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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffYoung

I don't see anyone other than (and I say this with all due respect) the old guard who really wants to race racecars with dome lights and washer bottles and all of the dual purpose vestiges that serve no purpose other than as symbols of a of a conservative ruleset.

I agree it is a ruleset that has served us well, but if we don't do things that, without violating what IT is truly about, make IT more attractive to newer and new racers, the category will die. Just as if we "prod-ized" it.

---

Do you REALLY CARE that you have to keep the washer bottle (or insert other *I*-think-its-stupid item) or is it just a thing to bitch about? Really? Who f-ing cares? There is a line in the sand, it DOESN'T HURT ANYONE.

It's been said a million times, everyones 'line' is different for what they think is reasonable. These are STUPID things to be focusing on when they don't make a shits-bit of difference - especially when you have 16V cars in ITB and ITC only getting railroaded with bogus rules.

Geezus.

Well, I listen to you. Not arguing with you, and I do respect your history in the category.

I do think this is an interesting exercise.

A LOT has changed in IT since 1985ish...but has stock engine/suspension/tranny/body parts?

I suspect your response may be that things that were once considered core IT stuff is no longer. Valid point. What would you, as someone who has been in IT longer than anyone I think, consider to be core values we have lost/moved on from?

Not particularly, but I also don't think it's my place to say "no" if membership wants that.

But I do strongly disagree with you about their importance. Not from a performance/build ease standpoint but a perceptional one.

We are more and more being viewed as that crusty old, increasingly irrelevant class that makes you keep your water bottle/wiring harness/stock battery location. We are oging to face competition from the ST classes and I think we need to do what we can to keep attracting racers to our class.

That perceptional issue matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt

Do you REALLY CARE that you have to keep the washer bottle (or insert other *I*-think-its-stupid item) or is it just a thing to bitch about? Really? Who f-ing cares? There is a line in the sand, it DOESN'T HURT ANYONE.

It's been said a million times, everyones 'line' is different for what they think is reasonable. These are STUPID things to be focusing on when they don't make a shits-bit of difference - especially when you have 16V cars in ITB and ITC only getting railroaded with bogus rules.

Geezus.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffYoung

Not particularly, but I also don't think it's my place to say "no" if membership wants that.

But I do strongly disagree with you about their importance. Not from a performance/build ease standpoint but a perceptional one.

We are more and more being viewed as that crusty old, increasingly irrelevant class that makes you keep your water bottle/wiring harness/stock battery location. We are oging to face competition from the ST classes and I think we need to do what we can to keep attracting racers to our class.

That perceptional issue matters.

---

So write me a complete list of things that YOU and Ron would change. Then when you draw your new line, we are going to get someone who adds 2 more things. Then the next guy will add 2, and the next guy adds his 1. All for what?

Then tell me who you know of who doesn't race in IT (the SCCA's largest category BTW) because of the 3 things you list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffYoung

Not particularly, but I also don't think it's my place to say "no" if membership wants that.

But I do strongly disagree with you about their importance. Not from a performance/build ease standpoint but a perceptional one.

We are more and more being viewed as that crusty old, increasingly irrelevant class that makes you keep your water bottle/wiring harness/stock battery location. We are oging to face competition from the ST classes and I think we need to do what we can to keep attracting racers to our class.

That perceptional issue matters.

---

some things in here i agree with and some things i don't.

agree;
1) perception matters.
2) we do need to attract new racers

disagree;
1) we're facing any relevant level of competition from ST, not to mention enough to influence IT policy
2) we have to give membership "what they want."


Travis
-who is barely thirty years old, isn't on the ITAC to make friends, and in no way whatsoever can be considered "the crusty old guard."

You gotta stop with that "what Ron and I want" stuff.

It's not about ME drawing the line. It's about listening to membership and if they want something that doesn't run counter to the core stuff in IT, then letting them have it. Yeah, that may suck in some cases but here's a funny thing: I 100% completely agree with Kirk's statement that we get the IT that we want. This is a club. It shouldn't be up to 7 non-elected guys to tell a majority of the folks running in the class no on something that YOU YOURSELF just said was inconsequential and didn't matter.

I'm sure my line will be different than others. My individual wants are irrelevant though. I'm not saying that everyone gets what they want. I am saying that if a majority can agree on a change, and it's not a core item, then we shouldn't say no.

Go back and look at the thread where someone (Ron maybe) ran a poll on this. I think you'd be surprised at the level of support for NO change.

But in my view, we have to get away from the idea that we dictate to membership how THEIR class will be run. I agree there are some foundational principles that we can't/shouldn't change. I agree that in some cases, what those are may be a gray line. But I also think if you got all IT racers in an auditorium somewhere they'd agree on 95% of them.

Travis -- specific question for you. You are ok with the engine mount allowance. But not washer bottles. Or wiring harnesses. Why and how do you draw a line/see a difference between the two?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt

So write me a complete list of things that YOU and Ron would change. Then when you draw your new line, we are going to get someone who adds 2 more things. Then the next guy will add 2, and the next guy adds his 1. All for what?

Then tell me who you know of who doesn't race in IT (the SCCA's largest category BTW) because of the 3 things you list.

---

In my opinion, you should check that attitude a bit. Not towards me, but towards members. We are here to serve them, not be jerks/assholes/obstructionist.

It's that precise no.2 that led to a huge hullybaloo over motor mounts. And yes, I do think our overall approach to that stuff has driven off some racers. That's going to happen naturally in some cases I agree, but if quite honestly, my personal opinion is I'd ditch the "washer bottle" (read any inconsequential item) if it kept a few racers in the class.

Why? Because keeping it sure won't.

That said, I have a washer bottle and it sure ain't a big deal to have it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tnord

1) we're facing any relevant level of competition from ST, not to mention enough to influence IT policy
2) we have to give membership "what they want."

Travis
-who is barely thirty years old, isn't on the ITAC to make friends, and in no way whatsoever can be considered "the crusty old guard."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt

So write me a complete list of things that YOU and Ron would change. Then when you draw your new line, we are going to get someone who adds 2 more things. Then the next guy will add 2, and the next guy adds his 1. All for what?

---

I suspect that four or five modifications to the rules would capture what 95% of the progressive IT racers would want changed (didn't I write the same thing a year ago?). But, since you already know what is going to happen and know what is best for IT there really isn't any point in discussing it.

I do feel it is narrow minded to maintain the perspective that IT is going to chug along and continue to do well without "modernization" of the rules.

I'll tell you one thing, if the ITAC approves of wiring harness removal, but rejects engine mounts,
...I'll need a shrink to help understand the logic....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lateapex911

I'll tell you one thing, if the ITAC approves of wiring harness removal, but rejects engine mounts,
...I'll need a shrink to help understand the logic....

---

Some of us already need a shrink to understand the "logic".

• Open ECU rule with addition of sensors....but must maintain a stock wiring harness.
• Spherical bearings....but stock motor mounts.
• Fabricated uprights....but gotta keep that heater core intact.
• Trick that clutch and pressure plate out so it weighs nothing....but don't touch that stock flywheel.

And so on. Everyone has a different perspective though and I'm sure many don't see contradictions at all within the IT rules set.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffYoung

Travis -- specific question for you. You are ok with the engine mount allowance. But not washer bottles. Or wiring harnesses. Why and how do you draw a line/see a difference between the two?

---

i'm fine with washer bottles because that is the "flagship item" that is trotted out time and time again and i do feel helps with the perception problem. it really is a zero effort, zero expense item for everyone.

wiring harnesses on the other hand is not part of the "perception problem," and would be prohibitively expenisive in terms of time and effort for current, existing members, to all get back to the same "level" of only having the minimum amount of insulated copper. i see little to no benefit to the category here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffYoung

In my opinion, you should check that attitude a bit. Not towards me, but towards members. We are here to serve them, not be jerks/assholes/obstructionist.

---

...and i am.

hey kirk, you still keeping that list of what IT would be like if every time a request was sent to the ITAC for a new allowance it was accepted?

So you've made a personal value judgment on two different items. One is ok with you, the other is not.

And you'd take it upon yourself to reject a membership request back by say 50 letters in support on the wiring harness rule because you personally see no benefit (trust me others do)?

This is a post that I made a few days ago in another debate "It is nice to see that the debate still continues about the removal of brackets.....among other things--- "Things that don't change have the tendency to remain the same". I go back to a request I submitted to the IT Advisory Board a in 2009, to reinstate the verbage under "Intent"..... "Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage"..... I would imagine that 50% plus of the debates aired in this site, would be eliminated. What do you think? Is removing a bracket, welded or bolted, gaining you any competitive advantage? Is removing a horn, windshield washer resevoir, light bulbs or some wiring gaining you a competitive advantage? I think that most of the competitors understand the difference. What do you think?

The Intent of IT is fairly straight forward, but it has evolved from the original intent to find a home for older Showroom stock cars, and the dual use as the current rules state. I would rather see the debate be over "competitive advantage items" rather than nonsense, non value items like dome light wiring, washer bottles, horn, misc. wiring and the like. But that is only my opinion.

How about thinking outside of the box. I beleive that the ITAC should represent and respect the IT racers first, in concert with the stated objectives of the CRB and SCCA. I want and encourage debates over rule changes, fairness, cost to the competitors, keeping a level training field, and the like. But if the ITAC is not going to represent the IT racers, maybe it is time for the competitors to request a change in how the ITAC is staffed, and have the ITAC representatives elected by the registered IT drivers and have representation from each of our Areas. Then if the majority wants a significant change, there should be no one to stand in the way. What do you think?

If we are going to have a debate, let's make it worthwhile.

Respectfully submitted,
David Ellis-Brown
Central Florida Region

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D. Ellis-Brown

.... for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage"..... I would imagine that 50% plus of the debates aired in this site, would be eliminated. What do you think? Is removing a bracket, welded or bolted, gaining you any competitive advantage? Is removing a horn, windshield washer resevoir, light bulbs or some wiring gaining you a competitive advantage? I think that most of the competitors understand the difference. What do you think?

Respectfully submitted,
David Ellis-Brown
Central Florida Region

---

I think that every one of these discussions would still exist because they all are measurable changes and can be argued to alter or create a competitive advantage. Ridiculous, you'll say, but getting 5 guys to agree on the line in the sand on which is, and which is not a competitive advantage will get you 10 lines, because none of those guys will be able to even be consistent in their judgment to draw that line in the same place twice.

It would just add yet another need to define something, something that can be argued from a number of angles, and can never be truly agreed on.
I'm very much opposed.

I submit - for the 100th time or so, since it's valuable to continue the debate - that you wouldn't have done those things if you didn't see any advantage, David. Did you you intend that any of the things you removed would make your car SLOWER...?

K

PS - Here you go, Travis. This was just for the 2008 calendar year.

http://www.it2.evaluand.com/download...TCS%202008.pdf

Kirk, I think that the black or white view you like to take on these types of topics is healthy for conversations like this - really a big part of what makes them good for everyone involved and spurring us to consider extremes of the topic when discussing them, but when someone takes a fundamentalist view like that and applies it to the actual rules review/update process for a category it becomes counter productive. IMO this was a huge underlying factor in the big turnover that the ITAC had recently. Not picking on you individually, just making a general observation that picking battles by everyone involved rather than digging heels in on issues in a fundamentalist manner may have benefited IT racing more than what went down. You see, for instance, there is a huge difference between asking if we can remove wires that don't do anything on our race cars, because the item that they connected to on one or both ends is no longer there (or never was there from the factory floor), and asking for adding a new functional device to the race car - like air jacks. The problem is that just over a year ago we had a group of people on the ITAC that made a decision to draw that fundamentalist line in the sand on any and every item, rather than talking it through. Or at least that is what it looked like from the outside.

As far as this specific topic, just let me clarify, that the intent of the request was only to allow removal of wires that are no longer connected to something on one or both ends, either due to allowed modifications (aftermarket ecu) or OEM configuration (optional power antenna lead). I don't think it would be legal to remove, for instance lighting harness wires if an allowance were made to remove wires, because removing those particular wires would perform a prohibited function - disabling the lighting system.

The request is not intended to enable a GT car wiring harness to work in IT, just to let us remove the stuff we don't need, within the IT rule set, and do a nice clean re-wire of what is left if we choose.

I have read comments about 40# coming off a car if this were allowed.
1. I call B.S. If anyone proves to me that they can do this with a current logbooked IT car, and all of the gain is due to this allowance, I will give them EDIT CONSIDERING THE POTENTIAL WIFE IMPACT OF GIVING AWAY $100, I'M GOING TO REVISE THIS DOWN TO $25 :).
2. Even if we could all remove 40#, BFD. We all have a minimum weight, and if we can meet it, I for one would be leaving the 40# in the floor of my car, and if we can't meet our spec weight, it would be a nice way to help those cars reach the condition under which they were classed. More competitive cars are good for IT racing IMO.

I don't see how this impacts any first principle, considering that everything that would be removed is already non-functional within the rules today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffYoung

You gotta stop with that "what Ron and I want" stuff.

It's not about ME drawing the line. It's about listening to membership and if they want something that doesn't run counter to the core stuff in IT, then letting them have it. Yeah, that may suck in some cases but here's a funny thing: I 100% completely agree with Kirk's statement that we get the IT that we want. This is a club. It shouldn't be up to 7 non-elected guys to tell a majority of the folks running in the class no on something that YOU YOURSELF just said was inconsequential and didn't matter.

---

I was asking you and Ron because you two have been the squeeky wheels in this type of stuff. You are 'newer' to IT and infer that you have your finger on the pulse of the younger crowd that won't try IT because of 'stupid rules' like XXX.

I ask you because you seem to be able to represent that group.

My point is simple. You WILL get what you want. A-Sedan, Production, etc are all born out of member driven requests. LOTS of guys in AS wish they didn't have to spend the money on big motors, crazy suspension kits and monster brake set-ups. Prod hit rock botoom and they developed Limited Prep and there seems to be some growth (or maybe more of a stop-the-bleeding).

If I were king for a day, I would allow the removal/addition of some of these items - but ONLY because I know that locks down my line in the sand and prevents any more creep. But there are plenty of people who ask for stuff I think is redciulous. And I bet in my '5-things', someone will think 1 or 2 of those aren't needed.

Yes, we have to look at this from 10,000 feet and weigh the issues of change. But remember, just like when you add up 10 2hp mods you do to squeek the most power out of your car - when you add up the 10 "washer bottles', you could end up with a product that 'you' (the collective you),didn't envision.

And it's WAY harder to take back than it is to give.

So take a look at Kirk's link from the 2008 rules. Someone asks for alternate body panels to make weight or because they can't find anymore - and you get 12 letters. 11 'for' and 1 'against'. How do YOU vote? If you vote yes, in my opinion you would be wrong. If you vote no, you truly don't believe in giving the members what they want.

It's a tough job.

I think sometimes the answer is not "slower" but rather easier to build/work on. Which I agree is something of a performance advantage because it allows resources to be devoted elsewhere.

An interesting exercise would be for eaach of us to go through those proposed changes and list whether we personally think each affects an IT core value or not. My hyothesis would be that we would have agreement on most items -- but I wonder if I am right or wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knestis

I submit - for the 100th time or so, since it's valuable to continue the debate - that you wouldn't have done those things if you didn't see any advantage, David. Did you you intend that any of the things you removed would make your car SLOWER...?

K

PS - Here you go, Travis. This was just for the 2008 calendar year.

http://www.it2.evaluand.com/download...TCS%202008.pdf

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffYoung

An interesting exercise would be for eaach of us to go through those proposed changes and list whether we personally think each affects an IT core value or not. My hyothesis would be that we would have agreement on most items -- but I wonder if I am right or wrong?

---

First you would have to have a majority concensus on core values - and what those meant. I am constantly amazed by the people who come on here and proclaim that IT isn't 'entry-level' anymore and that IT needs to get back to 'low-cost'.

That hurdle is a huge one.