I decided to send in a request to remove/replace wires in IT cars

I had dinner with Brian Holtz at NJMP about 18 months ago. Among many things, we talked about his time on the ITAC in it's early days when the rules were still in a formative stage. I remember him saying that he didn't know anything about rule making or feel particularly qualified, but found himself serving in that roll. He didn't say as much , but I sensed that he had a lot of prid in what he did, as well he should.

I think the folks from the early days did a heck of a job writing a rule set that has been as stable as ours is.

I agree. Most successful, long-running, stable multi-marque class in SCCA history in my very rough estimation.

This is my take, and it's pretty simple.

SCCA is a CLUB. (Improved Touring is a component of that CLUB.) A CLUB should be run by its MEMBERS. The responsibility of the elected is to the MEMBERSHIP. If the elected decide that, for whatever reason, to ignore the MEMBERSHIP on any given issue, then the MEMBERS have to decide, come election time, whether they want new representation. If new representation is put in, and results in actions detrimental to the club or any part of it, then the fault, at least theoretically, will lie with the MEMBERS.

So whatever befalls IT, the credit/blame should be on US, the MEMBERS of IT. The ITAC should advise US on the issues, but ultimately serve to implement the collective wishes of the IT MEMBERSHIP, ideologies/philosophies/traditions/etc. be damned. This is the democratic way, which is fundamental to just about everything we do as a society today...

Why is this so hard for some to accept?

Charlie, I spoke to Brian too, also at NJMP. I hadn't really met him before, but thinking back, I got the impression he was cool, actually more than cool, I think he was pleased with IT's current state. I think it was about when you spoke to him. Does that jive with your talks with him? My chat was a quick one att he edge of the track.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffYoung

I agree. Most successful, long-running, stable multi-marque class in SCCA history in my very rough estimation.

---

...largely because it's been creep-resistant but that horse is likely out of the barn already.

So, at the top of my wish list would be mixing and matching OE gear ratios in the stock box. Cheap and easy to do, and I could improve longevity by picking less fragile 5th gears. Completely within the realm of "street tuner" mods.

Second would be an allowance for aftermarket cams, as long as all of the other valve train parts remain stock. There's NO cheaper hp/$$ improvement to a car, there are lots of aftermarket options available for minimal investment and there's NO more popular modification out there. It would also make policing the rules easier, since we wouldn't have to measure cams in the tech shed, and everyone would be on the same level playing field, so more cars could be competitive.

K

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedMisted

then the MEMBERS have to decide, come election time, whether they want new representation. If new representation is put in, and results in actions detrimental to the club or any part of it, then the fault, at least theoretically, will lie with the MEMBERS.

---

The ITAC isn't elected though. It is a volunteer position. People are selected, picked, or they themselves ask to be on the ITAC. But there are no term limits and theoretically it could remain static for many many years or turn over every year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Earp

The ITAC isn't elected though. It is a volunteer position. People are selected, picked, or they themselves ask to be on the ITAC. But there are no term limits and theoretically it could remain static for many many years or turn over every year.

---

But they are put in their positions by those who are elected, no? The accountability dynamic is still the same, then. Kinda like if you had a wayward bureaucrat that needed offing, you'd get rid of his elected superior and find someone who will implement a staff that will serve the needs of the electorate.

Kirk, stop. Now you are just being a nattering nabob of negativity.

You know almost all of us would never agree on changing stock gear ratios or cams. And to equate that to washer bottles or wiring harnesses is pretty ridiculous. Equating to ECUs and sphericals, creep from just the last several years, maybe.

And to say there was no creep before is also just wrong. Passenger seats. Headliners. Air dams. Etc. Etc. Etc.

No class is creep resistant. In fact, if you locked IT into what it was in 1985 my personal belief is it would be dead anyway. I don't know anyone who wants to race under that rule set.

The trick, as it seems to me, is to stop fundamental changes to the class. Nothing being discussed now falls anywhere near that category.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knestis

...largely because it's been creep-resistant but that horse is likely out of the barn already.

So, at the top of my wish list would be mixing and matching OE gear ratios in the stock box. Cheap and easy to do, and I could improve longevity by picking less fragile 5th gears. Completely within the realm of "street tuner" mods.

Second would be an allowance for aftermarket cams, as long as all of the other valve train parts remain stock. There's NO cheaper hp/$$ improvement to a car, there are lots of aftermarket options available for minimal investment and there's NO more popular modification out there. It would also make policing the rules easier, since we wouldn't have to measure cams in the tech shed, and everyone would be on the same level playing field, so more cars could be competitive.

K

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knestis

.

So, at the top of my wish list would be mixing and matching OE gear ratios in the stock box. Cheap and easy to do, and I could improve longevity by picking less fragile 5th gears. Completely within the realm of "street tuner" mods.

Second would be an allowance for aftermarket cams, as long as all of the other valve train parts remain stock. There's NO cheaper hp/$$ improvement to a car, there are lots of aftermarket options available for minimal investment and there's NO more popular modification out there. It would also make policing the rules easier, since we wouldn't have to measure cams in the tech shed, and everyone would be on the same level playing field, so more cars could be competitive.

K

---

And Andy, before you even say it, those two "lines in the sand" that Kirk just threw out there as red herrings would NOT be adopted by the 95 percenters in IT. I'm pretty sure that about 90-95% of folks would agree what the core values of IT are and these two items, gear ratios mix/match and cams, would not be on that list. Give the participating membership some credit for knowing what is important to IT and what isn't.

R

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Earp

And Andy, before you even say it, those two "lines in the sand" that Kirk just threw out there as red herrings would NOT be adopted by the 95 percenters in IT. I'm pretty sure that about 90-95% of folks would agree what the core values of IT are and these two items, gear ratios mix/match and cams, would not be on that list. Give the participating membership some credit for knowing what is important to IT and what isn't.

R

---

I wasn't going to say anything because THOSE things are outside my box. But you can certainly see how it's not THAT far of a jump if they are just bolt-on/in under an 'expanded' update/backdate rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knestis

...largely because it's been creep-resistant but that horse is likely out of the barn already.

So, at the top of my wish list would be mixing and matching OE gear ratios in the stock box. Cheap and easy to do, and I could improve longevity by picking less fragile 5th gears. Completely within the realm of "street tuner" mods.

Second would be an allowance for aftermarket cams, as long as all of the other valve train parts remain stock. There's NO cheaper hp/$$ improvement to a car, there are lots of aftermarket options available for minimal investment and there's NO more popular modification out there. It would also make policing the rules easier, since we wouldn't have to measure cams in the tech shed, and everyone would be on the same level playing field, so more cars could be competitive.

K

---

While I understand the perspective above, I too firmly believe this is not in the core values of the IT.

As an aside, it's pretty funny what the Spec Miata guys do with "stock" cams, some of which are more "stock" than others...... How much money is spent on an incremental advantage when an incremental advantage does make a difference.

Back on topic, I fully support a proposal to allow removal of wiring attached to components that are allowed to be removed, such as dome light, radio, electric window lift mechanism, etc.

If I can get a letter writing campaign organized such that 95% of those who write in support my proposals, then will you give it a fair hearing in the ad hoc, Jeff? Do I have your vote?

Seriously - cams are cheap fun and if we're trying to compete with NASA and ST(whatever), we're going to need to give our rides more poop. And it will be cheaper for me to write a check to Techtonics than to have have a stock cam custom ground.

K

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knestis

Seriously - cams are cheap fun and if we're trying to compete with NASA and ST(whatever), we're going to need to give our rides more poop. And it will be cheaper for me to write a check to Techtonics than to have have a stock cam custom ground.

K

---

Isn't that the purpose of the new ST* classes? Basically?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GTIspirit

While I understand the perspective above, I too firmly believe this is not in the core values of the IT.

As an aside, it's pretty funny what the Spec Miata guys do with "stock" cams, some of which are more "stock" than others......

---

Don't think that hasn't, or isn't happening in IT! I wish I could dig up the company that was advertising BMW IT 'cheater cams", that would pass tech, but, you know, wink wink, nudge nudge,. give you more power or torque. Or, of course, both. They we're obviously massaging the sections that weren't going to be measured.

Quote:

---

How much money is spent on an incremental advantage when an incremental advantage does make a difference.

---

Obviously, it depends. On how popular the class is, how close the racing is, and the budget/desire levels in each competitor. Ideally, the cost/benefit ratio will be pretty out of whack, so the temptation is removed or at least minimized.

Rules CAN maximize that aspect. An example I keep referring to is the IT cage rules that eliminate the ability to tie the front structure of the car in with the cage, making the chassis, in essence, a spring, and eliminating, for the most part, huge spring rates, and the accompanying mega bucks dampers..

Quote:

---

Back on topic, I fully support a proposal to allow removal of wiring attached to components that are allowed to be removed, such as dome light, radio, electric window lift mechanism, etc.

---

I guess this is, in some cars easier than others. I've been mostly fortunate and just went back to the section where the branch split from the loom, and disconnected the connector at that location. Or I've coiled the harness up and stashed it. Maybe I've been lucky, but I just haven't developed the burning desire to change the rule, but that's obviously based on my limited experiences. My method is to 'eliminate" possible issues where I can. For example, there is a wiring harness that is in my engine compartment that does nothing. So I pulled the tape back, then I clipped one wire, moved forward 1/2", clipped another and retaped the harness as I went. Then coiled it out of the way. Took all of 5 minutes, And I don't worry about any loose ends contacting each other and popping fuses that are circuits for things I need.
I suppose this is illegal, as I can't find a place where it says I can do that, but technically, the circuit would be open 4 feet later when the connector dead ends where the component I was allowed to remove used to live, so, it's the same either way.

No, and you know that. I consider you a good track friend, and I don't want to get into a pissing contest with you, but you are really so far afield of what we are actually talking about that it is hard to have a reasonable discussion.

You know that for a long time I've said there are certain core things in IT that even if membership wanted to change, shouldn't be changed. Frankly, I consider spherical bearings and ECUs such items both of which were opened up under your watch, or immediately prior.

If you want to talk about my position, which I've stated over and over -- core value changes we say no, other items we listen to membership -- fine. If you want to set up straw men like cams and gear ratio changes, then I don't see a need to waste my time discussing it with you.

You are angry about something. The good side is I think you are angry that you are seeing changes to a category you enjoy running in and have spent a lot of time and energy trying to protect and develop. If I were trying to make fundamental changes to the category, I could see why some of that anger might be directed at me. As it stands, I don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knestis

If I can get a letter writing campaign organized such that 95% of those who write in support my proposals, then will you give it a fair hearing in the ad hoc, Jeff? Do I have your vote?

Seriously - cams are cheap fun and if we're trying to compete with NASA and ST(whatever), we're going to need to give our rides more poop. And it will be cheaper for me to write a check to Techtonics than to have have a stock cam custom ground.

K

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffYoung

Frankly, I consider spherical bearings and ECUs such items both of which were opened up under your watch, or immediately prior.

---

Respectfully, this shows a little ignorance to history or a refusal to call a spade, a spade.

Letter came in to clarify bushing rule, CRB directed ITAC to write rule specifically allowing them despite the majority of the ITAC being against it.

ECU's rule was the 'anything in the stock box'...which was bad for everyone so a decision had to be made. Nobody WANTED open ECU's but it was seen as the lesser of two evils - open it up (now that inexpensive MS-type stuff was available) or require stock - which handed a huge advantage to 1996 and up cars because of undetectable flashes.

In one case, the CRB opened it up, the other, well - who really would have done it differently given the issues? It sucked for sure, but there was little choice.

In the end, you have seen little resistance to items that are consistant with the rules and core philosophy - like motor mounts. It's the 'who-friggen-cares' stuff that polorizes people. Whay you care abaout, I don't and what I do, you don't. In those cases, leaving the rules alone may be the best way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt

ECU's rule was the 'anything in the stock box'...which was bad for everyone so a decision had to be made.

---

What was the origin of the "anything in a stock box" rule? Not that it matters since it is so much water under the bridge, but I'm interested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Earp

What was the origin of the "anything in a stock box" rule? Not that it matters since it is so much water under the bridge, but I'm interested.

---

It was written before me but my understanding was it was a failed attempt at a 'chip it' rule that went kablooey when MoTec stareted making units small enough to fit into some stock ECU cases. The units plus the labor to hook them up through the factory wiring harness was HUGE money and created a large 'have' and 'have-not' disparity on the grids.

And on my end, respectfully, about the same as equating washer bottles and wiring harnesses to cam changes and gear ratio changes?

Look, I understand the whys and hows of the spherical bearings (well, I didn't know you guys didn't recommend that but glad to hear you did) and the ECUs, but me saying "that's your fault!" is about as relevant (to me) as saying considering the removal of inconsequential items from what are no longer dual purpose cars is the same as a cam or tranny ratio change.

It's all good though. I know you and Kirk are coming at this from a place of passion for the category, and I appreciate that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt

Respectfully, this shows a little ignorance to history or a refusal to call a spade, a spade.

Letter came in to clarify bushing rule, CRB directed ITAC to write rule specifically allowing them despite the majority of the ITAC being against it.

ECU's rule was the 'anything in the stock box'...which was bad for everyone so a decision had to be made. Nobody WANTED open ECU's but it was seen as the lesser of two evils - open it up (now that inexpensive MS-type stuff was available) or require stock - which handed a huge advantage to 1996 and up cars because of undetectable flashes.

In one case, the CRB opened it up, the other, well - who really would have done it differently given the issues? It sucked for sure, but there was little choice.

In the end, you have seen little resistance to items that are consistant with the rules and core philosophy - like motor mounts. It's the 'who-friggen-cares' stuff that polorizes people. Whay you care abaout, I don't and what I do, you don't. In those cases, leaving the rules alone may be the best way.

---

Just stating, as fact, that what you consider 'easy', some don't...and what you don't consider inside the core - some do.

The hardest part is getting the 'majority' to agree on what is the new line in the sand (LITS).

It's possible, but it will take a lot of work. Start it here, lock it down and push it up the chain.