March FasTrack is up!

[OTLimit]

For the life of me, I can't see what the big deal is about the passenger door window glass being a safety issue. If your car is legal, it's either behind the stock door panel or sheet metal, right?

Heater cores don't bother me since you can already plug them, but I can tell you that Chris will likely never remove one from an IT car even if it is allowed. He took it out of the GP car (weight) and has regretted it several times.

And I really don't care if you remove you washer bottle or not.

(And with a huge dose of sarcasm) If you didn't like the rules for IT, why did you build one to begin with?

Now, it's Friday afternoon, it's beautiful outside, and I'm going home to play with my dogs while Chris works on getting the B car ready for it's first race of the year. Everyone take a deep breath and enjoy the weekend.


------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers

[cherokee]

Ya but I am stuck at work till 5pm and there is nothing better to do

I am glad to hear that people are coming to SCCA from NASA. That shows me that SCCA is fixing some problems. These are the customers that we need to get back.

[RFloyd]

Originally posted by Russ Myers:
It(the washer bottle, door glass, etc.) should stay because this is in the phylosophy of the class. This is how it was laid down from the begining. To change this is to change the PHILOSOPHY and it wouldn't be Improved Touring anymore. It would just be Production Lite.

To quote Col. Potter, "Horsehockey!"

If anyone even thinks that allowing the removal of washer bottles, pass. window glass, and heater cores will somehow be changing the "philosophy" of IT, PLEASE, PLEASE PLEASE explain how anyone could justify allowing alternate ECU's, custom FD units, limited slips, port matched heads, and open exhausts?

That, I think, is part of what Catch is trying to say. To imply that common sense allowances, NONE of which enhance performance, NONE of which are mandatory in order to be allowed to compete, and NONE of which COST ANYTHING, yet allow people to buy $1500 MOTEC systems and justify it by saying "well, we can't stop people from cheating in that manner because we can't check everyone, so we better open up the rules" is just silly. It is NOT RULES CREEP. It's not even a matter of allowing the same level of change in some areas of the car that is allowed in other areas, because in some ways the horses are already out of the barn (ecu, blueprinted engines, port matched heads, LSD's, alternate FD's, etc) but it's just a matter of applying the same logic that makes some things OK (removing all interior panels, gutting dash, removing the AC, etc) to other things (washer bottle, rear wiper, heater core, side window glass).

Where do we draw the line?

You can resolve a lot of these issues by making sure that whatever change is made complied with these 2 criteria:

It costs little or nothing (as dumping a washer bottle, heater core, rear wiper, or passenger door glass doesn't cost the person throwing them in the trash a dime, just a little effort - OK, maybe a little square of metal riveted over a hope where the wiper was, but hey - not a perfect world, right?)

Makes no improvement in vehicle performance. I mean seriously people. I really would like someone to show me how losing 10 pounds in the passenger door makes any sort of measureable performance increase, and then convince me that that .001 second improvement in lap time outweighs the safety benefit of not having a bunch of glass 3 feet away from me inside the car. Washer bottle, rear wiper, heater core? Oh yeh, there's an unfair advantage for someone who runs without one of those...

If something cannot be deemed to be in accordance with those two criteria, then it should not be considered. This is just common sense folks.

BTW, you guys on the ITAC are doing one hell'ova good job. Everything you've done so far rules wise I think is great, and highly appreciated.

------------------
Richard Floyd
'86 Acura Integra LS #90
SCCA ITA / NASA ECHC H5

[RFloyd]

Originally posted by OTLimit:
For the life of me, I can't see what the big deal is about the passenger door window glass being a safety issue. If your car is legal, it's either behind the stock door panel or sheet metal, right?

You're right. The stock door panel will do a wonderful job of containing that glass in a side impact. Why bother finding a better way? :sarcasm off:

I have $100 for the person who can show me how it is cheaper to buy a 2'x3' sheet of aluminum to cover that door than it it would cost to just remove the glass altogether. Put that in you pipe, you "escalating costs, rules creep" Chicken Littles!



------------------
Richard Floyd
'86 Acura Integra LS #90
SCCA ITA / NASA ECHC H5

[RFloyd]

Originally posted by OTLimit:
And I really don't care if you remove you washer bottle or not.

But someone who cares about being legal does.

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">(And with a huge dose of sarcasm) If you didn't like the rules for IT, why did you build one to begin with? </font>

You're right. We should all just shut up, be content, and never try to do anything that we feel would make things better. Who the hell do we think we are?



------------------
Richard Floyd
'86 Acura Integra LS #90
SCCA ITA / NASA ECHC H5

[This message has been edited by RFloyd (edited February 04, 2005).]

[Russ Myers]

Lawyers have a phrase that they use(yeah, I know, lawyers, ugh!) when arguing cases that might have an effect on a precedent. They refer to "the slippery slope". I don't say the rules are good, I don't say they are bad,ut they are the rules. I think if you do not have a stock ECU in your car you are not legal(in the spirit of IT). Vintage racing has been mentioned, well, the grids at a vintage meet are lousy with old SCCA racers who didn't want (or couldn't afford) to update their cars every time the CRB heard that this or that was cheaper, safer, etc. As we have seen with Form Ford, Prod, Sedan nee,GT when you start down the slippery slope...well.
Isn't it interesting that the two most popular classes with the largest car counts every year are Spec Racer and FV, the two classes with, FOR THE MOST PART, the most stable rules package in all of racing. Spec Miata could be this way too, but already, people know in their hearts how to "improve" the class, how to make it better, how to shape it in their image. What's wrong with it now? Car counts are through the roof. Competition is tight and fantastic. I guess that is really not good enough.
In 1983, when IT started, car counts were large. Many competed throughout the land. But can you tell me that the same exist today. Fields are alot shorter now.
As the practicioners of juris prudence are wont to say, once you start down that slippery slope, who knows where you will end up. No first or forth ammendment rights, or thinly disguised prod cars. I myself would like to leave well enough alone.

Oh, by the way, it has been said that it dosen't cost anything to remove this stuff. Well, it dosen't cost anything to leave it on the car, either.

Russ

[Russ Myers]

More thoughts on rules etc. I am not so stogy(if that is the word) that I say all change is bad. But even in IT, rules creep is a fact of life. In 1983, these were really chaeted up SS cars. They had interiors, carpets, headliners (boy, do I remember the stink over that one), license tags, and (GASP) passenger seats!!! All gone now. Threaded collars on shocks, hearsey back in the day. I want FF heads allowed for little Fords because federal heads are gittin' scarce, oh well. So I'll see y'all at the bottom.


Russ

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by mustanghammer:
From Catch22

The ITAC is currently using power to weight as a big part of classing cars. Thats a great idea, but why not add more ways to get down to that weight (without skimping on cage, which unfortunately some people do).
Lexan... Sure. Make it legal in IT. If the minimum weights stay the same what damned difference does it make??? The people that need help getting down to minimum weight

have another tool to get there, the people who are already there, like me, skip it because we don't need it.

Sreeeeeech! Hold on there....if you allow it, and ONE guy does it, EVERY one will have to...just to keep the status quo.

Think about it for a second...how much does all the glass in a car weigh? Lets WAG it at 40 lbs. Now, who wouldn't want to remove 40 lbs from essentially 12" under the roof, largely concentrated at the perimeter of the car, and put it wherever they need it? (I know....legally, "ballast" has to be mounted in a specific spot...but it rarely winds up there as blocks of lead,if you know what I mean....) Before you reply that most guys won't go to the trouble, just look at how many spend HOURS scaping and freezing and burning undercoating off the car to save what...40 pounds? Forty pounds that is already LOWER than where the ballast is required to be mounted! But they do it anyway, and you can be damned sure that they day lexan is allowed, hundreds of IT guys will trudge to the garage, glass removal tools in hand.

IT cars are RACECARS

Actually, they are not. They are production based street cars that are prepped for racing. A racing car is one that was designed from the outset to compete. The Radical, and of course all the Formula car designs are real race cars.

IT cars are spec'd by weight. The IT rules now allow ballasting. What difference does it make how I make weight it the important aspects of an IT car are maintained?

See above, but post classification changes must be made carefully


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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited February 04, 2005).]

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by cherokee:
I think that IT is no longer a place for SS cars go go when they die. This is now the entry class for SCCA road racing. We have people that still want to build 35 year old cars, thats the car that they picked, that is the car that they want to drive and they want to start in IT perhaps never move up .... Now that some of these old cars have some very hard to find parts and are in pretty bad repair when we get them what is the harm in removing any of the parts above. Who gives a lick if there is no washer bottle, other wireing, no passanger window as long as the minimum weight is met. The weight is the bottom line right...that is what I have been "lead" to believe.

First, if you decide to race a car, it behooves you to do due diligence. It is NOT a decision to be made lightly...only a fool would argue otherwise. And in that due diligence, you will be told time and again by those more experienced in the category, a lot of truths, one of which will be to choose a popular car, that has plenty of brothers still on the road, or at least in folks back yards, (LOL) so there is a steady stream of parts to keep the racecar going. Choosing to race an old or limited prodution car is done for the love of it, and there are concessions that go with that decision. You makes your choices and you takes your chances...

The original intent went out the window long ago when shocks,computers,passanger seats,wheel sizes and who knows what else was changed

This is an illogical conclusion. The orginal intent is to keep your car dent free. When you get a crease in the fender, do you run around the car with a sledgehammer because the original intent has been lost? Of course not!

Mistakes have surely been made along the way...but using them as reasoning arguments falls short in my book.

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited February 04, 2005).]

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by RFloyd:
You're right. We should all just shut up, be content, and never try to do anything that we feel would make things better. Who the hell do we think we are?

Or.....deal with it, be a little creative, and use the offending washer bottle as your required overflow/catch can of greater than 1 qt size capacity.....kills two birds with one stone.



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

[Geo]

Oh God, I'm probably going to regret this, but what the hell....

Complaining about $2k for a cam, cam gear and a couple of other things? Yet wanting to have open wiring harnesses in IT that will end up costing $2-5k? Don't believe me? Price out a professionally designed and built racing wiring harness with mil-spec connectors and all. Oh, yes, you don't have to do this right? Neither do you need to spend $5k on a gearbox in limited prep Production.

Let's look again at all the things being thrown out here:

Remove headlights
Remove door glass
Replace other glass with Polycarbonate
Open wiring harness
Open ECU (to be fair this is actually see both extremes and in between)
Cages tied to the front strut towers
Removal of dashes
Removal of WW bottles
Relocated batteries
and more...

This is all legal in Production. Why not just go Production racing?

I truly don't understand the logic of turning IT into Production with slightly de-tuned engines and gearboxes.


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

[Catch22]

if you allow it, and ONE guy does it, EVERY one will have to...just to keep the status quo.

Well, you are just plain WRONG.
I can promise you I wouldn't do it. Why???
1. I don't need to lose any weight from my car.
2. It costs money and it gains me nothing.
3. The current placement of that weight is no worse than the LEGAL alternate placement in a block of lead... In the front of the passenger side floor.
I'd rather have it in the back thanks.
4. It gets scratched up easily, and I gain nothing from it.

RFloyd did a good job of condensing what I've been trying to say. I owe you a cold Sammie Floyd. Thanks.

BTW - I wouldn't even remove my heater core. If I did I'd just have to replace it with lead. The wiper bottle I DO currently use for a catch can, so I likely wouldn't remove it either. I will admit that I would remove the passenger glass though, more than any other glass on the car it is just begging to get shattered.

And to answer the question above about what not requiring that door glass gains you...

1. Its just that much less glass that might need to be cleaned up (that aluminum cover can get bent and mangled in a side impact).
2. Its a useless piece that I don't have to replace if it gets broken.
3. Removing that glass is easier and cheaper than fabbing/buying an aluminum cover for the door.

Maybe instead of allowing us to remove the passenger side glass we should be required to tape it up to keep it from making a mess in a crash (please note that this is sarcasm).

[Catch22]

Complaining about $2k for a cam, cam gear and a couple of other things? Yet wanting to have open wiring harnesses in IT that will end up costing $2-5k? Don't believe me? Price out a professionally designed and built racing wiring harness with mil-spec connectors and all. Oh, yes, you don't have to do this right? Neither do you need to spend $5k on a gearbox in limited prep Production.

Oh c'mon George. You can do better than that. One makes the car nicer and easier to work on, the other makes it faster, significantly so, on the racetrack.

If you read the other thread you'll see I personally am against the wiring harness thing. I think THATS where you get into stuff thats hard to police and where people will cheat.
You can't compare stuff like this to thinking that being required to keep the passenger side glass (when the rules state that the window MUST be open by the way) is just plain dumb.

[Geo]

My point is that you want all those things to be legal in IT but for some reason you don't want to race in a class where they already are.

I don't get it.


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

[RSTPerformance]

Originally posted by RFloyd:
I have $100 for the person who can show me how it is cheaper to buy a 2'x3' sheet of aluminum to cover that door than it it would cost to just remove the glass altogether. Put that in you pipe, you "escalating costs, rules creep" Chicken Littles!

I left it stock. No time involved to take the glass out. Time equals money. Since I left it stock with my stock door panel I have done nothing, spent zero dollars and zero time and it is equally safe.

You owe me $100.00

Stephen Blethen

I accept Paypal please see my website www.rstperformance.com and scroll to the bottom. I have provided you with a link for my paypal account.

[924Guy]

Originally posted by Geo:
My point is that you want all those things to be legal in IT but for some reason you don't want to race in a class where they already are.

I don't get it.

Simply - because nobody races in Prod!!! OK, so I can't speak for everyone here, but I know that I, in spite of having not one but TWO classes in which I could run my car in Prod, cannot see running there in the forseeable future - cause I like competition!!! I'm really looking forward to moving back to B - cause I'll have even more cars to race than in A, and I'll be closer to them! Even though it's a "slower" class.

I do also think the $5k wiring harness argument is rather stretching it - kinda like arguing RR shocks are a safety item. Remember that line? Sure, reliability makes you competitive (or at least keeps you there) - but I fail to believe that spending $5k on an outsourced wiring harness for my car would make be any faster or more reliable than my own talents rebuilding my own wiring harness from the old connectors and parts and supplies I can find at Home Depot/Lowe's.

It's been stated here that we're aiming at things that are cheap and easy - removal of unnecessary parts and adequate leeway in repairs. I'll propose another standard by which to judge suggested rule changes here: The kind of repairs a college student would do to his 15-yr-old daily driver just to keep it running. I'd say that's not a half-bad analog for our situation.

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

[Russ Myers]

Mr. Vaughn,
My point exactly. The more you make IT like Prod, The less cars you have. Why do we need Prod Lite?

Russ

[mlytle]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
I woek on a lot of 240z's they will not last forever even if the E36 wasn't in the picture. We are running out of factory parts. That will force them off to vintage or production one day but the ones that stick around and are willing to spend the money to stay competitive should be able to as a benchmark.

what is the age break to be eligible for vintage racing? it would not be very forward thinking to hold a vintage eligible car up as the benchmark for any it class.

[Ron Earp]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">I do also think the $5k wiring harness argument is rather stretching it - kinda like arguing RR ........ but I fail to believe that spending $5k on an outsourced wiring harness for my car would make be any faster or more reliable than my own talents rebuilding my own wiring harness from the old connectors and parts and supplies</font>

Amen. George likes to pull out the old "$5k wiring harness" everytime the wiring harness dicussion comes up but it just doesn't hold water. People will spend $5k to have someone strip their car and paint it for them too, but it doesn't make them any faster and repeating it on multiple threads doesn't make it truth.



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

[Catch22]

Originally posted by Geo:
My point is that you want all those things to be legal in IT but for some reason you don't want to race in a class where they already are.

I don't get it.

Really?
You don't get it?
Really?

So, your position is that anyone who thinks keeping the passenger side door glass is stupid should just go ahead and run prod, because its already legal there???

OK. I'll do that.
There are just a few other minor details that go with it though...

- Fuel Cell
- Fire system
- An extra $2K in my motor
- Close ratio tranny
- Flared fenders
- Lexan

Just a few minor details. About $10 to $15K worth of minor details. And when I get done spending that time and money, I can go run against the 4 other people in GP in my division.
You know... The light is on for me now!!!
THANKS George for clearing that up.
WHAT A GREAT PLAN!!!

Scott, who doesn't, and won't, see how cleaning up a few stoopid IT rules will turn it into "prod lite."
Even limited prep prod is a LONG way from IT. Alot further away than removing 3 or 4 useless items.

PS - Before anyone trys to throw my earlier lexan argument in my face asking me why I need it for prod and don't need it for IT.
My car...
Minimum IT weight - 2140
Minimum Prod Weight - 2000
So yeah, I'd NEED me some lexan to help lose that poundage. I don't NEED it in IT, so I wouldn't buy it.

Its only complicated if you make it complicated.