rewiring rules

[dickita15]

I have now reflected on George’s suggestion that cars with degrading harnesses should leave IT for production as rewiring these old cars without factory pin connectors would reek havoc with the principals on which IT was founded, and possibly cause dogs to lay down with cats. After much soul searching I have decided that moving to a class with an average field around these parts of 3 cars instead of 30 and spending more money than I have made in the last five years to do it, is not for the best. It would be cheaper to push our old cars off a cliff and all buy Crx’s.

Given that, what would a rule look like that would allow simple race prep for old cars and still not have unintended consequences. One of the values of this board is to punch holes in ideas, so if the rule was as follows what could some of the unintended repercussions be.

“Wiring may be repaired, replaced or rerouted in order to create a safe reliable racecar. No above alterations may perform any function not performed by the original wiring harness.”
Dick Patullo
NER ITA Rx7
[email protected]

[jc836]

Dick:
I am inclined to agree with the general principle here. Actually, as I read it, the rules do allow one to add to the existing harness and repair it using material that conforms to the original design. I have no problem with anyone doing a full rewire if the original number of conductors and their purpose in the cable is unchanged. How this can be enforced is another matter entirely.
Then again I personally believe that it is appropriate to allow the disconnection of wiring and removal from the bundle into a storage packet of conductors. For that matter, other than weight, why keep them in the car at all-spirit of class (?). I happen to be a bit extreme with wiring and use MIL spec teflon coated aviation/aerospace grade wire-is that wrong? I have both 16ga and 18ga on spools here. The problem is that the wire comes to me in White and I have to tag each. I have only done this with the add-ons (gauges, etc).
The large issue that we need to confront is rules "creep." As I noted in my previous answer, there is an unwillingness on the part of the CRB to allow changes; could be for this reason. My CRX will eventually need something of a rewire in the main harness. My preference is to use materials that are able to withstand the environment of a race car better than others. The rules do not allow this as I read them. Would this be creep-I think not as it makes the car somewhat safer. As to pinouts and connectors-they can be reworked (time consuming) and should be kept as that is part of the spirit of the class.

Just another thought.

Happy holidays

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

[Ron Earp]

Dick,

I am pleased to see that I am not the only one on this forum that felt that George's suggestion to run production in lieu of IT due to wiring harness issues was off in left field. I personally feel it ludicrous to suggest such a thing in light of the situation and how many people it could potentially affect.

IT is SCCAs entry level into the world of competitive motorsports and after being here for a few months I can see where newbies sometimes don't stick with it for reasons related to rules. They should be simple, easy to understand, and more importantly, the rules should foster the building and construction of safe and reliable race cars. Yes, race cars, because that is what we have in IT (actually, mine will be street legal if I can wire the signals up and there are no emissions on my old dog) and to pretend otherwise is a folly.

I am going to give this some thought and see if I can help some with the wording of the rule.

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
My electrons don't care if they flow through OEM wires, do yours?

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 25, 2004).]

[lateapex911]

Well, it's all about drawing a line in the sand, isn't it???

Dick, I like your rule, but tell me why you included "reroute"?

You know that word will be used to tie the entire harness in a bundle where the competitor thinks the weight will serve him best, while extending the two or three wires he actually needs. Tortured? Perhaps, but you and I both know that will happen.

I DO wish the rule were more open in it's wording so as to allow equivilent connectors, parallel wires to replace ones with multiple faults, but I draw my line where the harness is effectively eliminated.

As you point out, many of the wires aren't needed, but others complain that they will start fires, etc. Most cars have fuses, of course, but what's to stop us from just taking a 1/4" snip out of uneeded wires?

To some degree, this situation is worse than the washer bottle!

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

[Knestis]

I'll play along. I frankly wouldn't mind at all being able to start from scratch, too - if not on this Golf then maybe on the one that I'm building in my head.

That car will be an "additive" construction, starting with a completely stripped shell and putting on only the parts needed to get the job done. This, in contrast to the "subtractive" approach applied by most IT builders, where things tend to remain as-delivered until actively removed.

I'd start by asking if this new rule would allow me to actively disable functions that are not specifically mentioned in the ITCS - turn signals for example: It doesn't say that I can kill them so aren't they supposed to work?

K

[C. Ludwig]

I'm on board here for no other reason that the harnesses and more so there sheathing is old, crack, and outside the cockpit always nasty and oil covered. I too am building a new, clean-sheet car in my head. The shell will be stripped to the bone and repainted before I start and just the thought of adding a 20 year old, oily harness back the engine bay makes me cringe.

A minimum weight is already speced. There is a potential with complete removal and rewire to shift the weight balance but any balast still has to be added in the passenger footwell so that effect is not entirely huge.

I work at an assembly plant. I did electrical repair on production vehicles for a couple years. I can assure George that repairing to factory specs is not always as pretty as his imagination is leading him to believe and would not always pass his interpretation of the rule.

I've had to buy two harnesses for my current car. Both used. They're still available new from Mazda but come from Japan (weeks of delivery time) and are MUCH more expensive than I could do the wiring for myself. I'm not a huge fan of buying used harnesses because all of them I've ever pulled from RX-7s were in the same shape to one degree or other. Dry rotted from the extreme underhood temps.

Write up a good, strong rule proposal that is for a maintanence and ease and QUALITY of build purpose only. And I will write a letter in support.

------------------
Chris Ludwig
08 ITS RX7 CenDiv

[This message has been edited by C. Ludwig (edited December 25, 2004).]

[dickita15]

jake
under my interpretation of what I wrote i think you could heave the old harness and build a new one that only does what you need to race. maybe some do not like where I have drawn that line but like chris I would love to get rid of that dirty oily snake that shed it's skin all over my car. same logic as when many people wanted to get rid of ugly door panels. just trying to make a tidier race car. This is something that was added to A sedan a year or so ago so it is not unprecidented.
by the way to run my car requires: ignition, starter, fan, brake lights, transponder, wipers and defroster. 7 wires and off the top of my head i think it is legal to rewire at least 4 of them now.
dick

[Speed Raycer]

"Simple" Stock harness must remain. Allow the repair to the stock harness or the installation of additional wiring, but stock harness must remain in original location (allowed to be relocated IN PART for rollcage installation). Stock ECU harness and connector must remain.

------------------
Scott Rhea
It's not what you build...
it's how you build it

Izzy's Custom Cages

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by Speed Raycer:
"Simple" Stock harness must remain. Allow the repair to the stock harness or the installation of additional wiring, but stock harness must remain in original location (allowed to be relocated IN PART for rollcage installation). Stock ECU harness and connector must remain.

See this is exactly the problem with the current rule. Try this on for size---

The stock wiring harness may be used or may be repaired or replaced as a whole or it part. If a replacement harness is used, it will conform to the following:
1) All original electrical functions must be preserved unless specifically allowed to be removed by the ITCS.
2) Wire conductor material shall remain as stock.
3) Wire gauge may be increased over stock, but the stock guage (as specifified in the FSM) shall be the minimum size.
4) Wire length, routing, and connectors are free.
5) No wires may be added to perform any prohibited function (i.e. non-stock sensors or add-on controllers).
6) The competitor shall be able to immediately provide, upon request, a simple wiring diagram that shows any replacement wires. This diagram shall simply note location of wiring within any connector, wire color, wire gauge, and any connections the wire makes with any component or other wires.

The intent of this rule is to allow upgrades of the stock wiring system and to eliminate issues with the lack of availability of factory wire and connectors. This is not meant to sllow wholesale removal of "unnecessary" wiring, nor to allow added wiring for functions prohibited by the ITCS.

Please notice that the above rule is very work-intensive so as to discourage any attempts to quickly circumvent the rules, but does allow the freedom to pursue lower cost alternatives for materials (vs. factory pieces). This is not meant to be a simple "just do it" type of rule, but is meant to make the person really do it right (any custom wiring job should have a diagram and such available anyway...).

Sorry guys, I don't write 'em simple- I write 'em to make it some work "cost" to do it right (labor time, not parts cost).

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

[ShelbyRacer]

Oh, also meant to say-

If you're not going to prohibit aftermarket engine controllers, then eliminate the stupid "stock box, stock connector" fiasco and make it possible for more people to actually use them.

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

[C. Ludwig]

Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
Oh, also meant to say-

If you're not going to prohibit aftermarket engine controllers, then eliminate the stupid "stock box, stock connector" fiasco and make it possible for more people to actually use them.

YES! I think I've said that somewhere before. I'll say it again. I'd like to see us put the genie back in the bottle. But if that won't happen let's make it easier and cheaper to take advantage of the rule.


------------------
Chris Ludwig
08 ITS RX7 CenDiv

[Geo]

Originally posted by dickita15:
I have now reflected on George’s suggestion that cars with degrading harnesses should leave IT for production as rewiring these old cars without factory pin connectors would reek havoc with the principals on which IT was founded, and possibly cause dogs to lay down with cats.

Whoa there big fella.

I merely pointed out that there were options for people who didn't want to deal with the current rule as written. Moment of choice. Fix wiring harness per current rule or move to production. I was further pointing out that such IT cars would not be without value because there was this option.

Methinks you're twisting my words a bit. I was pointing out the current options. To suggest otherwise is a bit unfair.

Don't forget I also pointed out that I may be facing the same issue.

As to Ron's suggestion that what I wrote was out of left field... It is not. It's simply the reality of the rules today.


------------------
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 C. Ludwig:
I can assure George that repairing to factory specs is not always as pretty as his imagination is leading him to believe and would not always pass his interpretation of the rule.

Chris, please explain to me how you know what my imagination is.


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

[Ron Earp]

As to Ron's suggestion that what I wrote was out of left field... It is not. It's simply the reality of the rules today.

George, as you've mentioned before people interpret rules differently. I feel your interpretation of this rule and the suggestion of how to deal with it is out in left field simply because of what I see running on the grid in the SE.

I also say left field because there is a rule on the books, this one involving harnesses, that seems to be flawed to many people. Your suggestion is to not look at the rule and suggest changes so as to accomidate running cars and cars that might be running soon, but instead you point out that it might be a good option for those cars to go run production. The rule is the issue here on the thread, not the cars.

I'd like to suggest we all stop bickering and get back to crafting a reasonable and usable rule. Shelbyracers suggestion looks like a good start.

Ron

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
My electrons don't care if they flow through OEM wires, do yours?

[dickita15]

Originally posted by Geo:
Whoa there big fella.

I merely pointed out that there were options for people who didn't want to deal with the current rule as written. Moment of choice. Fix wiring harness per current rule or move to production. I was further pointing out that such IT cars would not be without value because there was this option.

well yes you are right but the option of moving to production could be percieved as a little bit of a harsh solution to what seems like a simple problem

Originally posted by Geo:

Methinks you're twisting my words a bit. I was pointing out the current options. To suggest otherwise is a bit unfair.

well yea of course, but only in the finest internet tradition

Originally posted by Geo:

As to Ron's suggestion that what I wrote was out of left field... It is not. It's simply the reality of the rules today.

Yes it may be the reality, but to ron it may seem like a very drastic statement.
dick

[Ron Earp]

I'd suggest two changes which are marked with below with *.


3) Wire gauge may be increased over stock, but the stock gauge (as specifified in the FSM) shall be the minimum size. *If no minimum size is specified then appropriate wire gauge must be used to carry expected current and voltage loads.*

4) Wire length, routing, and connectors are free and *must be of sufficent size to handle expected current and voltage requirements.*

[dickita15]

do you guys think it is really neccecary to say how good the harness has to be. I mean if a guys builds to light a harness won't that fix itself when the car stops. and as a tech inspector how would i judge if it was heavy enough for expected loads. if it does not catch fire it is heavy enough.
I think you should focus on keeping people from doing unintended things instead of minimum construction standards.
dick

[Ron Earp]

You are probably correct. Making rules to define what is "proper" probably makes no sense given we have a tech inspection and "real life consequences" to take care of things that are constructed improperly. Lots of OEM harnesses are not done correctly to carry loadsd imposed on them.

[Knestis]

Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
... If a replacement harness is used, it will conform to the following:

1) All original electrical functions must be preserved unless specifically allowed to be removed by the ITCS. ...

4) Wire length, routing, and connectors are free.

Understanding that I'm talking about a 1996 VW Golf, all of which appear to have come with the same harness regardless of how they were optioned from the factory in Mexico...

By "original" do you mean to include the "electrical functions" that my actual car came with, including those associated with parts I can remove per the ITCS (e.g., stereo and ABS) or can I "remove" wires associated with removed components?

Does my "replacement harness" have to replicate wires that were in the original harness, but associated with options that I didn't actually have (e.g., the heated seat option)?

Can I build a "replacement" harness that replicates a hypothetical minimum "base model" appointments for my car (e.g., the Citi model), whether that part exists in the VW parts catalog or not? I'd be tempted to whip out an update-backdate defense on this one.

Can I build one that literally includes only the minimum functions necessary to make it go (a la Dick's "7 wires")?

Regardless of intent - explicit or otherwise - the point at which you include clause #4, you have opened the door and allowed me to do all kinds of things. I'll leave out whatever wires I want and argue that the wires are actually there, only infinitely short - "any length."

Hyperbole aside, this wording creates another example of the very bind that kicked off this issue, wherein the specifics of a rule seem to be contradictory to its intent.

Geo gets at this when he applies the "if it says you can, you damn well can" thinking - and there is something to that. Regardless of intent, its the language of the rules that gets inforced.

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited December 26, 2004).]

[pfcs]

how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Does anal compulsive have a hyphen? you guys wear me out! You cannot prescribe perfection-at some point you just get in it's way. Fix/re-fabricate a wiring harness for a Jensen-Healy and I'd guarantee you no one will care. I drove a very competive ITB Volvo with a trailer hitch receiver-clearly outside the rules and clearly visible-and it was never protested, including a trip to the teck/impund shed at ARRC (4th 95). Competitors paid to look at my engine twice however-part of the acceptance process when no-one thought of a Vovo as fast.
Also, a a general point: if it ain't broke, don't try fixin it! I'm still upset that the club dropped the original dual purpose clause. For you newcomers, IT was envisioned as a "true dual purpose class" whereby your racecar was streetable. I still drive to events, not that there's any good reason to other than its really fun and easy. The strange thing about IT is that it's worked so well (what's simplest works best) and it was so simple. Everyone seems to think they can improve it. Please GIVE UP! As others have said before, beware of meddling with rules; sometimes the consequences are unexpected. Take for example all this controversey about changing crank pulleys: how has this class survived for 20 years without being able to change crank pulleys? There's certainly a compelling need to change that situation. Consider the Audi coupe, already able to accelerate smartly. And its waterpump is driven by the cam-belt like so many of the newer cars. But it's crankshaft pulley weighs 10lbs 2oz! and is 8" in diameter. If I drove and Audi, then I'd certainly cut myself a new small/light pulley on my lathe-not to do so would be downright stupid! It would serve me but would it serve the rest of the community? You'd all have to play catch up. The class was once great because of the sense of community it had. Most of the competitors were and still are reaonable, sensible people who do it for fun and for the challenge of maxing out car prep within the context of the rules. I'm real clear that ther is no need to rewrite the IT rulebook, drastically or even slightly. Don't screw up a good thing. phil



------------------
phil hunt