What about these rules?

[Don]

I have been reading this board for a while now and yes I too think IT has some problems but not fatal.
I have autocrossed my ITC car but have not attended my drivers school yet; but I have been snooping the IT and PS (Nasa) cars in my regon.
Some of the rules just don't make any sense; it’s like the three stooges wrote the rules. Look under the dash of many IT cars these days and you will see a disconnected heater core zip tied to the dash brace????
A factory wiring harness that is inop and not powered up but new wires run to operate the car ???? Most plastic connectors on the factory harnesses don't last more than 10 years due to engine heat and if they break its new harness time according to the "factory procedures". My IT car set various track records in the late 90's with the previous owner and never had a turn signal switch from the day it was built. No one ever protested it????, but its going to have one now. I saw one car that had that factory harness removed and stuffed into the passenger side dash area.
Door glass... You have to run with the windows down and now you can put in NASCAR bars and take out the drivers side glass but the passenger glass has to be in. In Production the door glass has to be removed, go figure!

Horns and washer bottles .... Why so you can wash the dirt off your window and honk after you get punted off course?
Seems to me that correcting these could make life simpler and let some racers get closer to the weight already set in the GCR. It would not require major restructuring or not turn any bodies car into junk. And it would be standard instead of each regions interpretation of the "gray" rules. It would not add any cost into the racing budget.

Why can’t this be fixed? Did I miss somthing?



[This message has been edited by Don (edited November 28, 2003).]

[jc836]

You are not the only one scratching the head. There are many here who would like certain elements of the ITCS updated. Me included. I offered the CB my view and was soundly shot down. I do not consider what I suggested to create a "competitive advantage" or to increase the cost of racing. Rather-I feel that certain things can change without changing the character of the class.
Therein lies part of the reason for the ruluctance to update. The fact is that IT was created around stock-street cars. The intent was not to have them as trailered race machines, rather everyday cars with safety items added. There has been a natural outgrowth from this idea. Showroom Stock was truly that for a long time and remains much closer than IT is.
Another thing to consider is the reality of the cost of a car and its maintenance. Many of us have a great deal more invested than our original budgets were set at. Are the cars more competitive-that can be debated elsewhere. The simple fact is that what started out for me as a totally street legal car is now a trailered machine that still has the street stuff on it in working condition.

------------------
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

[lateapex911]

I can see your confusion, and you make some good points.

But there is often another opinion. I'll take the right side door glsas as an example. As pointed out above, lots of IT cars came from street backgrounds and while the dual purpose nature has been ebbing away for some time now, there are still guys (and gals!) who either street drive their IT cars, or store the outside, or at the very lest, trailer them in the elements. Having a way to keep gallons of water out of the car is a good thing. If the rule were changed, those folks would be at a competitive disadvantage to the cars that gutted the glass. They would need to either just accept it, or gut the glass and build a plexi window to fit when they drive it, or tow or store it. I feel that the CB had a strong tempation pulling at them when they relaxed the rules for the drivers side glass: safety. I am amazed at how so many cars don't take advantage of that offer!

In the end, I think we need to keep in mind that the CB is like the owner of an old house. They have a TON of items to attend to, and while they might like to do some of the "little things" like updating the now long in the tooth IT rules, they need to spend their time on bigger issues.

Like the recent "Book" that was anominously written and released, accusing the CB of 16 counts of various offenses. While the book ws mostly a bunch of BS from a disenfrachised former CB member (The popular consensus) it still had to be researched, and responded to. Which is a huge undertaking. Kinda like having your roof spring a huge leak in a big rainstorm. So things that we racers want get put on the back burner for awhile.

I'll be happy if we can push major items like classification formulas and performance competiton adjustments along. I'm happy to race with my door glass...one less part to make!

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[Don]

Originally posted by lateapex911:

I'll be happy if we can push major items like classification formulas and performance competiton adjustments along. I'm happy to race with my door glass...one less part to make!

This is the stuff I like to hear It makes for a better debate.
OK, what good is a adjustment if you can't reach the weight allready posted in the GCR?
From what I've been reading here allot of the more popular cars get down to the minimum weight no problem; but there are allot of cars on the fringes of being competive that cant get to the weight posted in the GCR without some rule changes on what can be removed. It you don't want water in you car the leave them in. I was presenting it as a choice not like Production were its required. On some of theses fringe cars they could drop the spec weight 200lbs but it wouldn't matter because they cant remove another ounce legaly. From your reponse it sounds like weight is not a problem for you?

Wiring, washers and horns ... this would just do the same make it easier to get to the weight allready posted in the GCR, and it would cut down on grey areas.
You stated about the people who drive there cars being at a disadvantage, what about the people allready at a disadvantage who cant get to the weight already listed in the GCR I think there are allot more of them and they are probably at a bigger disadvatage?



[This message has been edited by Don (edited November 28, 2003).]

[ddewhurst]

IIRC when Darin did a poll on this site of IT car weights the majority of the cars came in at the spec weight or owners stated that they could get to spec weight as the rules now exist. Sometimes people need to read & re-read the rules & the purpose/intent of IT BEFORE they start their car purchase/build. The same can be said for production. Some of those people should be involved in GT cars instead of continiously CREEPING the production rules.

Granted if the driver weighs 250 pounds it's a tough deal.

Back in the 60's production cars were similar to todays IT cars untill CREEP was allowed to take over.

Have Fun
David

[Don]

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
IIRC when Darin did a poll on this site of IT car weights the majority of the cars came in at the spec weight or owners stated that they could get to spec weight as the rules now exist.

Are you reading the "Minimum Achievable weights???" Post? Allot of those cars are 100/200 lbs over the weight listed in the GCR No use doing comp adjustment for those cars... they can't get to the weight now allowed per GCR.
So the big question is why not let it be up to the owner of the car as long as the weight doesn't drop below whats allready posted? Taking out the windows is feasable it costs nothing. Deleting the horn costs nothing (most IT cars dont have horn buttons anyway as they have quick disconect wheels). Removing a disconected heater core costs nothing. Replacing the factory harness with a simpler non stock harness if they choose to do that is a minimal cost.

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Sometimes people need to read & re-read the rules & the purpose/intent of IT BEFORE they start their car purchase/build.
Have Fun
David

I agree but before some one goes and turns the IT adjustments thing into affect why not try and let Owners of previously built cars get closer to what is already posted in the GCR. I all so think people need to re-read the statement in the front of the ITCS.. Its changed since the late 90's Most IT cars are real race cars and they arrive on a trailer.




[This message has been edited by Don (edited November 28, 2003).]

[Russ Myers]

Why do we have to go through this debate again and again. It really is very simple. The SCCA set up the classes, The SCCA makes the rules. We are the SCCA. If a rule seems to be not to your liking, there are procedures in the GCR to address these problems. And not everyone is turned down by the comp board.

Now, when you decided to jump into IT, certain rules were in place. you had to either accept these rules. or break them, your choice. Not all cars will be competetive, not all cars will make weight, not all cars will be fast. This brings up another choice, build a car you like, and have fun, or build (or buy) a car that will win. We all know what cars win on a regular basis.

The rules and intent of Improved Touring are all spelled out in the GCR. No, they don't all make sense, but we all have to play by them. If these rules are not satisfactory, I would suggest multiple tries at talking the CB into changing them, or building a car to run your local short oval, or buy a legends car, or run with NASA, or try NASCAR , or build a car for drag racing (you talk about #'s of classes), or maybe go-karts...
As you can see, there are plenty of places to race. Find one where you are happy.

Russ Myers
ITC Ford Fiesta
SSC Nissan Sentra SE-R (as you can see, I tilt at windmills, too. The CB hasen't given me what I want either, but I will STILL race.)

[Jake]

Great thread!! I am yet another one who can't get down to min weight, but I'm not allowed to take anything else out. I think it's just discrimination for people of average or more body weights. Maybe all they guys on the CB are really skinny?

You forgot my favorite bizarre rule:

Removing the passenger seat is legal, but you cannot put in a racing seat in its place. That's just plain silly.

[Knestis]

The club racing rules are a great case study in "incrementalism" in policy, where over time interests change a line here, a line there, and a third (or sixty-fifth) line somewhere else. We get a version of this in education where new policies are layered on top of existing ones and nobody asks if the assumptions of each change are in sync.

The GCR needs a complete edit/revision to clarify a thousand of these inconsistencies that have been allowed to sneak in there. (It's like getting pecked to death by ducks.) The problem would be that this would provide an opportunity for new interests to be imposed on the rules - "clarifying" issues in particular directions.

If I were facilitating this process, I would first ask stakeholders to come to consensus on first principles, so the underlying assumptions could be explicated before ANY detail decisions were made.

I've asked questions in this forum that try to get to that level (philosophies of what IT should be) and it still amazes me how little has been offered in response...

K

[Russ Myers]

If that were the case, then IT cars would become Prod cars and we wouldn't need IT.

Russ

[924Guy]

Honestly, Kirk, it's hard getting up enough motivation (having put up with the current state of affairs for so long, and been blown off) to put any further effort into the idea of reworking purpose and intent (in the form of first principles). Evidence IT2 - work all you want, you can still be ignored by the comp board. No, not everyone is shot down (or, more frequently, blown off) by the comp board - just most.

Here's my proposal - keep the level of prep about as it is, mostly just a suspension prep, with limited engine work, and spend more time on trying to get the field level!!! But then, we've been batting that old saw around for years now without progress.

------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITA/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com

[Geo]

Originally posted by 924Guy:
Honestly, Kirk, it's hard getting up enough motivation (having put up with the current state of affairs for so long, and been blown off)

Or perhaps there are so many agendas that heads would just spin. Just look at this forum. And it's only a tiny portion of the IT community. It's really easy to read this forum and believe everyone else believes the same things, but that would be wrong.

Originally posted by 924Guy:
No, not everyone is shot down (or, more frequently, blown off) by the comp board - just most.

Being rejected is not getting blown off. Well, step back and think about this for a moment. We want the CB to reject most proposals/requests. Why? Well, if not, we would have new rules every month for crying out loud.


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

[Jake]

Jake's consipiracy theory #18F: The largest stakeholders will be the most reluctant to change.

The people with most to lose, are the ones that benefit most from the status quo. Look around any paddock and see what I mean. You'll quickly find CRX's, 325i's, and other "car-to-have's" with $30-$40,000 invested. Not many people with uncompetitive cars are going to invest that type of money into theirs. I would guess that those with that much cash into their cars are going to be reluctant to any change at all (even if it totally logical).

[philstireservice]

(It's like getting pecked to death by ducks.)

that's a perfect description.....made me laugh out loud...lol

------------------
Phil Phillips
94 Acura Integra GSR #4
ITS/H3/ST1
www.philstireservice.com
Amsoil Dealer
distributor for FireCharger AFFF fire systems
Hoosier Tire Dealer
Toyo Tire Dealer

[Don]

Ok just reading the different posts, and different points of view
Russ its like you didn’t read what I wrote at all, and went off on your own tangent.....
I never said I was going to break any rules in fact I stated that I was going to put in a turn signal switch. I’m a big believer in adhering to the rules even if they don't make a whole lot of sense. I thought about production but the close ratio gear box, engine development, fender flares etc. just don’t make sense right now just to be able to remove 35 lbs of stuff from my legal IT car. If you think you can remove the items I suggested and be competitive in your class in production ; then I don't think you have a problem in IT then right

I have a question though. So far all the against reasons for the questions have been ... rules creep, lack of street ability, should have read the statement before year 2000 etc...... Could not all of those arguments be said for any mod allowed over the SS rules? I don’t hear anybody whining to put back in interior and headliners? The rain issue is pretty much nil to because you have to race with the windows down any way. I have done an open track in the rain and had to roll down my windows and got drenched. So if your interior is not rain proof you might as well not go racing or towing if there is a cloud in the sky, right?

I will probably move up from ITC sometime in the future and some of the coolest cars out there are not “the” cars to have. Early MR2’s -Fox bodied Mustang's - Early Celica's, -Neon ..... I'm sure there are others. I’m not sure if this will would help those cars but there are lots of cars that cant get to the GCR weight. Maybe the heater core, horn and passenger side glass won’t get there totally but it would take 30 minutes or less and wouldn’t cost a whole lot to try. In my limited observation it just seems that IT_ is spec _____ (insert five or less cars here) and maybe this could help out a few people without turning the GRC on its ear and costing more than a Big mac . . . I personally don't think that it will affect the intent and purpose of the class one bit. I thought letting cars get to the weight already published in the GCR would be common sense, before doing the adjustment reclassification hoopla
I’m not trying to cause an uproar at all I started this post to help in my understanding.


[This message has been edited by Don (edited November 29, 2003).]

[ddewhurst]

***Posted by George***

***Being rejected is not getting blown off. Well, step back and think about this for a moment. We want the CB to reject most proposals/requests. Why? Well, if not, we would have new rules every month for crying out loud.***

George, please read the following request to the Comp Board & then read their Fastrack response. Please take your time & understand GCR rule 18.1.2 & then tell me if the Comp Board rejected or blew off my question to them. (Their response is related to roll cage padding. No where in rule GCR 18.1.2 is anything specified about roll cage padding.)


***********From: DAVID DEWHURST <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Date: Saturday, March 30, 2002 11:13 AM
Subject: Protect drivers proactively

Kathy & Gentlemen, this memo is sent to the Competition Board with respect to GCR rule 18.1.2. A system of head restraint to prevent whiplash and rebound, and also to prevent the drivers head from striking the underside of the main hoop shall be installed on all vehicles.

When I read GCR rule 18.1.2 my understanding of the rule is that the integral or non-integral headrest construction and or implementation location is the creation of a system of head restraint to prevent whiplash and rebound, and also to prevent the drivers head/helmet from striking the underside of the main hoop.

If my understanding of GCR rule 18.1.2 is correct please forward confirmation.

If my understanding of GCR rule 18.1.2 is not correct please forward the Comp Board understanding of the rule.

If there is any further information that I may forward to clarify this memo before it is logged please contact David Dewhurst at [email protected]

Sincerely

David Dewhurst
SCCA CenDiv Milwaukee Region
member number 250772


Competition Board June, 2002 Fastrack response.

The following items have been previously addressed, are submitted for information only, or require no further action by the Competition Board.

7. Clarify drivers head restraint & relationship to the main hoop. (Dewhurst) Current rules regarding padding of the roll cage components are adequate.***********

The book of 16 stories could be greatly increased if all blown off members compiled an ongoing list. I understand the Comp Board has a thankless job but at the same time they don't help themselves with responses like their June, 2002 Fastrack to my question.

Have Fun
David

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Don:
Ok just reading the different posts, and different points of view
.... I have a question though. So far all the against reasons for the questions have been ... rules creep, lack of street ability, ....

OK, the big reason?? The CB has a s#$tload to do! Have you read FASTRACK??? They are drowning in requests and issues a lot bigger than some IT guys wanting to take their windows out. Sure the rule doesn't make perfect sense today, but as Kirk pointed out, it's a product of a timeline. Rewriting the rulebook would be appropriate, but in the CBs big picture, it is low on the list.

Maybe the heater core, horn and passenger side glass won’t get there totally but it would take 30 minutes or less and wouldn’t cost a whole lot to try.

30 minures to pull all that stuff out and put everything back togather?? I'd like to hire you as my mechanic!

Honestly, think about what you're saying. You want te rules ammended so you can make min weight. You know the guys who are already at min weight will pull the stuff too, then ballast where they need it. (yea, I know about balast rules, but there are tons of ways around that.) So, your trivial gain on the rest of the class is nearly nulified.

But even debating that point is moot, because PCAs won't, in my opinion, give the random underdog (the models that have little representation) a weight break. They will, I bet, try to bring the obvious overdogs back to the fold by adding weight to them.




------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[Don]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
30 minutes to pull all that stuff out and put everything back together?? I'd like to hire you as my mechanic!

Cool! that's what I do for a living I'm a national award winner From ASE too ( top composite test score in the nation)... how do you think I can afford to play with the rest of you?

Originally posted by lateapex911:
OK, the big reason?? The CB has a s#$tload to do! Have you read FASTRACK???
Honestly, think about what you're saying. You want the rules amended so you can make min weight. You know the guys who are already at min weight will pull the stuff too, then ballast where they need it. (yea, I know about ballast rules, but there are tons of ways around that.) So, your trivial gain on the rest of the class is nearly nullified.

That's just being ignorant, its not just me that can't get down to minimum weight. If you read posts for the last few months there are allot of people that cant get to minimum weight. Besides a kind soul from this board e-mailed me this morning and is going to sell me some early doors. There are allot of people that don't have that option under the back date rule like I do. If you had a choice to race at the spec weight or race at a higher one which one would you choose? Ballast or not!

Using your logic in the early days of IT, IT would have never existed ? You would have told early IT racers to just continue with SS and build / buy new cars? Or stop debating (whining) That SCCA officials have more to do than be bothered with the new IT class rules? Perspective changes quite rapidly does it not?

I was addressing some very outdated rules, the one I want to see is the wiring harness (just try to find a good harness after 20+ years, looks like I will be repairing this winter ) The others would be icing on the cake. Trivial gain.... maybe if your at the front and have a BMW or Mazda (I love Mazdas support system all companies should be so involved) There are some people that just would like to drop out a few pounds legally and inexpensively to get closer to the spec weight already in the GCR. That's not as awful or self serving as you may think .... What are you afraid of ? Its not going to cost anything , well maybe 20 bucks if you need a wrench. Its not going reduce the spec weight; it will just get some people closer to it.




[This message has been edited by Don (edited November 29, 2003).]

[Geo]

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
George, please read the following request to the Comp Board & then read their Fastrack response. Please take your time & understand GCR rule 18.1.2 & then tell me if the Comp Board rejected or blew off my question to them.

David, I'm not trying to be a smarty-pants or a CB stooge, but I have absolutely zero knowledge of what took place, so I don't feel I can comment on that.

I can understand why you feel you were blown off.

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
The book of 16 stories could be greatly increased if all blown off members compiled an ongoing list. I understand the Comp Board has a thankless job but at the same time they don't help themselves with responses like their June, 2002 Fastrack to my question.

I really think part of the problem is the limited amount of space in Fastrack that can be dedicated to responses. I fully (and honestly) believe that often long well thought out answers simply get condensed down to one or two lines. I do know for a fact that many questions that have been asked of the CB related to IT this has happened.

I suspect (but again, have zero actual knowledge of this situation) that in your case the CB was simply trying to say that the current rules are adequate as written. I won't debate whether it's true in this case or not. I simply believe that's it's mostly miscommunication.

Sorry if you think I skirted the question. I just don't know if I can give you a more accurate answer.



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

[Geo]

Originally posted by Don:
That's just being ignorant...

I don't see it that way.


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