Printable View
Evanwebb,
I understand that you are going to use your poll results to formulate a letter to the CRB. I would like to know HOW you are going to position the results, should say, 75% of the respondands want to see steering column stalks removable.
What I am getting at is that you might get 50 votes. What % of the IT community do you think you are representing with those 37 or 38 votes?
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
Hi Andy:
I was planning to write a letter that said "hey I posted a poll on the IT website and I got this many responses for and against and here are their names". I will also point out that I personally am in favor of all of the rules changes I asked about in the polls. Obviously the responses here don't represent a very large percentage of the overall IT community, but I think in general most letters to the CRB reporesent the opinion of a single person (i.e. whoever wrote the letter.)
I think you would be better off writing a well written letter with an explaination of why the rule should be changed and to what. The poll is interesting here on the forum, but I honestly don't think it will be too meaningful.
Maybe you could use this forum to get opinions on what it should be changed to and why...
------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si
Well, funny enough but I was planning to write a "well written letter", and obviously I already have some ideas as to what the rules should be changed to, and I even know why I have those ideas.
It will be educational to see what the CRB's response to informal poll information might be, Evan. I wouldn't be surprised if it carried absolutly no water with them.
That says something because, even accepting sampling methodology issues built into your plan, you've probably had 10 times the number of responses to your questions here than the CRB received directly, on all IT-related proposals published in FasTrack in the last 6 months.
K
OK, sorry, I'll be less sarcastic this time. Just so everyone knows where I am coming from I'll put down my reasoning here, anyone interested please respond with your ideas on "Philosophy of IT".
0) First of all, let me be completely clear that none of this has anything to do with "Safety" or "Attracting the Younger Crowd". I hate it when every argument is couched in those terms. With that out of the way...
1) IT cars in general are no longer dual-purpose cars.
2) However, we don't want to change the rules to exclude that possibility since Kirk and others get a kick out of driving their cars to the track.
3) So, how about loosening up the rules to allow the possibility of removing or changing some stuff on the cars?
4) I had just a couple of criteria: First, the changes have to cost either nothing (such as unbolting or cutting off a part you don't need) or not much (such as adding an electrical switch or replacing a section of an old electrical harness with new wire and connectors from Home Depot or whatever). Second, the changes have to seem (to me) to be fun and make the car look more like a race car. That is, of course, purely subjective and reasonable people may differ. Third, the changes have to have a "minimal" impact on anyone's competitiveness (e.g. I don't think anyone will make the argument that the presence or non-presence of washer bottles, turn signal stalks or OEM vs. non-OEM wire in the harness will cause you to either win or lose a race). Lastly, the changes must be completely optional: no-one is required to change anything, but if you want to you can, and if you like things on your car the way they are then leave it alone.
So why make changes?
The first reason is for fun, to make the cars more "racy". There is also an aspect of aesthetics in this: If a part doesn't really serve a purpose on a car, why does it need to remain in place? If you don't run enduros on the car why do the headlights or marker lights need to stay there and be taped up? If I don't use my windshield washer why does it need to stay there? If I get irritated at brushing my hand against the steering column stalks that I don't use why do they need to stay there?
The second reason is to make it easier for old cars to be legal. We all know that there are a lot of old race cars that are illegal because miscellaneous bits and pieces are missing. Those missing bits and pieces have no real effect on the car's competitiveness, but I think we all want to have legal cars so lets try to adjust the rules in a relatively benign way to bring them back into compliance. Also, if you try to build a new old race car (like Ron's Jensen-Healey) it can be pretty difficult to get those last details excatly right, and what the hell is the point? We aren't going to a concours.
Lastly, there is also the issue of making weight: if I have more stuff I can remove from my car then I have more of a chance to get to minimum weight. I do recognize that some people will take advantage of the changes to remove weight from their cars that are already at minimum weight and therefore add it as ballast down low, but I guess my feeling is that by doing so they really haven't gained "much" of an advantage by doing so. I think that probably enough people with moderately-prepared cars will benefit enough to offset the relatively few that are prepared to the limit of the rules anyway.
Thanks Kirk, I will make that point to the CRB... And who knows, it seems like the opinions are fairly evenly split here (with a slight advantage to those in favor to making some of the changes), so this may end up having no effect anyway...
I'll give you another good reason to remove stuff that is useless - fire!
I was involved in an engine fire this weekend with our 260Z and it was not a pleasant experience. In fact, considering it was my first real race weekend it was a very poor experience.
Anyhow, my point being is that old plastic washer bottle that hangs out in the engine compartment is just something else to burn up and have to be replaced on an IT car. It is enough to worry about all the other things that have to be replaced in a car after an accident or fire, much less useless equipment such as this.
I did get to use a fire system though and I will definitely say, don't leave the pits without it. Spend the $400 or make one as good. Fire extinghuers are just fine, but when the fire is on and bad stuff is happening it is a lot easier to pull that handle than futz with a handheld thing bolted in your car.
Ron
------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning Tow Beast
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
260Z ITS - Just call me fireball!
Evan,
I for one, enjoy your enthusiasm and professionalism. I may not agree with what you want to do, but I appreciate the way you are going about having your voice heard.
I think for me, after reading your last post, there really isn't any reason to do stuff like this. With the new rules in place for 2005, you can get a JCWhitney washer bottle. You could always 'repair' your broken wires...and the 'racy' thing just doesn't hold any water for me...the cars look plenty like race cars - allowing the signal stalks to be removed doesn't add to that 1 bit IMHO.
Anyway, keep up the good work. None of the positive changes that are slowly happening in IT right now wouldn't be if different ideas and opinions weren't brought to the CRB.
Thanks.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
What I meant by a "well written letter" was without the poll stats; not that you wouldn't write a good letter.
------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si
Eek. Is this REALLY the intent of the replacement part language?Quote:
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
... With the new rules in place for 2005, you can get a JCWhitney washer bottle. ...
I can replace any part on my car with one that is as "equivalent" to the OE part, as is a generic JCWhitney bottle to the one that came in my from the factory? Different shape? Different material? What??
Pardon my frankness but WHOLE-LEE CRAP. Game on, everyone.
K
[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited February 21, 2005).]
Ron,
What caused the engine fire? I run a 240z and my old one had been in flames at one point. Hope you had a chance to pull over before you pulled the trigger. Nothings worse than watching it all fly out the window and do nothing. That stuff is hell to get off the inside of the windows and everything else.
Tom
Thanks Andy. Kirk brings up part of my point: I just think that if we can delete parts from the car that we are not using anyway, then we don't have to argue if a replacement part is legal according to our interpretation of the intent of the rule...
You guys put together a list of all the things you think should be allowed to be deleted because you "aren't using them anyway" and send it in... We'd be happy to consider it...Quote:
Originally posted by evanwebb:
I just think that if we can delete parts from the car that we are not using anyway, then we don't have to argue if a replacement part is legal according to our interpretation of the intent of the rule...
The only way something like this will work is if you specifically list EACH item in the ITCS, lest someone believe that a stalk is an "instrument", "guage", or any number of other things, other than the SWITCH that it actually is...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg
Andy, your comment about JC Whitney washer bottles is extremely worrisome. I was under the impression that the rule I think you refer to was intended allow us to use non original equipment manufacture (OEM) sourced items such as brake discs that meet the exact specifications that the (OEM) builds to.
Allowing such a large degree of judgement and discretion is, to me at least, asking for boatloads of trouble.
If we use the windsheild washer bottle as an example, and if I understand you correctly, you are saying that I can go to Target or Auto Zone and pick up a similar bottle to replace my (burned? sorry, Ron...) missing or damaged one. Might not be the exact shape, and might be of a different plastic, and might not attach to the metal bracket, but it's close, so we're good, right?
Now..my windsheild has a crack...following the same logic, I think I'll head down to the lexan supplier and....
You see the point....where is the line drawn? Sure, nobody cares if the washer bottle is a different material, and that the bracket went in the trash as well. Even when the result is that the assembly, now sans motor that resided in the bottom, and sans bracket, weighs 30% of the original. But a windsheild (or whatever) that weighs 30% of the original is a different animal.
I hope the proposed rule is put out for member comment, and has langueage that precludes wholesale advantages being taken...
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
Before you guys start heading down this silly left-field ideas of what the new parts replacement rules might mean, you might want to get a reality check on what the meaning of the term "exact equivalent" is...
I doubt that by ANY stretch of the imagination someone is going to buy the idea that Lexan is an exact equivalent of safety glass... etc...
Come on guys.... this isn't as tough as you are making it...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg
I'm not making it hard.
1. Andy is operationalizing "exact equivalent" with his explanation.
2. There is NO definition of "exact equivalent" in the GCR Glossary - I checked because Darin sounded so sure about the meaning.
3. I hope that this doesn't foreshadow the unintended consequences of this recent addition.
And Evan - full points for effort, dude but you've cherry-picked out my point. And doesn't "let us take them off because we can't agree what we can replace them with" sound a little bit like, "we can't enforce the ECU rule so let 'em do anything that they want?"
If the rule says that you can replace Part A with another Part A, then there's no room for interpretation, right?
K
It's interesting that the washer bottle is the issue - isn't it always? Yes, there isn't a source for 'exact equivilant' like brake rotors etc, but I bet if you searched high and low for an something, you wouldn't be getting dinged by an over-zealous tech guy or a competitor.
My bad - I understand the can of worms my statement potentially opens. The EE rule DOES NOT apply to any generic washer bottle bought at a JCWhitney-type supplier...
HOWEVER, take my Sunbeam Tiger for example. There are a few suppiers (Victoria British, etc.) that make replica washer bottles for this car. LEGAL under the new rule IMHO. So it isn't impossible.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
The washer bottle is a symbol, or the canary in our coal mine. I am abso-freakin-lutely positive that, were the rules amended to allow its removal this year, someone would be making a case for the next "useless part" in a matter of weeks.
In fact, if ALL of the "useless parts" that have been suggested here in the 5 years I've been visiting could suddenly and legally be removed, there would be a new list waiting in the wings.
K
[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited February 21, 2005).]
If you guys need a glossary definition of what "exact equivalent" means, then any further "clarification" of the rules is a complete waste of time and won't do anyone here any good anyhow...
Get real guys... We are still in the USA and this is standard, run of the mill English we are reading here... I'm putting my money of the tech officials to know what it means... (I'm thinking something along the lines of EVERYTHING the same but the brand name... Like when you want to order the OEM Brand part from Shucks, and they don't stock it but offer the "equivalent" replacement part...) You can bank your $$ however you like...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg
Hey Darin, that's great.....but..........
Andy mentioned picking up a washer bottle at JCWhitney...can you really blame us for asking for a bit of clarification?
Keep in mind the stretches you've seen when it comes to interpreting words written in "Plain old English"...
A turn signal stalk that is considered to be an instrument comes to mind, but it's just one of a million....
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited February 21, 2005).]
I believe this with every fiber of my being. Not to mention that everything you specifically allow to be removed must be called out in the GCR. WASTE OF PRINT.Quote:
Originally posted by Knestis:
The washer bottle is a symbol, or the canary in our coal mine. I am abso-freakin-lutely positive that, were the rules amended to allow its removal this year, someone would be making a case for the next "useless part" in a matter of weeks.
In fact, if ALL of the "useless parts" that have been suggested here in the 5 years I've been visiting could suddenly and legally be removed, there would be a new list waiting in the wings.
K
[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited February 21, 2005).]
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com