Which ones of these don't belong??

OK, according to the GCR, the purpose of IT is as follows-

It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car.

So wouldn't it make sense that wiring is not limited to the stock, and I quote "UNMODIFIED" harness. This means that any replacement wires should meet factory specifications, including color (the only method that is "in concurrence with factory procedures, specifications, and dimensions").

At the same time, fasteners "may be replaced with similar items performing the same fastening function(s)."

So you can't upgrade wiring, but you can downgrade bolts... Or conversely, I have to keep my stock 20 yr old harness but I can use aluminum and titanium fasteners anywhere I damn well please.

Oh yes, and then the always beloved- you can't move the battery, but you have to run a huge wire for a master switch...

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

Matt, don't beat yourself up trying to make the ITCS, the stated philosophy, and all the rules internally consistent. They ain't and you won't.

------------------
Bill Denton
87/89 ITS RX-7
02 Audi TT225QC
95 Tahoe
Memphis

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bldn10:
Matt, don't beat yourself up trying to make the ITCS, the stated philosophy, and all the rules internally consistent. They ain't and you won't.

---

Well, my intent was actually to try to push more directly for a rules re-write, but I realized that I was too busy complaining to actually put that in my post...

Please do not take this to mean that I think the ITAC is doing a bad job, as I think they're really working well with what they have to work from. It seems to me however, that if we cannot glean the intent from the current rules, and if the statement of intent has changed, then we need to consider simply going down through the rulebook and specifically reviewing each rule and its applicability to the current philosophy. We simply can't be afraid to change something just because it's what has already been done. Yes, I understand that this will create a huge uproar for those who have already built cars, but understand, I'm not saying we need to throw out the current car prep.

I'm simply saying that we need to reexamine WHY we're doing what we are, and determine if it's truly something that matches the long-term plan for IT. Some people need to look at the good of the whole rather than just what's going to be the easiest and such for them personally.


------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

There is no strategic planning - nor even a provision for it - in SCCA club racing. The system presumes that individual competitors will ask for stuff that they think gives them an advantage, and the CRB decides to give it to them or not. Changes are made incrementally, with individual lines of the rule book edited, added, or deleted, without any real big-picture oversight.

That said, it would be a very interesting exercise to write a new set of rules that tried to codify what people should be doing under the current ruleset. The policy analyst in me thinks that there is every chance that we'd create a slew of unintended consequences with a comprehensive re-write, making the cost of the activity outweigh the benefit.

On the OTHER hand, if I were the John Bishop figure in this organization, I'd just change them and make interpretations and clarifications after the fact - ask me and I'll tell you what I meant. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

There's a great story about Bishop (from the early IMSA days, after he stomped out of the SCCA in the late '60s), about a competitor complaining that some interpretation wasn't in the rulebook. He made the mistake of holding the book out to Bishop, who took it, got out a pen, scribbled and signed it, and said, "It is now."

K

I had thought one of the directives from the top in the last couple of years was for each group to come up with it's own strategic plan. Does this mean IT wasn't included, or did we decide not to do this?

Either way, the ITAC makes recommendations to CRB and there is nothing to say that a strategic plan can't be used when reviewing proposed changes. So if we don't have or aren't yet developing a plan than let's start.

And I agree a complete rewrite is likely to create unexpected intrepretations while at the same time making some cars illegal and others mis-classed. So a radical rewrite isn't the best choice but a clear plan of what we want to change and a progression of how to get there over the next several years makes sense. It's certainly better than spending the next decade complaining about inconsistency while trying to justify something that 90% of the competitors feel is illogical.

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

matt
while i could not agree more with you position about wiring harnesses the intent statement really does not carry much weight with me. it is not like the rules are based on that statement as much as the statement is sometimes reviewed based on where the rules have gone. a case in point is that IT cars used to be dual purpose track and street. after the rules evolved enough so that few cars fit that model the intent was finally changed. I am sorry but broad reviews sound good but they are almost impossible to implement in our culture.
that said this type of debate has value. it brings out positions that have not been considered and slowly makes changes happen.
while i get frustated with that process being slow on the changes that I think are good I am thankfull for it on the ones that I think are rules creep.

Kirk, who I have deep respect for, often takes the default position that it is better to not allow change than to have a change that has possible unintended effects. that is not a bad position and it causes the proponent to defend and really condidor all the implications of the proposed change.

keep pointing out the advantages of you position but do not get upset with the glacial rate of changes, without it IT would now be GT.

that said keeping my 23 year old harness functioning bites.
dick patullo
ner ita rx7
[email protected]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Knestis:
There is no strategic planning - nor even a provision for it - in SCCA club racing.


K

---

Supposedly there is Kirk (although I don't really believe it). We've all heard talk about it for months, yet when I called Topeka and asked about the progress, I was told that there's a powerpoint file from this past spring. IF this plan is really a going concern, why don't we see progress reports every so often in FasTrack?


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dick Patullo:
while i could not agree more with you position about wiring harnesses the intent statement really does not carry much weight with me. it is not like the rules are based on that statement as much as the statement is sometimes reviewed based on where the rules have gone. a case in point is that IT cars used to be dual purpose track and street. after the rules evolved enough so that few cars fit that model the intent was finally changed. I am sorry but broad reviews sound good but they are almost impossible to implement in our culture.
that said this type of debate has value. it brings out positions that have not been considered and slowly makes changes happen.
while i get frustated with that process being slow on the changes that I think are good I am thankfull for it on the ones that I think are rules creep.

---

I think the problem is the rules should be based on the intent statement. Otherwise there is no logic behind why one allowance is made and another isn't. Sure, limiting changes to prevent ending up at GT is fine, but the overall guide should be the intent. Piecemeal changes without a plan makes the illogic of the rules worse not better. If the remote reservior rule had been tested against either the "street car" intent or "useful and necessary" it would ahve never been allowed.

The "street car" intent change is a great example of what not to do. Without an intent that the rule makers followed changes were made that altered the principal of the class. It seems the right way to do it is to agree what the class should be and evaluate every rule change against that. Otherwise with piecemeal rule changes your driving around at night with you lights off and no roadmap, you have no idea where you're going to end up.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Supposedly there is Kirk (although I don't really believe it). We've all heard talk about it for months, yet when I called Topeka and asked about the progress, I was told that there's a powerpoint file from this past spring. IF this plan is really a going concern, why don't we see progress reports every so often in FasTrack?

---

My understanding was each group was responsible for their own section of the plan. That certainly makes sense that the people best equipped to define where they are going are the ones with the interest and involvement in that area. So what have we done to create our own plan?

I've been around long enough to know the speed of change is slow, and for good reasons. The unintended consequences are difficult to see and that is why I don't mind these little discussions. The frustrating part is running up against the same illogical arguments or not getting any reasons at all.

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

heres a good example matt, PCS rule, "air intake may pass thru interior panels" "no modifications to interior panels" soooo if you dont cut a hole... how are you going to pass thru it!!!! yes I am battling the CRB with this verbage right now. the imaginary hole in my rad support just aint gettin it and it would be nice if the GCR said what it meant without 5 different tech guys ruling 5 different ways at the track.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Supposedly there is Kirk (although I don't really believe it). We've all heard talk about it for months, yet when I called Topeka and asked about the progress, I was told that there's a powerpoint file from this past spring.

---

Well, believe it. There really is a 'Kirk'. I've actually met him. He was sorta dressed like a Power Ranger at the time (helmet, fireproof jammies, etc.), but he's more than just a Powerpoint presentation.

+++++++++++++

See how much trouble can be caused, just by a missing comma ? Changes the whole meaning of the paragraph. That's what happens when 'wordsmiths' start fiddling. Beware of what you wish for with a GCR re-write.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
If the remote reservior rule had been tested against either the "street car" intent or "useful and necessary" it would ahve never been allowed.

---

Really? How do you figure?

Keep in mind that reasonable people can disagree. Everybody has a different opinion. I think most of us read rules and we see signs of brilliance and signs of stupidity and it's all so clear to us. But not everyone sees things the same say.


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

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geo:
Really? How do you figure?

Keep in mind that reasonable people can disagree. Everybody has a different opinion. I think most of us read rules and we see signs of brilliance and signs of stupidity and it's all so clear to us. But not everyone sees things the same say.

---

I agree everyone intreprets things differently, but I believe that the majority opinion when tested against the intent would have been that RR shocks were not a street car item nor were they necessary to creating an inexpensive, safe race car.

But, don't get so hung up on one example that you ignore the point. That point being that an overall guiding philosophy that every rule change is considered against provides continuity and logic to the rules process. To not follow that guide puts us back in the situation were rule changes are turned down because it's "against class philosophy" when the stated class philosophy has nothing to due with current practice.

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

Racers by nature will exploit every rule to the max and technology will make every rule book obsolete. When the best we could get was a revalved stock shock and nobody had ever seen a shock dyno the rule was a moot point. As shocks evolved the rule was opened up to reflect current technology despite the threaded exemption. Now we allow the threads,took away the external adjustment,and have the exact same cost shock with the adjustment on the inside and have to take it apart to make changes--did we save money--No. Cost comes down with availability and competition, not restriction. Matt is correct that we as racers need to help establish the "intent" of our class and work toward most cars being competitive and not just the top 3 makes. The "come spend your money and play without a fair chance" needs to die with the new intent. By all means do what needs done to keep cost down but help the slower cars as well.

While you can get IT legal dampers for more than you can find some RR dampers, the fact is, the top end prices are MUCH higher with RR dampers. I know a guy with a 928 who has $16,000 dampers. Yes. You read that right. Sixteen thousand dollars.

You can't just look at the low end. You have to look at the high end as well.

And my point about reasonable people can disagree, I'm even talking about the intent! While most of us would not think of a $50,000 IT as inexpensive, it's all relative. It's beyond my means. But compared with some other classes, it is inexpensive. But even SS cars capable of winning the Runoffs are expensive because the engines are parts bin balanced and blueprinted among other things. The winning cars are not just driven off the dealer's lot and safety equipment is added.

I'm NOT trying to argue with you guys. Really. But it's not nearly as simple as it seems sometimes.

Oh, and Bill, I share your sentiment about cheaters and cheating, but what good is a rule if there is no way at all of enforcing it? Or what limited avenues there are make it unfair to certain cars because some you can tell and some you can't?

Again, not trying to argue, but you asked a reasonable question and I think I'm giving you a reasonable answer.


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

Quote:

---

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Oh, and Bill, I share your sentiment about cheaters and cheating, but what good is a rule if there is no way at all of enforcing it? Or what limited avenues there are make it unfair to certain cars because some you can tell and some you can't?</font>

---

George,

I really don't feel like getting into this again. The whole 'unfair' arguement doesn't hold water. The current ECU rule, as written, is unfair to some cars. That's not becasuse they're carb cars, but because they're EFI cars that don't have the number of sensors, or level of control that others do.

If unenforceability is the test, there are other rules that should be opened up / thrown out as well. I'll give you a quick example. ITCS says that the VIN # has to match the car that's spec'd. Well, I can take an '83 base Rabbit, put all GTI parts on it, swap the VIN tags, and nobody is going to be able to tell. And don't think it hasn't been done before. In fact, there was a big debate about this very issue, on this board, a few years back (but w/ a different make car). As a side note, I think this is a silly rule anyway, and unnecessarily limits people's ability to put cars on the track.

It's a matter of cost/benefit George. If we've already established that cheaters will continue to cheat, all this rule has done has ratcheted up the cost of racing. And I'm not sure I see what the benefit of it is. What, so you don't have to worry about catching cheaters w.r.t. the computer? But the price of that is that now the cost of racing has gone up, because those w/ the means will stuff MoTecs in their stock ECU housings, and the rest will have to chase that w/ more $$$$.

Anyway, Merry Christmas.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,

I really don't feel like getting into this again.

<snip>

Anyway, Merry Christmas.

---

You're right Bill, that horse has been bludgeoned long after it was deceased. Not that it's not a valid discussion. But in the spirit of the season, I'll just wish you a Merry Christmas as well.

We'll save that discussion for another time (and don't thing I'm not sympathetic to some of that discussion).


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

Another view of the harness issue--
If by some stroke of good fortune we are allowed to redo the harness to conform to the general standards of race car construction-we render the car illegal for street operation. IT, as others here point out, was and remains based on the idea that one can use a street driven car in a competitive environment. This was true even for Production cars in the early 60's (when I knew Bishop, btw). Many could not afford a tow rig and wanted to race. Prod evolved to where it is today while IT has remained the bastion of old times. Should we change it?
In my opinion, based on the build of our CRX, allowances are needed to better conform to current times and into the future.
Why I say this is indeed based on the fact that Pennsylvania, for one state, frowns on roll cages for street cars that are permanent parts of a car. My state inspection/Honda mechanic (25 years worth) had to get me a waiver for the race car since the NASCAR bars interfere with "normal ingress/egress."
Now to the harness. If we take the logic of allowing a modification to the stock assembly shouldn't it be such that we are allowed to use what we need to make the car 'track ready' with the understanding that the car may no longer be street legal, as such. This means that we either leave the bundle in the car to allow it to be returned to street or we can wholesale convert to a race car arrangement. The latter would then require that all of the functions to operate on track are porperly wired (lights, horn, ignition, fans, pumps, etc. that are specific to racing. Makes a bit of sense to me and would eliminate several things like the stalk on the column since one would then be allowed to relocate those switches to a plate somewhere closer to the driver but out of the way otherwise.
What I am suggesting does not cost much more than the price of several small spools of wire, switches and mounting panel. Will it be allowed-I doubt it since ther is no long term logic being used by the CRB. Consider my request regarding Control Arm bushings to correct camber-the board said it is covered-a specific design is allowed and only that one-yet there is an alternative. I seriously doubt ther is any competitive advantage in removing the portion of the harness that connects to things like stereo and similar devices-but they continue to say no. Yet in another odd twist we are allowed to pull fuses.
Go figure.

Happy holidays everyone

------------------
Grandpa's toys-modded suspensions and a few other tweaks
'89 CRX Si-SCCA ITA #99
'99 Prelude=a sweet song
'03 Dodge Dakota Club Cab V8-Patriot Blue gonna tow

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jc836:
Another view of the harness issue--
If by some stroke of good fortune we are allowed to redo the harness to conform to the general standards of race car construction-we render the car illegal for street operation. IT, as others here point out, was and remains based on the idea that one can use a street driven car in a competitive environment.

---

Huh? Perhaps previously, but not now. I can think of many things that would make an IT car illegal for the street, and even more things that would make a street car completely non-competitive in IT. Also rememeber, just because you CAN do it within the rules, it doesn't mean you HAVE to. Example- you can remove emissions equipment in IT, but in many areas, this makes the car illegal for street operation.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jc836:

Now to the harness. If we take the logic of allowing a modification to the stock assembly shouldn't it be such that we are allowed to use what we need to make the car 'track ready' with the understanding that the car may no longer be street legal, as such. This means that we either leave the bundle in the car to allow it to be returned to street or we can wholesale convert to a race car arrangement. The latter would then require that all of the functions to operate on track are porperly wired (lights, horn, ignition, fans, pumps, etc. that are specific to racing. Makes a bit of sense to me and would eliminate several things like the stalk on the column since one would then be allowed to relocate those switches to a plate somewhere closer to the driver but out of the way otherwise.

---

See, my issue it not necessarily removing wires for street running gear, as much as it is being allowed to run different gauges of wire, fabricate or eliminate bulkhead connections, and basically run what I want, where I want, how I want. My best friend built a Street Mod Solo 1 car, completely street legal, and wired the entire car with a custom harness. It was SO much more dependable than trying to rework the stock harness, and simply just made sense given the condition.

Another issue I have is if you're allowing aftermarket ECU's, WTF is with the stupid "must fit in the stock box and use the stock harness/plugs" rule??? All this rule has done is to make it COMPLETELY unaffordable for most people to even attempt to use the allowance. Way to screw the masses. It drives one more wedge between the haves and the have-nots.

IT is NOT about spending money for everything, and it's not about doing things cheaply. It's about being able to build a car for a reasonable cost if you have basic mechanical skills and a LOT of time. Custom wiring doesn't cost NEAR as much as a replacement harness, is workable with basic skills, and actually can make it less expensive to implement items to work towards the limit of the rules. Being fast in IT shouldn't have so much to do with the size of your checkbook, but more the size of your desire.

BTW- with the discussion and comparison to Showroom Stock and such, I would submit the following: IT should be a LOT cheaper than SS or any other class. It's a freaking REGIONAL class guys!!! If you think your car prep and driving skills are so good, then take that $50k you would invest in a front running ITS car and go buy a damn T1 Corvette and see how you do. I'm sorry to be so damn blunt here, but I've been holding this in for a while. Some people around here take this category WAY too seriously. You really need to ask yourself- what rules would make sense if I were to go buy a cheap IT-classified car and prep it? What are the least cost-intensive (but probably most work-intensive) items to improve and make a decent race car? This way, the average preson could afford to prep a decent car with some sweat equity, and the more-money-than-brains people could spend the big bucks on labor intead of parts.

But I guess that wouldn't be near as exciting would it? I mean jeez, we might have more people dicing it up towards the front and wouldn't have all that lapping action would we? Who would want that to happen?

Oh, and excuse my sarcasm, I hope it didn't drip on any of you.

Merry ChrismaHannuKwanzika everyone! I hope the holidays bring you lots of joy.



------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."