Question - What do you consider "useless items" on IT cars?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geo:
I personally don't see the safety issue with leaving the battery where it is, and can see potential safety issues with moving it.

---

George,

You didn't have your car catch on fire and have battery acid spewed all over when it got crushed on your car did you? - I did. All this blather about constantly replacing belts and nets, and helmets etc, but a 50lb acid missile off the front fender is not a safety hazard?

I have no animosity about it, and SCCA currently provides the closest to what I like about modifying cars and the racing environment, so thats why I'm here. Believe it or not, I also think due to the hard work of you all and many others that IT just keeps getting better (removal of headliner and passenger seats amongst some of the changes I like).

I may be in the minority, but I enjoy the machine probably more than the racing. I want it to be as fast as possible. I find it annoying however that my street rides are modified well beyond my race car, and so are most kids cars these days...

Anyhow, I know everybody wants the class to be what they want, and we all won't be happy, but my goals are simple:

> I want the FASTEST car possible as CHEAPLY as possible, easy to maintain and with the most competetive racing. To this end, I want:
- Remove all non-racing parts if you want - horn, windshield wiper bottle, any wiring you don't want, any interior you don't want etc (bodywork rules as is though).
- Keep the suspension mods/wheels/tires as is - you can have lots of fun where things are now (I wouldn't have allowed coil-overs, but either way I'll pay and play in that arena)
- Keep the engine mods as is (I wouldn't have allowed any ecu mods, but its not like I have any say)
- Allow relocation of battery (already said my piece here)
- Keep cage about the same, but let there be more tubes, including thorugh the firewall. I wouldn't change mine, but if people want more safety and rigidity for a weight penalty, by all means
- Use restrictors (not weight), and balance cars.
I think it sucks that SCCA just provides a place to race your one-eyed orphan with little adjustment. If the SCCA will class it, they should find a way that people can play on a level playing field. Many other orgaizations have found a way, and looking at what the roundy-round guys do should give some tips - somebody is too fast? allow manditory trading of ecus if somebody requests - no incentive to cheat then..

Thats about it. Nothing really radical, and since everybody is having their say, no harm in having mine. I have spent 12years in IT/A, so feel I have some relavance to the game.

I do think there are probably enough classes though. Its hard enough for regions to put on all these sessions as it is, but there has got to be a way to keep it fun for folks.

Those who say any change will lead to IT becomming practically FA or something (a lot of people here) - I can only say that time marches on and change is gonna happen. Also, this line of reasoning is a logical fallacy called 'Non Causa Pro Causa' see here for more: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/noncause.html

However it falls, as long as its still fun I'll keep coming back.

Cheers,

Dave.

***Those who say any change will lead to IT becomming practically FA or something (a lot of people here) - I can only say that time marches on and change is gonna happen.***

Dave, not knocking your statement. Just using your statement because it's similar to ideas others have. If people think it's ok to constantly make changes & make their IT cars races cars then why is/was Spec Racer Ford, Spec Miata, the new SCCA club racer, Spec mazda (open wheel) & other tightly ruled classes so popular.

The most usless item in an IT race car is the hand held fire extingusher for driver safety. That people (Andy, Geo, Darin, protester Bob) is a F**KING joke. & K. don't start your $hit about two fire extingushers.

Have Fun http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif
David

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Until such time that you can actually read a GCR definition, or such time that you successfully petition the ITAC and CRB to change same definition, I suggest you stop calling us all "GCR Nazis" .

I find that statement to be totally inappropriate and distasteful.

---

Oh I can read Jake, and I can think. Try it.

The term in today's parlance simply refers to anyone who unjustly attempts to impose his will on another through bullying tactics. And I believe when people are refusing to recognize an expert, certified, and generally recognized definition of a term except in a curiously inaccurately scribbled definition in the GCR Glossary, they are bullying. If you feel the term was aimed at you, I suggest you do some soul-searching. And I must say I find its use far less inappropriate and distasteful than misquoting and misinterpreting another person's remarks for your own purposes - that's downright unethical.
Now I earnestly apologize for having to defend myself in an otherwize interesting discussion. Please carry on.
GRJ

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Spinnetti:
George,


Anyhow, I know everybody wants the class to be what they want, and we all won't be happy, but my goals are simple:

> I want the FASTEST car possible as CHEAPLY as possible, easy to maintain and with the most competetive racing. To this end, I want:

- Keep cage about the same, but let there be more tubes, including thorugh the firewall. I wouldn't change mine, but if people want more safety and rigidity for a weight penalty, by all means
- Use restrictors (not weight), and balance cars.
If the SCCA will class it, they should find a way that people can play on a level playing field. Many other orgaizations have found a way, and looking at what the roundy-round guys do should give some tips - somebody is too fast? allow manditory trading of ecus if somebody requests - no incentive to cheat then..


Those who say any change will lead to IT becomming practically FA or something (a lot of people here) - I can only say that time marches on and change is gonna happen. Also, this line of reasoning is a logical fallacy called 'Non Causa Pro Causa' see here for more: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/noncause.html

However it falls, as long as its still fun I'll keep coming back.

Cheers,

Dave.

---

Dave, while I agree in part, let me comment on some idssues with some of your ideas. I think that one thing that needs to be kept in mind when changing rules is the effect it will have on the existing population.

Will the proposed rules change affect the competitive balance? Will the rules change be fair across the board to all cars? (the current ECU rule is a classic example of a rules change that failed both of those litmus tests.)

That said, think about the roll cage idea. Some cars could benefit greatly from increased front structure stiffenting, so there may be an issue with unequal performance gains. More importantly, many cages would have been designed differently if the maker knew additional front structure would be allowed. Allowing it after the fact is unfair to the existing population. Also, how does the weight penalty figure in? What if some cars can make min weight with, others without? Finally, I think the idea does run counter to the "simple and cheap" concept ...Adding such bars is, to a lot of IT racers, beyond simple nor will it be cheap.

Using restrictors is, I think, beyond the capability (sorry guys) of the ITAC as the sheer number of models that need to be adjusted is just too great.

And I think the ECU trade concept falls short of practicality as well, again due to the sheer number of models that are out there racing.

Trust me, I have some real gripes and concerns with the way the club has done business in the past, as well as now, but I have yet to find a category in any other organization that seeks to do what IT does.


------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lateapex911:

one thing that needs to be kept in mind when changing rules is the effect it will have on the existing population.

---

My problem with this is I can't think of any rule (change or otherwise) that will uniformly benefit all cars in a category (other than a spec class).
One could automatically dismiss any rule change on the grounds that it doesn't affect a certain car in the class as well as another (e.g,.can't remove the passenger glass because the Nissan glass is heavier than the VW's - won't apply evenly.) In fact you could say that about any rule already in the ITCS, e.g., the .25 head milling doesn't do a thing for me, Fiestas use flat heads, so cutting the head will not raise my compression the .5 everyone else is getting. And I'm not whining, I'nm just making a point. I know no one told me I had to race a Fiesta.
GRJ

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Dave, not knocking your statement. Just using your statement because it's similar to ideas others have. If people think it's ok to constantly make changes & make their IT cars races cars then why is/was Spec Racer Ford, Spec Miata, the new SCCA club racer, Spec mazda (open wheel) & other tightly ruled classes so popular.

The most usless item in an IT race car is the hand held fire extingusher for driver safety. That people (Andy, Geo, Darin, protester Bob) is a F**KING joke. & K. don't start your $hit about two fire extingushers.
[/B]

---

Well, you are right. Stable rules are important. If they froze today, I could live with it, and the spec classes are a nice way to keep creep down, but I enjoy the greater creativity (IMO anyway) that different types of cars and different solutions provide (too much of an individualist I guess).

Anyway, I guess agreeing doesn't make an interesting read as some of these posts!

Not clear what the beef is on the fire ex. stuff is. I don't really care if I have one at all, but I did get a real fire system and pointed one at the dash, and another at the fuel cell for what its worth.

I find if sad-funny that the billy-bob racing crowd as put a lot more miles and and no doubt a lot more smiles down than we have, and with less cost to get on the track and argueably for a lot less hassle and cost.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by grjones1:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lateapex911:

one thing that needs to be kept in mind when changing rules is the effect it will have on the existing population.

---

My problem with this is I can't think of any rule (change or otherwise) that will uniformly benefit all cars in a category (other than a spec class).
One could automatically dismiss any rule change on the grounds that it doesn't affect a certain car in the class as well as another (e.g,.can't remove the passenger glass because the Nissan glass is heavier than the VW's - won't apply evenly.) In fact you could say that about any rule already in the ITCS, e.g., the .25 head milling doesn't do a thing for me, Fiestas use flat heads, so cutting the head will not raise my compression the .5 everyone else is getting. And I'm not whining, I'nm just making a point. I know no one told me I had to race a Fiesta.
GRJ

---

Totally true, but why should an adjusment be equal for everybody? Battery relocation won't help BMW, and ECU mods didn't help me, but the already dominant Hondas just got more dominant.

That just goes to my point that there should be comp adjustment in IT - otherwise, why bother to have all these discussions at all? Just run what you brung, and enjoy being last unless you are in the car of the moment.

How about using an indexing system like PAX that auto-x guys often use? its one way to equalize or handicap the real world without lots of physical adjustments?

And yet another thread run amuck....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Spinnetti:
George,

You didn't have your car catch on fire and have battery acid spewed all over when it got crushed on your car did you? - I did. All this blather about constantly replacing belts and nets, and helmets etc, but a 50lb acid missile off the front fender is not a safety hazard?

---

First, this is a moot point, because you are now allowed to replace your "dangerous" lead-acid battery with one of a "safer" type... READ your 2005 ITCS/GCR...

Second... HOW is it safer to have that 50lb missile mounted INSIDE the driver's compartment, where a good % of you would go to Shucks and buy a plastic boat-box and hold the battery down to the floor with a pair of 3/16" diameter bent steel rod and stamped out sheet-metal wing-nuts???

Follow the rules and use an allowed alternative battery and there is no longer an issue with "safety" of battery mounting... AND, we won't have a set of battery relocation rules to clog up the message boards with blather about how we "should have" worded them this way or that...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited February 28, 2005).]

In the missed-point department today...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Spinnetti:
... Those who say any change will lead to IT becomming practically FA or something (a lot of people here) - I can only say that time marches on and change is gonna happen. Also, this line of reasoning is a logical fallacy called 'Non Causa Pro Causa' see here for more: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/noncause.html

---

First, I nobody said that. Second, you are off-base on a couple of levels about that argument - were it made - being false non causa.

In an organizational culture like the SCCA, those "gateway" rules changes are not "causes" of the ultimate evolution of the catagory: They are necessary-but-not-sufficient preconditions. It will NOT follow naturally that IT cars will get Production-ized if the CRB makes any further allowances, but it IS safe to say that by leaving the current rules essentially where they are, it becomes impossible for that to happen.

Quote:

---

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif : ... K. don't start your $hit about two fire extingushers.</font>

---

My handheld extinguisher is for car safety, not driver safety. If someone wants to pop an onboard fire system for a carb, brake, or grass fire, they can go for it. My guess is that it won't help AND they'll get to clean Purple K out of every crevace after the corner workers take care of it.

It's unfortunate that some think their ideas are "opinion" and others' are "shit."

K

On board fire systems definitely help - coming from one that had to use his last weekend at CMP for a good sized carb fire. Good thing to have and well worth the money. No way a handheld would do what it did under these circumstances and not having the on board would have resulted in a lot more damage than what we have.

Ron

------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning Tow Beast
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
260Z ITS - Just call me fireball!

Kirk, it's because you always THINK you have the only valued opinion answers. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif I have finished 38 races & looked at lots of cars since I started in year 2000. Never viewed or heard of a carb, brake, or grass fire & IMHJ you are the only person who has such a narrow opinion that values two fire extingushers. Do you have two fuel pumps, two oil pumps, two water pumps, two this that & everything else? Must be a bit*h making weight.

Have Fun http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif
David

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Spinnetti:
Totally true, but why should an adjusment be equal for everybody? Battery relocation won't help BMW, and ECU mods didn't help me, but the already dominant Hondas just got more dominant.

That just goes to my point that there should be comp adjustment in IT - otherwise, why bother to have all these discussions at all? Just run what you brung, and enjoy being last unless you are in the car of the moment.

How about using an indexing system like PAX that auto-x guys often use? its one way to equalize or handicap the real world without lots of physical adjustments?

---

Spinneti,
You realize of course I was disputing Jake's take on the proposition. His remarks suggest that if a rule does not apply equally to all cars in a category, it cannot be considered, and my point is that no rules ever apply equally to all cars (of different makes)in a category. So his position would automatically disallow any rule change - a preposterous condition.

GRJ

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
... I have finished 38 races & looked at lots of cars since I started in year 2000. Never viewed or heard of a carb, brake, or grass fire & IMHJ you are the only person who has such a narrow opinion that values two fire extingushers. ...

---

Wow - that's almost five whole years, son! http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

Remember me when you do see one of those merry little blazes.

Kirk (who thinks it's ironic that he's now having to defend having too MUCH fire safety to Mr. D.)

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited February 28, 2005).]

I guess I am the lucky one having been on fire 3 times in my history....used a firesystem every time.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Banzai240:
First, this is a moot point, because you are now allowed to replace your "dangerous" lead-acid battery with one of a "safer" type... READ your 2005 ITCS/GCR...

Second... HOW is it safer to have that 50lb missile mounted INSIDE the driver's compartment, where a good % of you would go to Shucks and buy a plastic boat-box and hold the battery down to the floor with a pair of 3/16" diameter bent steel rod and stamped out sheet-metal wing-nuts???

Follow the rules and use an allowed alternative battery and there is no longer an issue with "safety" of battery mounting... AND, we won't have a set of battery relocation rules to clog up the message boards with blather about how we "should have" worded them this way or that...

---

Now of course, Darin, there is always the "cheaper" argument to unfold here. The new rule allows us to spend money (the least expensive "non-lead-acid" battery I've seen for my car costs a minimum of twice as much as a standard one)to be safer, but does not allow a less expensive method of moving the standard battery to the trunk, where although in some cases that would be considered part of the driver's compartment, it's a region that probably would protect the battery from dislodging better than under the hood (fewer "direct hits").
I respectfully submit that a little forethought in this instance would have given us the option of being safer less expensively.

GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 28, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 28, 2005).]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by grjones1:
... but does not allow a less expensive method of moving the standard battery to the trunk, where although in some cases that would be considered part of the driver's compartment, it's a region that probably would protect the battery from dislodging better than under the hood (fewer "direct hits").
I respectfully submit that a little forethought in this instance would have given us the option of being safer less expensively.

---

1) How many SCCA cars in IT have "trunks"???
2) How is having acid mounted anywhere behind the driver safer than having it in front?
3) Since when do IT drivers know more about safety than Automotive Industry engineers? I believe they've done more crash testing than you have...
4) Show me how it's "cheaper" to move a battery than it is to buy a proper one in the first place... Think carefully, because if you say anything resembling using a cheap Shucks battery box, you are proving my point... and I do know how much the "good" battery boxes cost, so with one of those, you will again prove my point...

The more we let you mess with things, the more likely there is to be problems/safety issues...

Any cost issue associated with putting in a Gel-Cel battery vs. "safely" moving the battery somewhere else doesn't hold water in this arguement...

Nice try though...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
I guess I am the lucky one having been on fire 3 times in my history....used a firesystem every time.

---

Think I got all of you beat. No races, one attempt, and one fire - damn glad to have the system too!!!

Races 0 , Fire 1

R


------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning Tow Beast
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
260Z ITS - Just call me fireball!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Banzai240:
1) How many SCCA cars in IT have "trunks"???
2) How is having acid mounted anywhere behind the driver safer than having it in front?
3) Since when do IT drivers know more about safety than Automotive Industry engineers? I believe they've done more crash testing than you have...
4) Show me how it's "cheaper" to move a battery than it is to buy a proper one in the first place... Think carefully, because if you say anything resembling using a cheap Shucks battery box, you are proving my point... and I do know how much the "good" battery boxes cost, so with one of those, you will again prove my point...

The more we let you mess with things, the more likely there is to be problems/safety issues...

Any cost issue associated with putting in a Gel-Cel battery vs. "safely" moving the battery somewhere else doesn't hold water in this arguement...

Nice try though...

---

1)All IT cars have "trunks, it's just that some are open to the passenger compartment. (However with their floors usually lower than, and out of direct line with, the driver - a position that is in a relatively distant and protected area from the driver.)

2)and 3) Are you telling me BMW with their series and the new Mini, and even British Leyland in 1965 with the MGB, and others did not consult their engineers or failed do do crash tests when they placed their batteries in the trunks?!!

4)If you can "trust" us to put in fuel cells, you can trust us to construct a viable battery box (that's also why we have tech inspectors).
As far as cost, I really don't know either not having been allowed to use a box, I haven't looked into pricing one. But I bet I can relocate the battery and cover it securely and safely for less than the $200+ the Optimas cost. And I really don't understand why I shouldn't have had the choice. Darin, you know I respect your opinion, but you are beginning to sound a little condescending.

GRJ

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rlearp:
Think I got all of you beat. No races, one attempt, and one fire - damn glad to have the system too!!!

Races 0 , Fire 1

R

---

British sports cars..... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/rolleyes.gif http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif (I'm just needling you Ron).


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com