the hard discussions on this board, but I do think the pendulum has swung too far towards "rules nerd" and I'm as guilty as anyone.

Good god I couldn't agree more. Someone asks a question, you get 10 opinions on the subject and then inevitably someone brings up how the MR2 is not classed correctly or the "washer bottle" thing comes up. Now the switches, :blink:




I have actually been told by more than a few lurkers I have met that they have LEARNED how to read the ITCS from these discussions. Angles, intent, etc.

Andy - But it shouldn't be that way. It should be black and white, right? No guessing.

[Z3_GoCar]

Not to be nitpicky, but-

ITCS 9.1.3- D.1.h - Oil pans, pan baffles, scrapers, windage trays, oil pickups,

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


Ok, I'll give you motor oil, and coolant, but there's no where that allows substituting brake fluid, transmission oil, differential oil, or even powersteering fluid. Not a word about any of those in my 2011 gcr.

I found brake fluid... 6 Brakes a. Pads linings and fluid

[Knestis]

>> ...or is it time to use some common sense and permit " a component or part, found on a stock example of a given model may be disabled, altered, or removed as long as no competitive advantage is obtained".

Fine. But there's a hell of a lot of room this side of "NO" competitive advantage. I'd argue that you wouldn't MAKE those changes to slow your car down. You believe they are good things, whether they take off weight (any weight) that you can put somewhere else, make service easier, save you money you can spend on new tires, or any number of other means by which you gain COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE.

It's been a while but we went down that path with other class rules in the past. It was finally determined that it was a flawed way of thinking about whether something should be allowed or is a cheat. We do NOT want to go anywhere near that - at least I don't think so.

But you're winning the "pecked to death by ducks" war, David. Good on ya. The upshot of this most recent episode is that I'm past giving a shit, and about ready to leap to BLOW THE EFFING DOORS OFF, BABY. I am facing some substantial repairs and service this winter and I could get another 30 pounds out of my car by taking out all of the "non-performance enhancing" crap that the rules currently require me to have. Since I'm well over the new minimum as I sit, I would, uh...

Oh, wait. Nevermind. No performance to be gained here. Nothing to see. Move along.

K

[lateapex911]

Something like that happened to the ITS ARRC winner a few years back.

He had the ballast in the passenger floor, when it was supposed to be in the footwell.

Pretty ticky-tacky, but it cost (was it James Clay?) them an ARRC win.


Was actually Kip VanSteinburg that got DQed from the ARRC after winning ITS. Bad part about it was that he asked a steward about the placement of the weight before the race and was told it was good. He's still pissed. Chuck

Yup, it was Kip. I'll double check next time I see him, but, IIRC, he had the stuff bolted in, dbl checked with a tech steward about the placement. Again, it was years ago, but, I THINK he bolted it to the front rail of the passenger seat, as there was a good anchor point. Tech official (again, I THINK it was a tech official, but it might have been another steward), said, "ya you're good to go".
Then he was DQ'ed in post race tech, and I don't think it was a competitors protest that started it.
To his credit, he handled it pretty well, (all things considered, he WAS pissed!) took some blame, and has returned.

[gran racing]

Kirk, as with the ignition switch sometimes people may choose to add a push button start because they made a mistake in their attemts to eliminate the locking device (raises hand). In other cases, people do it simply because they think it's cool. I can not see a competitive advantage to be gained by modifying how the car starts.

Maybe we, including the ITAC, should just make this rule so it gives room for people to add the freakin' push button start if they want to. Yeah, yeah, slippery slope and all of that about how this and the washer bottle is going to totally change IT. LOL If we're able to identify some items that has no performance advantage and the rules as writen currently are unclear, open it up a bit.

[almskidd]

Ok, I'll give you motor oil, and coolant, but there's no where that allows substituting brake fluid, transmission oil, differential oil, or even powersteering fluid. Not a word about any of those in my 2011 gcr.

I found brake fluid... 6 Brakes a. Pads linings and fluid

9.3.37. OIL AND OIL ADDITIVES
Any oil or oil additive may be used. Oil additives are defined as: Any liquid or particulate compound(s) delivered into the engine via the engine oil for the purpose of friction/temperature reduction, and/or metal surface conditioning(i.e. PTFE resins (Teflon, “Slick-50”), Molybdenum Disulfide, etc.).

[D. Ellis-Brown]

Andy, Jake, Ron, Jeff, Dave, Mitch, I think you understand what I am saying and I believe to some extent you might actually agree. Having worked in the Aerospace & Commerical Production environment for most of my business career, I saw first hand the cost effects of "over-engineering" the product, not only in production but also to life cycle costs. Had some design engineers who actually bragged about "non-obtainium" specifications and tolerances, which many times added cost but very little value. Fortunately, the production engineers were able to prove them wrong and come with alternate, effective designs. The KISS method kept us successful and profitable. Our IT rules should be simple, non-ambigious, and stable. As Smokey Yunick said " the rule book should be kept to one page" (paraphrasing). I know that is not possible in IT, but it should be a goal to keep the rules simple.

Dr. K. You and I will have to agree to disagree.

Respectfully, David Ellis-Brown

[red986s]

Jeebus we can be some pedantic to a fault hobbyists.

Build your car. Make sure your engine is legal. Suspension, chassis, and body too. Race above minimum weight. Have fun.

Does it have to be more difficult or involved than that?

:happy204::023:


The KISS method kept us successful and profitable. Our IT rules should be simple, non-ambigious, and stable. As Smokey Yunick said " the rule book should be kept to one page" (paraphrasing). I know that is not possible in IT, but it should be a goal to keep the rules simple.

Respectfully, David Ellis-Brown

I concur! If we want to attract the next generation of IT racers we need to stick to these words of wisdom. Change is good but we also need to "stay on target".

[lateapex911]

Kirk, as with the ignition switch sometimes people may choose to add a push button start because they made a mistake in their attemts to eliminate the locking device (raises hand). In other cases, people do it simply because they think it's cool. I can not see a competitive advantage to be gained by modifying how the car starts.

Maybe we, including the ITAC, should just make this rule so it gives room for people to add the freakin' push button start if they want to. Yeah, yeah, slippery slope and all of that about how this and the washer bottle is going to totally change IT. LOL If we're able to identify some items that has no performance advantage and the rules as writen currently are unclear, open it up a bit.

You're missing, I think, what Kirks point is. He's saying that using a blanket statement to accomplish the allowance of mods like that, such as DEB is suggesting, relies way too much on the competitor to decide what is, and is not 'performance enhancing'. In the end, the competitor will most assuredly use a very fine knife to slice that statement, and we will see it result in things like spherical bearings in the suspension, etc etc.

I *think*, after having spent time with Dr K on committees, etc, that if the ITAC and the general IT population want to make a specific allowance to the rules for things like ignition switch removal/substitution, he's actually OK with that.

It's open ended statements that rely on subjective definitions that get him worried.....I think.
Common sense isn't common, and all that, especially when we have competitors trying to compete and make their own world better than those around them.

[Hoof Hearted]

Hmmm.

"Any ignition system which uses the original distributor for spark timing and distribution is permitted". I use a key, but I think it's legit that the 'switch' that activated the whole she-bang is part of the system.

If this is your logic, then since windshield wipers and motor are part of the windshield washer system, they (they being the wipers, arms and motor) can be removed as well? (just stirring the black kettle...)

BTW, I am a key user cuz it works and is cheaper and probably is more reliable then an alternative toggle/button set-up.

[Knestis]

... Dr. K. You and I will have to agree to disagree.

No we don't - because as of today, I choose to agree with you. Y'all won.

You'll have added a couple thousand $$ to the retail price of building a truly pointy-end IT car, once the dust settles, and the only real outcome will be that the curve has shifted. Nobody who was uncompetitive before will be magically competitive as a result. Entry numbers will not go up for IT. Creep will not stop.

I'm going to spend the winter finding the last few tenths I need in order to improve my ARRC qualifying position by one for 2012. Every addition allowance you codify helps me make incremental progress toward that end. If my competition does the same thing, we all get faster but I can be sure of gaining time on those unwilling to spend the extra $$ you've freed up.

As I said in the other related thread, rock on!

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

If this is your logic, then since windshield wipers and motor are part of the windshield washer system, they (they being the wipers, arms and motor) can be removed as well? (just stirring the black kettle...)



Except the wording specifically calls out a difference between 'washer systems' and 'wiper systems' just by stating the wording. Keep in mind 'ignition system' is defined in the GCR and the switch that activates it part-in-parcel to the system. Have the ITAC add a definition of washer system if it's now grey.