Originally Posted by
D. Ellis-Brown
I beleive that the current rules change denial excuse of “Rules Creep” or outside of the Intent of Improved Touring, is no longer valid… The ECU change, final drive ratio change, adjustable spring perches, etc are significant examples of the evolution of IT and I agree that these changes are good and the ITAC were doing exactly the job for which they volunteered. So please no more “Rules Creep Excuses” for denying a common sense change, “ That ship has already sailed ! “ Any change should be considered if it makes sense and /or the majority of interested parties and stakeholders request the change. Period….
Now lets move on to reality. I come from an Engineering / Manufacturing background…. Changes in Engineering Design and Product Configuration were a way of life. I would like to follow a similar approach from that environment to that of the rule making process for the ITAC. Please follow my line of thinking.
Some change requests where critical and need to be implemented immediately due to product reliability, safety, etc… Critical changes similar to a vehicle recall…. We will call these Class “A” changes. Similar in our racing world too. I believe the CRB and ITAC already addresses these type of changes with a notification such as a tire, that can not be used due to some safety issue, or a seat belt that is suspect, and the like. The CRB and ITAC already have these under control.
Then there are what we will call “Class “B” changes”. These type of changes had a significant impact on the product form, fit or function. In IT rules world these types of changes have an impact on the performance of a vehicle, or group or over the entire IT Classification and will have a cost associated with it’s implementation. These types of changes deserve some serious dialogue and debate between the membership and the ITAC. The ultimate approval and/or rejection of the change should be made with significant input with the membership. If the majority of the membership are requesting the change and it’s implementation impact is clearly understood by all stake holders, then the change should be approved. An example of this type of change would be permitting the relocation of the battery. Costs for implementation should be reviewed and discussed, if the change is cost prohibitive, and would only favor a small number of stakeholders, then maybe the change should be rejected. Let the “stakeholders” participate in the decision making process.
And last but not least is what I will call “Class C changes”. These types of changes really do not change the form, fit or function (in a very liberal sense) of the function of the configuration and the change would be made across the board, to all models, class, groups, etc, have minimal impact on anyone, there are little to no costs associated with their implementation, and favor no particular vehicle. As the wording of the change would be "May" etc, thereby providing and/or permitting the change to be acted upon by a stakeholder. An example of these types of changes would be like the removal of a component, such as the windshield washer bottle, or the Horn, Heater core, and the like. These type of changes could also permit the movement of a component, such as switches, or a fuse panel, and the removal of wiring to a component that is already permitted to removed, like the dome light wiring, or the wiring to the sunroof motor, or the radio and speaker wiring, or the wiring for the power window motors that were in the front doors, and the like… These types of changes are available to everyone, cost little or nothing to implement, and are a convenience to the competitor. Basically removing non-value added items, and / or moving a component that would permit an ease of maintenance of the vehicle, but not provide an unfair or competitive advantage to anyone competitor.
I believe that if the ITAC would adapt an approach like this, It should make their lives a lot easier, permit the stakeholders of IT to feel some ownership in the rules making process, and may even eliminate some of the useless dialogue.
These are some ideas that I would like to recommend. What are your thoughts?
David Ellis-Brown
Lastly, Let me respond to Kirk's question---- Of course not, my approach was to get my car down to the allowed weight. The current rules, in my interpretation, make getting the car down to it's minimal weight, more difficult. Thereby making the constructor go thru extra, and unnecessary efforts to remove the weight. To take full advantage of the rules, we used a "rotisserie" to remove all of the undercoating, hotmelt, and the like from the underside and inside of the fender, wells. Now, does everyone building an IT car have a rotisserie available to them ? I don't beleive they do. Therefore giving a "unfair" advantage to those with such resources. Looks like an unintended consequence of having to retain "non value added" items that keep weight on the car. I have seen photos of your car, and have talked to several folks who have seen your car. Beautiful job, looks professionally built. Most of the IT competitors, don't have the resources that we do. Getting the car down to the minimum weight is the cheapest "horsepower advantage" you will ever get. Less weight helps in the braking area also. If in my interpretation of the rules, a "bracket" can be removed, I will remove it, all of it, whether it is bolted in or welded, since the current wording makes no differentiation, and any debate regarding the removal of welded or bolted bracket is non productive . I build my own cars. I have built 4 IT cars, and one of the first things I learned was to get the weight down to the minimum.
