rewiring rules

[Joe Harlan]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">No where in the rules are you allowed aftermarket connectors.</font>

Actually its is covered and legal under the current rule, You are just trying to hard not to see it. Making the best attempt to repair to the factory standard is all that is needed. If a protest were actually upheld by a steward I think it would be overturned in the COA.

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Actually its is covered and legal under the current rule, You are just trying to hard not to see it. Making the best attempt to repair to the factory standard is all that is needed. If a protest were actually upheld by a steward I think it would be overturned in the COA.

No where in my factory procedures is an aftermarket connector allowed. And if it doesn't say you can then you can't. My best attempt to repair to factory standards would include mil spec connectors as radio shack does not make anything suitable. Does that mean that mil spec connectors are allowed? If radio shack is allowed than you just opened the door to anything. The only procedure I've seen a factory tech use when a replacement connector wasn't available was to cut the broken connector out and solder the leads together. Is that an allowable repair? If so I can hear the sound of a hundred pairs of dykes snipping wires and removing connectors as we speak. I'm not trying hard not to see what you want, I'm trying to see what else is allowed under your interpretation, including all of the unintended consequences.

What's obvious to one person is not necessarily obvious to everyone. Do we really think a hundred stewards across the country are going to have the same intepretation on when one repair is okay and when it offers a performance advantage and should be penalized? And the COA doesn't use precedents so everytime this comes up it might get be decided in your favor or it might not.

If it is allowed (which by your interpretation would have to include the allowance for mil spec connectors) why isn't it clearly stated in the rules? The only thing obvious is everyone has a different interpretation of what the current rules allow and how far a competitor has to go before they protest them. If the rule is that unclear than a change serves more good than bad.

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

[This message has been edited by Matt Rowe (edited December 28, 2004).]

[Knestis]

My Golf was throwing a "vehicle speed sensor" code and, after farting around with a new sensor and even different guage cluster, we bypassed the wire in the bundle with a long jumper, replicating the original wire between the two. Now, am I...

A) AOK under the repair clause?
A big, stinky cheater?
C) Not a big cheater but screwed if I get protested?

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited December 28, 2004).]

[pfcs]

"D" supporting this nonsensical thread by feedin it. I'm outa here!

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

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Knestis:
My Golf was throwing a "vehicle speed sensor" code and, after farting around with a new sensor and even different guage cluster, we bypassed the wire in the bundle with a long jumper, replicating the original wire between the two. Now, am I...

A) AOK under the repair clause?
A big, stinky cheater?
C) Not a big cheater but screwed if I get protested?

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited December 28, 2004).]

Keeping in mind this is just my interpretation:

If you didn't bypass any connector while laying in a new wire than I would say A. If you did bypass a connector than it might be A it might be C, it depends on how the steward interprets the rule.

Now take the case where the bulkhead connector in a car cracks, new parts and servicable used parts aren't available. A comparable bulkhead connector is used to replace it. Apply your same choices.

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

[Joe Harlan]

Again I think you are reaching to extremes Matt and this has becme a waste of time. Call the dealer and ask them what they would do to fix a connector that is no longer available...That would be the current factory standard and legal per the book.

Kirk if the OEM wire was bad and you replaced it with a factory equivalent part no issue.

[DavidM]

Ok. I've been reading this thread with interest because the ITA car I'm buying should have the wiring harness replaced to prevent electrical gremlins according to the current owner. The options I see for doing this are:

1) Get a used harness from a junk yard and use in its entirety. This harness may not be in much better shape than the one I have. This appears to be legal.

2) Get a used harness and go through it and repair or replace bad wires and connectors. Seems like this may be legal if I use the same color wires and connectors. It's not legal if I use different color wires and "radio shack" connectors.

3) Get a new harness. This assumes that I actually can get a new harness. This is gonna run a few hundred bucks I figure. This appears to be legal.

4) Fabricate my own harness. This will be very time consuming, but could result in a much more efficient and clean harness at the end. This could be fairly cheap or could be costly depending on the parts used. This is not legal.

5) Go through the harness in the car and repair or replace wires and connectors as needed. This is pretty much the same as #2 and may or may not be legal depending on the color of the wires and the connectors used.

Have I missed anything? Nothing like a case study.

I'm going to do what makes the most sense and is the easiest to accomplish. I've got better things to do than spend time building a harness so #4 is out (not to say that somebody else wouldn't do this, but I won't). #2 and #3 seem to be the best options. I'll see if I can find a new harness and if it's not too, too expensive that's probably what I'll do. If it's too expensive or I can't get one, then it's #2. I'll repair or replace parts on the donor harness as needed. And I won't be worrying about wire color or connector type. If some a-hole wants to protest the color of my wires because I got one spot closer to the plastic trophy than them, so be it. What comes around, goes around.

I'll be at the back of the pack this year anyways, so I don't think I'll have any problems. Hopefully I'll move up towards the front, though, as my driving skills catch up with the car.

I'm a newb at this, but it seems to me the intent of IT is to provide a class where it's relatively easy and has a comparatively low cost to go racing. At least, I think this is why a lot of people are attracted to IT. So, it seems rules should keep this philosophy in mind. Any rule change that makes things simpler and/or cheaper would seem like a good thing to me. I like simple and I defintely like cheap. Note that simpler and cheaper don't necessarily equate to slower.

I personally think the rule should be changed so that somebody can repair/replace their wiring harness in whatever manner suits them best without the possibility of them being illegal. There may be some case out there where somebody has band-aided their wiring harness all they can and no new or used ones are available. Their only option may be to build their own. I think they should be able to do that. If this means some rich dude can go out and spend $5k on gold-plated mil spec connectors, such is life. Wish I could do that. There's always going to be somebody who can spend butt loads of money on their car. I don't think a rule can be limited by these people if it makes life easier for a majority of the people. Especially if the competitive advantage afforded to the rich people is not that great.

Seems like IT rules should be geared towards making racing as cheap and easy as possible while maintaining as level a playing field as possible. I'm still learning, but from the discussions I've seen here I would guestion whether this was taken into account when some of the rules were written. People with more money are always going to be able to build faster cars. That's just a fact of life. I don't know that attempting to write the rules to keep this from happening is very beneficial.

I don't know if this has added anything to the discussion, but it kept me busy at work for a while . I'll go back to lurking now.

David

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by pfcs:
Dear Bill, Yes, of course I have retained my factory seatbelts on both sides. And in my estimation my car (anA2 VW) is quite competetive. Do you think I'm an overdog?

Did you also keep the cat? Will the car actually pass the state emissions test(NJ has pretty tough standards)? Not sure where you're racing, or who you're racing against, but I just don't see a full-on A2 Golf being competitive in ITB. I know guys w/ very well prepped versions, that are good drivers, that have to work for wins at Summit Point.

regarding being thought of as a stereotypical fossil: my issue has always been what I refer to as an "SCCA nerd" .
An SN is forever thinking about uneccesary miutiae, ready to argue/discuss ad nauseum about rules BS but unwilling to do like Jake and file a sensible/appropriate protest. My biggest fear is finding an SN who is chief tech inspector and wants to DQ me because of a butt connector in my harness. Funny thing, tho-that's never happened. Seems the average SCCA official is more sensible than a lot of people in this conversation.

So which is it, being sensible, or following the rules. Unfortunately, it happens all too often that stuff gets ignored, or people look the other way, because they feel that it doesn't matter. As I said, a root cause of rules creep.


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

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Again I think you are reaching to extremes Matt and this has becme a waste of time. Call the dealer and ask them what they would do to fix a connector that is no longer available...That would be the current factory standard and legal per the book.

Actually I think your interpretation reaches to extremes I'm just trying to follow your logic, and others, to see how the rule is interpretted. So your saying if my local dealer (who here doesn't know a dealer that will say anything they want them to) tells me it's okay to either remove a broken connector and hard solder it or replace it with an alternate connector from a supply house than that is okay?

Do we really allow what any dealer says to become a factory authorized procedure? I'm pretty sure there are some BMW guys that would like the rear subframe body mounts welded based on their local dealer reccommendations.

Again, I'm trying to understand how the rule is being interpretted since a large number of people seem to think the current rules will work for all situations.


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

[seckerich]

I see most of the posts on this thread looking at their perceived extremes to justify major rules creep. Repairs are covered in the ITCS if you are reasonable. I guess since the spot weld procedure for repair of a right quarter is not spelled out in the book I need to throw my car away and go to production if I dent it? Do I need national to spell this out for you or is there some common sense here? If no harness is available for a car and none can be sourced there is a process to have parts listed on a vehicle spec page. Every repair ever needed for a car is not spelled out for you and using that arguement to open the harness rule is a useless stretch of reason. Using A Sedan as a precedent is useless as they are carbs and will not benefit from the rule. It is hard enough to find hidden sensors now without open harness rules. You piss and moan about Motec and $5000.00 harnesses and want to open the door further with a totally unecessary rule. Most that whine about money show up in a car that never saw a can of degreaser in its life and think that the flashy paint and money are winning and not a well prepared car built with more work than money. On to a thread with hopefully some reason and sanity.

Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
Actually I think your interpretation reaches to extremes I'm just trying to follow your logic, and others, to see how the rule is interpretted. So your saying if my local dealer (who here doesn't know a dealer that will say anything they want them to) tells me it's okay to either remove a broken connector and hard solder it or replace it with an alternate connector from a supply house than that is okay?

Do we really allow what any dealer says to become a factory authorized procedure? I'm pretty sure there are some BMW guys that would like the rear subframe body mounts welded based on their local dealer reccommendations.

Again, I'm trying to understand how the rule is being interpretted since a large number of people seem to think the current rules will work for all situations.

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by Knestis:

4. RE: trying to limit construction, material, and other attributes of allowed replacement harnesses: It is impossible to anticipate and legislate against every possible idea that someone might try. Writing a rule defnining what is NOT allowed will ALWAYS leave room for new, clever interpretations.

5. Those interpretations are the root of unintended consequences and rules creep. This is the TRUE potential downside of proposed changes to the wiring rules.

Since I don't want to further this too much more, I'll simply address this part.

If you reread my suggested rule you'll see it's not telling you what you can't do, it's telling you what you can, and what you must do to take advantage of the rule. It sets requirements, not restrictions. Look again-

The stock wiring harness may be used or may be repaired or replaced as a whole or in part. No matter the harness used, it will conform to the following:
1) All original electrical functions shall be preserved. If an item is specifically allowed to be removed by the ITCS, any wiring associated solely with this item may be removed.
2) Wire conductor material, including conductors within the connectors, 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 routing and connectors are free. Length may be changed to accommodate re- routing, but the full electrical path to the item must be preserved.
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 all connectors, wire color, wire gauge, and any connections the wire makes with any component or other wires.



Yes, there are some minor differences, which is why I reposted it here. These differences are to accomodate issues brought up in this discussion (see, I do listen sometimes). Yeah, it's complicated, but it should be pretty clear. Honestly, I think numbers 4 and 5 could be eliminated (I think they're redundant), but I included them tobe crystal clear in my intent.

Anyway, it's probably a moot point anyway, so I'll go back to my technical discussions in other threads and stop preaching and whining...



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

[miketrier]

I vote for open wiring in IT. I just don't see where it can make much difference in performance over the open wiring we currently have for plug and distributor wires. Maybe my interpretation of the philosophy of the class differs from others. IT cars are not (for the most part) street-driven and there is not reason to pretend they are. IT means low-cost, mildly modified (primarily for reliability and safety) race cars. IT needs to avoid becoming a money-spending contest like Prod and GT. Nevertheless, cheap, labor-intensive but low-cost reliability enhancements and things that make the cars easier to maintain should be allowed. IT racing is for fun and DNF's are not fun. Requiring stock wiring harnesses on 20 year-old cars is silly at best.

[Bill Miller]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">IT means low-cost, mildly modified (primarily for reliability and safety) race cars. IT needs to avoid becoming a money-spending contest like Prod and GT</font>

I hate to say it, but this went out about the time the cars became dedicated race cars, and were no longer dual-purpose. If you don't think ITS (especially) and ITA are money-spending contests, you haven't been spending much time on this board or at the track.

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