rewiring rules

[lateapex911]

quote:Originally posted by lateapex911:
Maybe you can make a case that they are all cheats, but what exactly is the performace gain from either?

quote:Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
Oh, so if it's not a performance gain it's okay to cheat. Perfect you walked right into that one.

The day someone has an issue with my replacement wire missing it's yellow tracer is the day I get the hell out of there and go back to racing sailboats...yacht clubs are pretty nice places too.

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited December 27, 2004).]

[Geo]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
Actually I was hoping you would comment on what happens to IT cars that can't conform IT rules and won't be classed into production. You had previously stated they we always have the option to go into another class. Production is apparently closed to older cars so what options are they left with? It sounds like they will be between a rock and a hard place.

Why can't they conform to IT rules?

If they can't conform, should they be delisted?

Who is saying they can't conform?

What specific car are we talking about that the PAC is refusing to classify?



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

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Well, you might have known that you'd be adding 20% of the posts!

Damn, you're right! Too much time on my hands I guess... I need to get a real job.

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Maybe you can make a case that they are all cheats, but what exactly is the performace gain from either?

Look, in a perfect world, we might like to ahve a better harness rule...but the costs (unintended consequences) of such a rule are likely to much greater than the status quo.

Why does it have to be a perfect world? Let's make a better rule! If we can't all agree, that's OK, but at least we'll see how people could get around (unintended consequences) what is proposed. To this point, no one has offered any way to get around my original suggestion, save the connector issue, that would offer ANY performance advantage. And from what you're saying Jake, no one would protest me (well, at least you wouldn't) because there is no "percieved performance advantage.

Point is, if it's what's done in practice, and it meets the philosophy of the class, shouldn't it be the rule? I believe it bloody well should (I got it right that time George )

--Tangent Time- get some popcorn--

A certain college had a real problem with students shortcutting the paths and walking on the grass. This caused all sorts of unsightly landscaping issues. No matter what the college did, put up banners, barriers, or even set fines, nothing stopped the problem. In fact, a local group got together and made a big stink about the fine thing to the local TV news.

A civil engineering student came up with the solution.

The college tore out most of the old walkways which had been added over the years, then opened everything up as a free-for-all. They observed the pathways taken in the unrestricted environment. Then, they re-worked all the pathways and landscaping around the paths that were formed. Suddenly, there were very few problems with people walking on the grass, and the new system that was developed actually made things easier to deal with for everyone involved.

--end of story-- Yes, it is true.

Now, for those that will argue that this will cause the demise of IT, I would submit that once the rules fit the situation better, it is EASIER TO ENFORCE THEM. It's not that there's less to enforce, it's the fact that no one has to make the judgement of what is a *valid* rule violation. There's no call to be made about, "well, everyone does that" or, "there's no real advantage there, so WTF." Also people seem to be so concerned about what the next permutation will be. Did you ever stop to think that if the rules really fit, the only changes that would be needed are either 1) corrections or edits for clarity and 2) items to address new circumstances that were not in place before?

Some people are criticizing the idea of a rewrite, when I personally feel that it's LONG overdue! We need to get with the times here. I don't see too many cars on the road today that are based off of a 70's chassis and body design (Ford Fox bodies are a horrible exception), so why are we still using a rulebook from that time as the basis for the class?

I didn't mean to go off again here on my same soapbox. I guess it's the thing that one of the first things I read here was Jake's "A Protest Story", and I found it to be an awesome piece. I have a ton of respect for Jake and the other protestors, as they did not go after the guy for "insignificant" items. I guess my issue is, who decides what is insignificant, and if it really makes no difference, then what's the rule for in the first place?

I guess that ITCS really stands for Improved Touring Category Suggestions.

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

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

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Geo:
1) Why can't they conform to IT rules?

2) If they can't conform, should they be delisted?

3) Who is saying they can't conform?

4) What specific car are we talking about that the PAC is refusing to classify?

Well, I'm glad you asked. I added the numbers for clarity.

1) They can't conform because as you originally stated cars that no longer have stock wiring harnesses could or should go somewhere else.

2) I don't know, should we delist a car just because of a parts availability issue which can be worked around with no advantage? That's a question for the ITAC to decide if we want to start excluding current cars. Again, keep in mind IT has been said to be the place to race your car with no guarantee that it will be competitive. Are we changing that philosophy?

3) We are saying they can't conform if the original harness in all it's operational entirity is required.

4) The specifc car is a 70's Toyota Corolla which would currently be an ITC car. The item is listed as Production item #3 on F-8 of the January 2005 Fastrack. But, please don't get too hung up on the specific car, read what the reasoning is. "The club racing board is trying to bring newer cars into club racing."

Again IT has been stated to be the place to run YOUR car even if it doesn't stand a chance to win. Are we really going to change that by excluding people. That seems like more of a risk to IT than anything else including coatings, RR shocks, motecs and anything else you can think of. Making it impossible for someone to run a car they want when it still fits within the performance envelope of a class sounds like that is against class philosophy.

Hecht, maybe the answer is to allow a change like this as long as there is a 10# weight penalty added to the minimum weight. Of course I'm pretty sure that is a road we don't want to head down.

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

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

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by Geo:
Why can't they conform to IT rules?

If they can't conform, should they be delisted?

Who is saying they can't conform?

What specific car are we talking about that the PAC is refusing to classify?

Well, one is a mainstay in ITS- the 280Z. What happens when it isn't feasible to repair the wiring in these cars?



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

[Joe Harlan]

If I take a 240z to the dealer with a short in the harness they are gonna cut out the bad wire and solder and heat shrink a section of the closest color wire they can in its place. That would be the current factory authorized repair for an out dated car... It is total BS that you can't make a proper repair to an old harness and make it work. I have been doing automotive wiring for 20+ years and this is total BS....ANTHING can be repaired if there is a desire to do so. I would never consider a protest in a freakin butt connector but don't show up to a race with a full harness replacement and expect me to look the other way...

[dickita15]

last year the RRB made a rule change for A sedan to allow non stock harnesses to be used in order to allow the use of salvage cars. how is the intent of IT so different that this same rule is a bad idea.
dick

[Bill Miller]

Diane,

You talk about people knowing where their cars were classed, what the rules were, etc., when they bought/built their cars. Problem is, things have changed (in some cases, quite a bit) since a lot of people bought/built cars. Rules have changed, new cars were introduced at the 'top of the food chain' in a given class. Oh, and if you don't see that part of it, Darin has said that they use the top few cars in a class as the yardstick.

As far as the dual-purpose nature of IT cars goes, I believe it was acknowledged in the 2000 ITCS that it was no longer valid. For those that do still run their IT cars as dual-purpose, have you retained the OEM seatbelts? You do know that a 5/6 pt. racing harness is not DOT approved, and does not meet the seatbelt laws that most (all?) states now have. As far as a street-legal IT car being competitive, I submit that if it is, it's mis-classed, and is an overdog for the class.

As far as IT being the home for old SS cars, I'm not sure how valid that is anymore. SS cars now have a 10 year lifespan, and of the ones that are classed in IT, most are falling into ITS/A, w/ VERY few falling into ITB/C. And what's going to happen if/when SSB/C become T4/5? They're allowing turbo and AWD cars in Touring, how are you going to adjust the IT rules to allow them?


For Mr. Hunt.

Carefull Phil, you're gonna have people thinking you're one of those stero-typical SCCA fossils that don't want new people/ideas.

George,

Do you even hear yourself? Do you actually think that it's ok (and consistent w/ the IT PP&I) to have $50k - $60k cars in IT? People lambast Prod because it costs so damn much to build and run competitive cars. Tony Rivera's Runoffs podium (2nd place) EP 2nd gen. RX7 is for sale right now for ~$22k. That's a fast, top-level car, and every bit the measure of some of these top-prep IT cars (in terms of prep level, it'll blow them into the weeds on the track).

You know, pretty soon (if it isn't there already) it'll be cheaper for someone to build and run a Prod car than it is an IT car.

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

[Bill Miller]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Maybe you can make a case that they are all cheats, but what exactly is the performace gain from either?</font>

Jake, that's a pretty slippery slope you're venturing out on. It's also one of the root causes of rules creep. It's also one of the reasons why self-policing is a problem.

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

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,

Do you even hear yourself? Do you actually think that it's ok (and consistent w/ the IT PP&I) to have $50k - $60k cars in IT?

How do you propose to prevent people from spending their money? You and I may not like it, but we cannot prevent it.


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

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by Geo:
How do you propose to prevent people from spending their money? You and I may not like it, but we cannot prevent it.

I was just discussing that with aomeone last night. It seems that people are so against the wiring thing because of many *percieved* issues, with increased costs being one (you yourself cited the $5k harness becoming the norm). As this other person stated to me, they'd rather have the people spend $5k on a harness, because it would offer no real advantage over a well built $500 harness, but would mean that those people might have less $$ for other mods, or at least for tuning and track time...

My big issue here is what is good for the class in the long run. Is this a good idea? I think so, but many do not. I would just hope that these arguements are being considered by the ITAC, since I did notice upon rereading FasTrack that wiring (and how it relates to ECUs) was an issue to be discussed.

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

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Geo:
How do you propose to prevent people from spending their money? You and I may not like it, but we cannot prevent it.

No we can't prevent it, but when we see situations where the only way to win is to have the largest budget we should (and have in the past) worked to fix the problem. RR shocks were allowed, but it became obvious that to pull the most performance out of your car you would need to spend thousands just on the shocks. That didn't fit the intent of IT so the rule was changed.

You are saying that you can't stop people from spending their money yet you don't want to make a rule change to wiring to prevent people from spending their money. For the people with the budget, if they are samrt, they are going to spend it on whatever gives them the best return. A wiring change isn't going to make a difference in lap times. But it is the difference for some people (without big budgets) between a safe, reliable, legal car or cheating because it doesn't make a performance difference that no reasonable person would protest.

Yes, you can't stop people from spending too much on their race car, but we shouldn't be stopping people from taking the cheaper route if it doesn't give them an advantage.

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

[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? 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.


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

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by pfcs:
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.

Well, since I feel like I might be one of the people that was aimed at, I'll again mention that I did put my money where my mouth is. I got involved in the transition to Time Trials (from Solo 1 and other areas). I saw issues, so I stepped up and rewrote the rulebook. I did exactly what I'm suggesting here- I kept the core stuff, came up with a plan, and wrote everything based on that, while bringing the rules up to current practice. Much like here, we were doing things before that weren't within the letter of the law. Did anyone make an issue of those things? No, but IF something ever happened and what we did didn't match the book, someone would get screwed.

Did I do a perfect job on the rules? Probably not, but I'm also not going to sit here and say that it can't be changed because it's too much trouble.

I personally choose to be proactive, and if that makes me an SN, I guess I am one. Sitting and taking the attitude of "wait and see, and act if a problem comes up" is half the issue with SCCA right now. I don't know if anyone's noticed, but there are other sanctioning bodies that are ready to strike whenever we give them the chance. I want to see SCCA change because I feel that at the core, SCCA is a MUCH stronger and safer organization. I don't want to lose our past, but I also don't want to lose our future.

Just FYI- I would NEVER bug you or anyone else about a wiring issue (yes, I am an SCCA Official, but I'll leave it at that). I just want to make sure that no one else can either. What I don't understand is since many on here are saying that they wouldn't say anything because it's not a performance issue, then what are we disagreeing about? Why not make it right, rather than just acceptably wrong?


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

[Knestis]

Okay - in summary...

1. A high-zoot harness would clearly be a performance advantage. If it weren't there wouldn't be a company outside of Charlotte getting rich making AN/NAS-spec harnesses for NASCAR teams.

2. Further, the fact that people here are arguing for a change - even if really high-end parts are prohibited somehow - is prima facie evidence that they see it as beneficial to them - reliability just inceases the likelihood of winning. Gaining that reliability for less money than would have to be spent under the current rules, leaves those benefiting from the change with more money to buy tires, coaching, or track time - improving their relative competitive position.

3. There is simply no way to legislate budget in IT. Arguments about cost are not germane to the issue at hand. Concerns about increasing costs are a red herring because you can't keep me from spending that $5000 to go faster, whatever the rule. Similarly, suggestions that "it would be cheaper and easier" to build a reliable harness put us back at Point 2.

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.

6. Balanced against that is the very real issue faced by racers of older cars. However, I have yet to see any actual work proposed here that can't reasonably be accomplished under the current "repair" rule.

K

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by pfcs:
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.

I would fear your competitors more, especially the guy who you just barely beat that race or that championship. He's the one likely to protest and very likely to win because your car is technically illegal if you have a non factory connector. It doesn't say you can so you can't. I must have missed the section of the ITCS where it says which rules you can ignore because it doesn't make a difference. Because that is what we are telling people to do when we say just patch it and no one will care. Obviously there are people that take this seriously enough to spend $60K on a $6 trophy and if you beat their car what's to say they won't spend the time to write the paper on yours. Personally, I don't care if I lose the position in the final results in that situation, but I don't want to be labeled as a cheater and face penalties for something that didn't make a damn difference. So, lets fix the rule so that no one has to face that situation.

As George has already pointed out everyone has a different idea of what is obvious when looking at the rules or a rule change. But when it comes down to a black or white decision nowhere in the rules are you allowed to break a rule because of some gentleman's agreement that it won't be protested. If we have a practice that everyone is doing that is outside of the rules we either need to change the rule to reflect reality or enforce it.


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

[pfcs]

perhaps someone overlooked my prev post. So I ran a very competetive car, won 50%+ of all races, held numerous track records, all the while with a nasty looking, 25lb trailer hitch receiver under the bumper. Twice my engine was torn down (legal) but not once did anyone make anything of the hitch (I towed a Coleman to events). And this was when sometimes we had 50 ITB cars at the Glenn. I'm not afraid of the guy I barely beat, I expect he'll be a sportsman. He's usually the guy you spend a half hour in impound with, energetically talking about the great time you both had.

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

[Tom Donnelly]

Replacing wiring with wires of similar size, albeit not color, is something that is done all the time to make it work. This includes Radio Shack connectors. And this is not cheating, its a repair.

Replacing the connectors and wiring associated with the ECU and its sensors is another matter altogether.

That seems to be the real issue here. Or am I missing something?

Tom

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Okay - in summary...

1. A high-zoot harness would clearly be a performance advantage. If it weren't there wouldn't be a company outside of Charlotte getting rich making AN/NAS-spec harnesses for NASCAR teams.

K

Does a $3000 dollar paint job make a car faster too? Just because someone is spending/making money on something doesn't make it faster.

Originally posted by Knestis:
2. Further, the fact that people here are arguing for a change - even if really high-end parts are prohibited somehow - is prima facie evidence that they see it as beneficial to them - reliability just inceases the likelihood of winning. Gaining that reliability for less money than would have to be spent under the current rules, leaves those benefiting from the change with more money to buy tires, coaching, or track time - improving their relative competitive position.

K

If forcing people with older cars to live with less reliabilty is a way of deciding who is a better driver or car builder than we must be racing in two different series. Under the current repair rules I can't rebuild a harness to as new condition, so beacuse of that I should be at a disadvantage to a guy with a 5 year old car? This isn't like a wheel bearing where I can install a new one and it's my own fault if I don't and the car doesn't finish. I can't replace every wire in my harness as preventative maintenance (especially if the harness was never there) so

Originally posted by Knestis:
3. There is simply no way to legislate budget in IT. Arguments about cost are not germane to the issue at hand. Concerns about increasing costs are a red herring because you can't keep me from spending that $5000 to go faster, whatever the rule. Similarly, suggestions that "it would be cheaper and easier" to build a reliable harness put us back at Point 2.

K

I agree you can't legislate a budget but restricting changes to those with big budgets hurts the have nots. A rule that puts everyone on the same ground is better than a restriction that limits what is possibly to those with the bigger checkbook.

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.
K

Yes, rules creep is something to be avoided but not at the cost of making it impossible, inpractical or unaffordable to put a legal car on track. There are times where modifications must be made and you do your best to write the rules to limit them. You may get it wrong, which is why you can rewrite the rule if the problem is serious. Otherwise, why don't we just go back to the car must be raced as built by the factory?

Originally posted by Knestis:
6. Balanced against that is the very real issue faced by racers of older cars. However, I have yet to see any actual work proposed here that can't reasonably be accomplished under the current "repair" rule.
K

Then you haven't been paying attention to those people who don't have original intact harnesses, those with insulation that is cracking off the wires, conductors that are broken every 5 feet in every run, or factory connectors that are no longer available or sevicable. Those or the problems faced and a FSM doesn't show any way to legally fix them.


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

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Tom Donnelly:
Replacing wiring with wires of similar size, albeit not color, is something that is done all the time to make it work. This includes Radio Shack connectors. And this is not cheating, its a repair.

Replacing the connectors and wiring associated with the ECU and its sensors is another matter altogether.

That seems to be the real issue here. Or am I missing something?

Tom

Actually, according to the current rules using a radio shack connector is cheating. No where in the rules are you allowed aftermarket connectors. But yes, it is frequently done, which is why it should probably be made legal. That is what part of the argument is about.

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