Printable View
I want to propose that, even where a car on a given spec line came only with them, central locking and alarm/anit-theft systems may be removed. Further, auxillary wiring harnesses that manage these systems may also be unplugged and removed, but not modified.
How do you nit-pickers think I should word the rule so it lets us remove a silly thing or two, without unintended consequences?
K
PS - See? I'm coming around.
Did they even make a BMW without them(central locking)??? I would ask around in that forum to see if any ideas arise from them...I'm sure there is an IT car out there that only came with them...just a thought...
------------------
Evan Darling
ITA Integra
Well, the lawyer in me had to take a stab at this:
Cars equipped with alarms and/or central locking systems may disable these devices by disconnecting the appropriate wiring . However, all wiring related to these systems shall remain in the stock location.
However, Kirk, I would be all for removing this wiring, as I consider it akin to stereo wiring. So, I would change the last sentence to:
All wiring associated with these systems may be removed.
Kirk,
why do you want the rule to allow you to remove the components instead of just diableing them.
dick
You guys know my stance on that issue - it has no purpose on a race car, throw it in the trash. Take it off Kirk, I won't mind and I'll retain Jeff for you to help write the rule.
While we are at it can we make sure to include some other equally useless items?
Kirk,
The racer in me agrees w/ Ron. I see this as something akin to the plastic trim in the engine bay. However, w/ the crazy way that newer car's electronic systems are inter-related, you may run into issues. What happens if the car goes into limp mode because the missing anti-theft stuff throws a code to the computer? I know the easy answer is to not remove it if that's the case, but then you get into the issue of people being able to take advantage of a rule (or not) because of the way their car is built (and I know someone is going to say that all cars are like that).
I can see some creative person trying to gain allowances out of a rule like this.
An alternative is to just make wiring open, and you can run whatever you want. <ducks and slinks slowly away from the keyboard>
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Point to ponder-several new cars have been engineered such that removing these systems renders them entirely inoperative. One example is the new Corvette that requires a transponder to allow you to do anything. The central computer systemS require a signal from it to turn them on. There is essentially no mechanical key-just electronics. Other cars currently available have equally sophisticated systems.
This then leads to do we allow ECU modifications to override this anti-theft feature. I do agree that one should be allowed to disable these things, where possible, but not to remove the wiring. The only exception that I see is where it is "optional" equipment. This falls in the same category as the sunroof in a CRX-where all of it and the wiring harness is permitted to come out.
------------------
Grandpa's toys-modded suspensions and a few other tweaks
'89 CRX Si-SCCA ITA #99
'03 Dodge Dakota Club Cab V8-Patriot Blue gonna tow
What is the reasoning for not allowing wiring to be open?
------------------
Tom Sprecher
Team SuperTech
I think you are all missing the point! I think the wording should read "any OEM item that does not belong on a race car may be removed with all associated attachments". That would clear up everything. See ya'll at Roebling. Chuck
------------------
Chuck Baader
#36 ITA E30 BMW
Alabama Region Divisional Registrar
Chuck: That is closer to Production. As we all are aware the IT class was created to avoid just that. I would suggest that the wording could be "any OEM OPTIONAL part" including sunroof components and rear wipers may be completely removed, including the associated wiring. Any hole in the bodywork shall be filled with either a sheetmetal panel (already in the GCR) or a rubber plug equal in diameter to the original hole. The point is that it MUST be very specific and yet apply to as many cars as possible.
------------------
Grandpa's toys-modded suspensions and a few other tweaks
'89 CRX Si-SCCA ITA #99
'03 Dodge Dakota Club Cab V8-Patriot Blue gonna tow
I'm glad I asked...
I can take the rear wiper off because some line-item Golf III's came without it. (Up- and back-date rule.) That's "optional."
So far as I've been able to determine, ALL of them came with vacuum central locking and the anti-theft system. That doesn't seem like "optional," even if it is pointless.
This came to a head last night when we discovered that the system in the new car is busted somehow - it won't shut off with the key like it's supposed to.
Honk, honk, honk, honk, try the ignition!, honk, honk, that didn't help dammit!, honk, honk, honk...
Cameron's dog was running for cover...
I guessed that people would see the implications re: the wiring harness. I wouldn't even go there, at least as far as modifying the main harness(es) goes.
Disabled would be a good start but removed would be my preference. Don't get me wrong - this does NOT mean that I think that anything that isn't directly used on the race track (e.g., signals) should be fodder for the trash bin. Alarms and electric locks are more like audio equipment, to my mind - in that they are "accessories." At least, to my thinking.
Good thoughts so far though. Thanks.
K
[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited July 01, 2005).]
jc836...tongue firmly planted in cheek http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif Chuck
BTW, what would be wrong with prod prep with IT weights and drivetrain restrictions? Seems to me it would make a darn good car. Oh, wait...limited prep?
Kirk,
I know from first-hand experience w/ my '95 Golf GL, what a pain that locking / anti-theft system can be. The one on my car is all foo'd up, and at one point, I couldn't get the car to start w/ the key because of it. Not sure what all will happen if you remove it.
This did get me thinking about something though (Warning: Everyone run for cover!). We're _required_ to remove glass sunroofs and replace them w/ metal skins. The reason? Safety of course. We don't want a bunch of broken glass in the event of an incident. But, what about.... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif Kirk:
I do not think we are allowed to remove the wiper from the rear-that is what Topeka told me. Remember that only the CRX Si came with it, in my case. I agree that it is a useless component and am willing to ballast at that location, if required.
Do we really want to venture into LP land? I hope not. It would be nice to allow a few things that make sense-like Camber adjusters other than what I am currently allowed. We finally got ourselves the use of 15" wheels- so that is progress in a general way that hurts no one (I hope).
------------------
Grandpa's toys-modded suspensions and a few other tweaks
'89 CRX Si-SCCA ITA #99
'03 Dodge Dakota Club Cab V8-Patriot Blue gonna tow
I hope IT can get to this some day. No matter what IT was like in 50s, the cars are 100% race cars these days. They really don't need side glass, alams, horns, keyless entry, rear wipers, cruise, etc ....Quote:
Originally posted by chuck baader:
I think you are all missing the point! I think the wording should read "any OEM item that does not belong on a race car may be removed with all associated attachments". That would clear up everything.
------------------
Zsolt - #9 ITS GSR (SEDIV)
Ack! How did the P-word (not Porsche) find its way into my nice, innocent post about IT rules?
I don't know from Honda rear wipers but since some Golf III's came without them, it's backdate fodder. B'bye.
It may be artificial but I've been thinking about it and the distinction for me is whether or not something is required for a car to be "street legal." To my mind, this is - or should be - a large part of the distinction between IT and Production (bleah).
IT = remove option junk, Production = remove anything not required for racing.
K
yea you are right it sounds artificial to me. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gifQuote:
Originally posted by Knestis:
It may be artificial but I've been thinking about it and the distinction for me is whether or not something is required for a car to be "street legal." To my mind, this is - or should be - a large part of the distinction between IT and Production (bleah).
IT = remove option junk, Production = remove anything not required for racing.
K
dick
How about:
If so equipped by the manufacturer as standard equipment, anti-theft alarms and their control units, sensors, wiring, lights, actuators and sound producing devices et. al. may be disabled or removed.
If so equipped by the manufacturer as standard equipment, central door locking control units and their sensors, wiring, actuators, vacuum devices, solenoids et. al. may be disabled or removed.
Dave Z
Oooh. Dave's good at this.
Okay, ITAC'ers - if that hit your inbox, would it be complete enough to be well-considered? I'm not asking if it would be approved, only whether you see any poison pills that could be addressed proactively with a re-write before it is submitted.
K
"et. al." ......that makes me nervous under the "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile" category.
MAYBE the phrase "and other items specific to that system" is more in order.
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
I like the allowance but would restrict it so it doesn't allow for any issues.Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Zaslow:
How about:
If so equipped by the manufacturer as standard equipment, anti-theft alarms and their control units, sensors, wiring, lights, actuators and sound producing devices et. al. may be disabled or removed.
If so equipped by the manufacturer as standard equipment, central door locking control units and their sensors, wiring, actuators, vacuum devices, solenoids et. al. may be disabled or removed.
Dave Z
"...may be disabled but not removed or modified"
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
http://www.flatout-motorsports.com/i...X-7_Avitar.jpg
Jake,
I like that, but I can see issues on exactly where that line gets drawn, as how the systems are integrated will vary from mfg. to mfg.
As stated before, several mfgs have these systems tied into the engine mgmt / ECU. I can see someone saying "Hey, I've got to change the ECU, because my car won't run w/ the anti-theft system disabled/removed".
I know people will say "Well, just don't remove/disable it." But, what happens when this is the case w/ the ABS system, which we are _required_ to remove/disable?
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Bill,
We had a letter we talked about breifly already. An interesting issue really, as you hit the nail on the head.
Our goal is to amend to allow the sensor to be connected when neccessary to avoid the CPU conflicts but to have the system remain disabled per the rules...
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
http://www.flatout-motorsports.com/i...X-7_Avitar.jpg
I like Jake's wording so how about:
If so equipped by the manufacturer as standard equipment, anti-theft alarms and their control units, sensors, wiring, lights, actuators and sound or light producing devices and other items specific to that system may be disabled or removed.
If so equipped by the manufacturer as standard equipment, central door locking control units and their sensors, wiring, actuators, vacuum devices, solenoids and other items specific to that system may be disabled or removed.
I do not agree that disabling a system, if it has no other relevance to the operation of the car, should be the only option. Why is an alarm different from a radio or an air conditioner? In this case it is only because it was standard equipment on all models of a car brand. Neither alarms nor central locking are essential to the operation of the car. Disabling ABS is another animal completely because it is believed that those cars will have a performance advantage under braking. A louder exhaust may lead to a performance advantage, but a louder alarm never will. That is unless it wakes you up at 4AM when it goes off in the paddock.....
If you think your ecu would go into limp-home mode if the door lock fuse pops or an alarm sensor is shorted, then I think you need to prove that this would actually happen in a GCR-listed car.
We are discussing two very discrete sub-systems here. If you want to leave these things in your car, fine. If you want to disable them because it is a PITA to remove, fine. If you want to remove, fine.
Dave Z
I was gonna remove mine, but then I remembered it weighs 50 lbs. ar ar