rewiring rules

[Ron Earp]

Something like this then? This was the switch panel portion, I also have a instrument panel portion as well.

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by Knestis:

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?

---snip---

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.

Yup, you're exactly right, which is why I offered that as a starting point.

How about changing to read-

1) All original electrical functions must be preserved. If an item is specifically allowed to be removed by the ITCS, any wiring associated solely with this item may be removed.

AND

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.

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

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by 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.

Yes, but what is to stock someone from running telephone wire (32 ga) to items he/she would "never use" like turn signals and such? I do not agree with the language which makes someone make a judgement about what is "sufficient". I try to only use absolutes, such as those specs from the FSM. I think that the amount of things not mentioned in the FSM as far as wiring would be relatively insignificant.

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

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by pfcs:
Fix/re-fabricate a wiring harness for a Jensen-Healy and I'd guarantee you no one will care.

Right, but rewire an E36 BMW and watch how fast the protests roll in. Why would you do that? Well, what if I could get a fire victim really cheap, but I can't afford to buy a new harness and connectors and such? Why would we stop someone from attempting to build a competitive car inexpensively?

Originally posted by pfcs:
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.

Right, and my language would give you the ability to rewire your car completely or in part, but would NOT penalize you since you needed to keep functions like turn signals, lights, wipers, etc.

Originally posted by pfcs:
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!

Right. However, if anyone would have seen the rule change as submitted, that issue was addressed! Problem is, either CRB or the ITAC didn't feel it was that important. Hopefully, my friend who submitted the change will post the original rule change language so that we can see it.

I supplied the above language not as an exercise in discussion, NOT as something that I'd submit. Why? Because that whole thing would've probably been reduced down to Dick's original suggestion anyway, which allows MUCH more latitude in interpretation.

This is exactly why I've said, and I still say, IT needs to do the following-

#1- Establish a real class intent statement and long range plan.
#2- Rewrite the current rulebook so that things align with that statement and plan.
#3- Make changes in the future based on that statement and plan.

If this is done, the phrase "class philosophy" may actually have some meaning, and the overall intent of the rules can be established. If this is done, then it *should* tend to make protest and appeal verdicts more consistent, as the people who make the decisions can get a larger view of the purpose based on it. If the rules made more sense as a whole unit, we could stop with a lot of this stupid isolated-rule-interpretation process that has us where we are now.

Would it ever be perfect? No. Would it be more consistently imperfect? Hopefully. Don't just treat the symptoms, cure the disease.

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

[Bill Miller]

#1- Establish a real class intent statement and long range plan.
#2- Rewrite the current rulebook so that things align with that statement and plan.
#3- Make changes in the future based on that statement and plan.

There you have it ladies and gentlemen, probably the single most logical post, made on this board. Please read it again!


Bravo Matt!

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

[Ron Earp]

Matt, that is the shiznit. If this were done, in a modern setting with the curretly active people in the class, it would appear that we'd have something that was a little different from the "class intent" I've read referenced from twenty years ago.

Incidentally, I am one of the "new" people here for sure and I will be able to drive my car to the track. It'll be inspected with all proper working bits, albeit through my harness, but it'll be there. Don't know if I will drive it there since the closest is 1.5 hours and if something breaks......

How many people actually drive there car to the track? 1 in 50? I haven't been that much, only 4-5 races, but have never seen it happen.

Ron

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

[Knestis]

I drove my car to every event that I ran this year, including driver school at Roebling Road, the Blue Ridge hillclimb, and misc events at VIR and CMP. We trailered to the 13 hours simply because we had so much crap to bring anyway...

A revision to the category intent statement would be great - as long as it agreed with my personal philosophy.

Seriously - what standard would be applied? If the CRB met and made the decision, would everyone concerned about this plan buy into the new vision, simply because it had been annointed by the PTB (the powers-that-be)?

I suspect that about 1/3 of the entire active IT membership would be PO'd about whatever decision was made, were a substantive revision to come about.

K

[Diane]

Originally posted by rlearp:
How many people actually drive there car to the track? 1 in 50? I haven't been that much, only 4-5 races, but have never seen it happen.

I do. LRP is about 90 mins away, NHIS is 3 hours. If Tim goes with me there is obviously a support vehicle but I have gone to LRP alone with the tires in the back of the car (hottest day of the year too, right guys?). I am half thinking of a test and tune at NHIS next June by myself, possibly without the tow vehicle.

At the risk of annoying people, which I try hard not to do on this forum, I agree 100% with Phil.

All of us who run IT knew the rules when we picked our class. We picked our cars for different reasons (I picked mine because I owned one and liked it and they do OK in some parts of the country, and sometimes I like a challenge. Not the way to win but I have FUN). But whatever the reason, in 95% of the cases, we knew which class our car was going to be in before we put a tire on the track. We knew roughly how competitive it was or how competitive we hoped it would be. We knew the rules because we had GCRs. We all made this choice willingly so why decide you don't like it now that you're here?

This is a choice we made. There are other racing organizations out there. There are other classes in SCCA. There are clubs that just do track time. There are Test & Tune days (talk about minimal rules for cars other than safety!)

I like IT because of the philosophy of the place where SS cars could play when they were too old for SS. I like the fact that if *I* were a better driver, my car could actually be a decent competitor and still be street legal (OK so the 150K motor needs to go but...). I love driving my car on the street, despite the countless times I have hit the window net clip with my head when exiting. Showroom Stock is minimal mods, IT should not be that far above it!

If I wanted all the rule changes that some of you are dreaming of, I'd be looking at Production.

If a complete overhaul and rewrite is successful, it will not be the end-all for IT. I promise you that in 5 years people will be complaining again and in 10 years there will be another group clamoring for a complete rewrite.

And for those that comment that people show up at an event with a tractor trailer, that's never going to change. I've seen people show up at an autox with some incredible rigs. Same with Showroom Stock. There will always be those that have more. That should have nothing to do with the intent of the class, it's just human nature and it happens in every sport you can imagine.

The simple fact is that we are not racing for money. We are racing for plastic or wooden trophies at best. And it's supposed to be FUN.



Diane
Ford Escort GT ITB #26
NER SCCA

[pfcs]

Hooray Diane! Very well put and right on. All you bozzos trying to rewrite history, please take a few minutes (weeks?) to review some of the endless, ad-nauseum, pointy headed, endless, unproductive, unresolved, ......discussions on this site. Do you really think you could ever reach a consensus? Who'd get the last word? You really think you could write better rules than the original ones? (which were, incidently, the 1963 production car rules as far as I know)I seriously doubt it.
And regarding E36 wiring harnesses-you'd be way ahead of yourself to pick up one used, a lot easier and cheaper than fabbing one. I'd be quite suspicious of anyone who would go to the trouble of fabricating one.

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

[pfcs]

PS: not trying to be a total old fart, it's just in my nature.
regarding the intent statement: I agree with Diane and Kirk. If we could agree on an intent satement that satisfied us three, it probably would be wonderful. And that is all we'd need-just that intent statement. All future revisions/appeals, etc, would reflect off that statement and the class would be preserved as God intended it! Utopia! NOT!
I'd want the last word, but Bill Miller or some bozzo would get it. Phil, always a troublemaker, Hunt PS: Merry Christmas to all.

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

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by pfcs:
All you bozzos trying to rewrite history, please take a few minutes (weeks?) to review some of the endless, ad-nauseum, pointy headed, endless, unproductive, unresolved, ......discussions on this site. Do you really think you could ever reach a consensus? Who'd get the last word? You really think you could write better rules than the original ones? (which were, incidently, the 1963 production car rules as far as I know)I seriously doubt it.

Yes, I think I could, but only with some help from some of the people around here. See, I'm against the whole written-by-committee concept. The committee develops the plan, one or two people write the rules, one or two "edit" them, and then the committee gets to discuss them. Now, here's where I'm going to take some real heat I'm sure- the person who writes the rules should NOT have a stake in the overall outcome (should not be a competitor).

There are too many people that examine the rules from the standpoint of how it will affect THEM. You have to look at the good of the overall class as a whole. I personally feel that the open wire harness rule makes sense, but if it is determined that it doesn't conform to the overall intent of the class, so be it. Problem is, I have no idea what IT is really supposed to be. The intent statement says one thing, some people say another, and the rules say something completely different. You wonder why there's no consistent enforcement of the rules? Because the rules themselves are inconsistent! This was the point of my "which ones of these don't belong" topic. I was not suggesting any particular rule, but was more trying to foster a discussion of the lack of rule consistency within the ITCS.

I'm not trying to rewrite history. I'm just trying to make sure what we're writing now will make sense when it is history. If we don't start looking towards the future and making plans, there won't be much of a future to have.

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

[Joe Harlan]

Just one thought here. There is nothinh wrong with the current rule or repair portion of that rule unless you have already broken the rule and want t changed to fit your need.....I have repaired many 240z and 510 harnesses over the years and it can be done correctly and legal if you choose to do it. I think IT will look like production class in short order if we keep fixen to fix the rules with more bad rules. I believe the original intent was a place for abandoned SS cars.....

[Geo]

Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
#1- Establish a real class intent statement and long range plan.

The first point already exists. We can argue about the second until the cows come home and then some.

Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
#2- Rewrite the current rulebook so that things align with that statement and plan.

First a rewrite would mean scrapping the framework of what is one of the most subscribed and succcessful categories in SCCA history. Unless you buy the SCCA lock stock and barrel and establish yourself as Czar (Tsar?), Supreme Ruler, or something like that, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Second you are assuming the second part is not being done.

Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
#3- Make changes in the future based on that statement and plan.

And you're assuming already that this won't be done.


------------------
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 Knestis:
I drove my car to every event that I ran this year, including driver school at Roebling Road, the Blue Ridge hillclimb, and misc events at VIR and CMP. We trailered to the 13 hours simply because we had so much crap to bring anyway...

A revision to the category intent statement would be great - as long as it agreed with my personal philosophy.

Seriously - what standard would be applied? If the CRB met and made the decision, would everyone concerned about this plan buy into the new vision, simply because it had been annointed by the PTB (the powers-that-be)?

I suspect that about 1/3 of the entire active IT membership would be PO'd about whatever decision was made, were a substantive revision to come about.

K

Bravo Kirk.

As I said either in this or another thread, to many the answers are SO obvious. But when you put everyone together you find everybody has different obvious answers.


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

[Geo]

One of the things I think is funny about this discussion is if we were to open the rules as suggested, $50k cars would become $55k cars and the standard would be mil-spec connectors with gold-plated contacts with custom-made wiring harnesses. If you think not, I must suggest you're just naive.


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

[Diane]

Originally posted by Geo:
One of the things I think is funny about this discussion is if we were to open the rules as suggested, $50k cars would become $55k cars and the standard would be mil-spec connectors with gold-plated contacts with custom-made wiring harnesses. If you think not, I must suggest you're just naive.

I think the number would be much higher than 55K. There will be no more "affordable" IT (for us with "normal" salaries") if the rules are opened up too much.

Diane

<edit for missing word>


[This message has been edited by Diane (edited December 27, 2004).]

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by Geo:
One of the things I think is funny about this discussion is if we were to open the rules as suggested, $50k cars would become $55k cars and the standard would be mil-spec connectors with gold-plated contacts with custom-made wiring harnesses. If you think not, I must suggest you're just naive.

OK, but is that anything more than conspicuous consumption? Is there a real advantage to that (performance-wise) versus molex connectors that are well maintained? IF (and it's a big if) your stock harness was in pristine condition, there would be no real advantage to replacement. However, for those who would NOT BE ABLE to acquire a NEW replacement harness (since used is junk in most of those cases), this makes a lot of sense.

Just because it says you can, doesn't mean you "damn well" have to...

Oh, and on the gold-plated idea, it says that conductor material must remain as stock (and if that's too vague we could expand it to include the connection points too).

And I would suggest that if you think that there are not already a good number of $55k or higher IT cars, then you are being naive also...


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

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by Geo:
First a rewrite would mean scrapping the framework of what is one of the most subscribed and succcessful categories in SCCA history. Unless you buy the SCCA lock stock and barrel and establish yourself as Czar (Tsar?), Supreme Ruler, or something like that, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Second you are assuming the second part is not being done.

No, my suggestion does NOT mean scrapping the current rules, just reexamining them to see if they fit with current philosophy. And my issue is NOT with the current ITAC, since I feel that lately things are looking better. My issue is that some of the previously approved rules don't seem to jive with the intent of the class.



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

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Just one thought here. There is nothinh wrong with the current rule or repair portion of that rule unless you have already broken the rule and want t changed to fit your need.....I have repaired many 240z and 510 harnesses over the years and it can be done correctly and legal if you choose to do it. I think IT will look like production class in short order if we keep fixen to fix the rules with more bad rules. I believe the original intent was a place for abandoned SS cars.....

Agreed on the intent (although I think others would argue with you).

My motives are very simple. I do not currently have an IT car. I have no reason to really care if the rules get changed or stay the same. I do, however, work on IT cars a bit, and I'm just sharing what I feel would make sense. Also, I'm not sure I'd prep an IT car for myself with the current state of the rules, since I'd have to jump through so many hoops to do it. I'll just keep working on the cars of those who "want" to run in the class.

So why am I here? Easy, I joined because I felt I could offer technical knowledge on some topics. Also, in these discussions, I'm simply debating my point and offering it as opinion. I just love the rules-making process itself I guess, but I like to see how those around here interpret (and translate in some cases) the rules that are disussed. This way I know what to expect when I'm at the track...

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

[This message has been edited by ShelbyRacer (edited December 27, 2004).]

[pfcs]

Mat-if you just "love" the rulesmaking process, I urge you to abandon this forum and get into politics. The biggest problem in this club is do-gooders with egos. Sorry again for being so vitreolic, but I've been bumping up against this situation in SCCA since I started in 1971 and it bothers me.

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