March FasTrack is up!

[Joe Harlan]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">There are countless others, but I have already run long. In order to make it so a larger variety of MODERN cars can be COMPETITIVE, there needs to be someone with some common sense classing these cars. </font>

Matt, We do have some good people on the ITAC and they are currently doing a good job. What we need is more people writing proper letters supported by facts to classify these newer cars in a competitive fashion. I personally don't want to see the little time these guys have wasted on fixing all of the previous mistakes for cars that aren't and won't be raced. There are lots of good cars that can and will be classed when they are requested I just don't see that it is the job of the ITAC to go hunt them down.

[Geo]

Originally posted by zooracer:
yes, I was comparing the gsr to the celica, saying that the celica should not be in the same class as the gsr because of the major horsepower difference. I agree that the gsr should be in ITS.
I came off kinda strong on here, but can assure I'm a nice guy if met in person. Easy to get carried away on here...
matt

Matt, I don't think you came on strong. You may have a good point about the Celica. That's why I asked the question.

I have zero reason to doubt you're a nice guy. Don't sweat any of this. Sometimes I'll ask probing questions because I want to understand what's being said. Then, other times I open my mouth and before I know it my foot is stuck in there just as I'm starting to shoot myself in the foot.


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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Knestis:
I haven't gotten into one of these in a LONG time but the car is packed and ready for the Tarheel HPDE this weekend, and this is like a big ol' lob, too close to the net to pass up...

Someone - ANYONE - please agree that any of the above mutilated rationale fall anywhere near being "common sense" and I will gracefully cede the electronic field in defeat.

That was pretty funny stuff, Man. Very, very good.

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited February 10, 2005).]

My tennis also needs exercise. Ah same ol' K, - when someone presents an alternative view in disagreement with his "almighty omniscience," the opinion is "mutilated rationale" and then George leaps in to support his friend. I love it! Please someone explain how removing passenger side glass will lead to full race cams. If that is not a phenomenal leap in logic, I'll turn in my MA (if K "cedes the electronic field in defeat."

Anyway, let's dispute the points. By "imply" I mean to confirm the intention of the rule. And anywhere in automobilia and elsewhere especially in the electronics field, "instruments" are defined as tools, (including switches) as well as gauges. A prob is an instrument as well as a voltmeter. So you see the glossary's rather limited definition must be seen as just that. And if a switch can be seen to meet even that definition (i.e., by indicating "some aspect of car operation for driver reference") then switches are instruments as all the English language world knows. (in fact K, if you look at your VW service manual, you'll find dashboard switches fall under the heading of "Instruments."

Some cars require removal of the stalks in order to install a removable steering wheel. If yours doesn't, fine, but yours is not everyone's. Same with the steering wheel locking mechanism. On the Fiesta, the yoke is one piece with the lock and the base for the turn signal stalks- must be removed.

And of course with the "stock" wiring harness in place, it's not just the dashboard turn signal indicator blinking its the exterior turn lights distracting other drivers. You failed to recognize that. And I don't think finger tips accidentally flicking stalks is what one can call "flailing around in the cockpit."

And George and K, if 20 out of 21 drivers read a rule the same way, it is simply an indication that the rule is communicating a certain message. It is not to say that because everyone is doing it, it is right.
You guys are so ready to disprove anyone's opinion that differs from your own that you often fail to consider the points being made.

I'm glad you find my comments amusing. I too often find your rationales hysterical.

G. Robert

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 11, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 11, 2005).]
Spelling and additions.
G

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 11, 2005).]

[Greg Amy]

BWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!!! Wahhhhh-hooo!!! Yuk, yuk, yuk, yuk, yuk!!! Chuckle, chuckle, chuckle...

This is too precious.

[Knestis]

I'm glad we're all laughing about this. Seriously.

It sounds to me like you (GRJ) are advocating for changes to the glossary definitions, which is a very different thing than simply adopting others that support a desired interpretation. That is logically sound.

Where the lock is concerned, there were ways that I could have killed mine that would have required leaving otherwise-stock parts off, and one way - a more complex way - that I could have done it leaving them intact. I assumed that those bits needed to stay, so I did it the hard, "right" way.

All web hyperbole aside, I simply get worried when we institutionalize sloppy interpretations, we let the proverbial camel's nose under the flap of our shared tent. Are wiper bottles or signal stalks the end of the IT world as we know it? Obviously not.

But if we don't draw the line where it is defined by the text of the rules, where DO we?

And as long as the line keeps moving, we are in very real danger of losing control of the state of our category, particularly now that it has been taken out of stasis by the hard work of the current ITAC.

K

EDIT - I don't claim omnicience or anything even close to it. That's why I lean so heavily to the actual text of the rules.

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited February 11, 2005).]

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Knestis:
I'm glad we're all laughing about this. Seriously.

It sounds to me like you (GRJ) are advocating for changes to the glossary definitions, which is a very different thing than simply adopting others that support a desired interpretation. That is logically sound.

Where the lock is concerned, there were ways that I could have killed mine that would have required leaving otherwise-stock parts off, and one way - a more complex way - that I could have done it leaving them intact. I assumed that those bits needed to stay, so I did it the hard, "right" way.

All web hyperbole aside, I simply get worried when we institutionalize sloppy interpretations, we let the proverbial camel's nose under the flap of our shared tent. Are wiper bottles or signal stalks the end of the IT world as we know it? Obviously not.

But if we don't draw the line where it is defined by the text of the rules, where DO we?

And as long as the line keeps moving, we are in very real danger of losing control of the state of our category, particularly now that it has been taken out of stasis by the hard work of the current ITAC.

K

EDIT - I don't claim omnicience or anything even close to it. That's why I lean so heavily to the actual text of the rules.

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited February 11, 2005).]

K,
I earnestly believe that you and I differ so often because you view IT as an adjunct to Showroom Stock and I see it as the first step to real race cars. But that's another matter. And interpreting rules is part of the game.

I do enjoy your metaphors however ("we let the proverbial camel's nose under the flap of our shared tent.")

I must say again I also enjoyed meeting you at VIR and would prefer a more friendly adversarial relationship. Sorry if the feelings aren't mutual.

G. Robert



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 11, 2005).]

[Joe Harlan]

Sorry G. but I could bring 100 guys/bals that would say you have stretched this reading beyond the elastic limits of even the most liberal reading of the rule book. Your supporting evidence is not well founded and your fees shall be retained by this board to treat everyone on the ITAC to a cup of cheap coffee..... Try finding a good headlamp switch for a 240z....But all of my cars have them installed and in the way...

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Sorry G. but I could bring 100 guys/bals that would say you have stretched this reading beyond the elastic limits of even the most liberal reading of the rule book. Your supporting evidence is not well founded and your fees shall be retained by this board to treat everyone on the ITAC to a cup of cheap coffee..... Try finding a good headlamp switch for a 240z....But all of my cars have them installed and in the way...

Joe,
With all respect to the ITAC, I don't think we have 100 guys in IT (at least in C) but as I said I can find 20 with their switches and stalks removed. (And I am fully aware that doesn't make it legal, only that they are interpreting the written rule the same way I am.) And as far as stretching interpretations, I find it no more stretching the rules than you all have done with your roll cages. (Please don't counter this. I've heard the arguments.)

But I'll tape my stalks back on to keep from wasting time with a ridiculous protest. Thanks for your thoughts and enjoy the coffee.

G. Robert



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 11, 2005).]

[Joe Harlan]

Haha, You need to look at who you are talking to. My stance on rollcages is a lot tighter than you think. 20 people don't make it right.

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Haha, You need to look at who you are talking to. My stance on rollcages is a lot tighter than you think. 20 people don't make it right.

Would 100 automotive engineers who consider a switch an "instrument" make it right?

I am thouroughly convinced that when the writers of "Gauges and instruments may be added, replaced, or removed," they intended "instruments" to include switches and controls, because that is what "instrument" means to any reasonable speaker of English. The GCR glossary definition of instrument was written long after the IT rules and the mistake in semantics was never corrected, as so often happens. This interpretation is not tortured. It is a clear report of fact.

As much as I appreciate your efforts, I doubt this group would admit being wrong if I collected the evidence with 100 sworn affadavits.
G. Robert



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 11, 2005).]

[Knestis]

Originally posted by grjones1:
... Sorry if the feelings aren't mutual.

I don't know where you get the idea that they aren't. Maybe you are better at typing than reading ...

K

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Knestis:
I don't know where you get the idea that they aren't. Maybe you are better at typing than reading ...

K

I was just looking for reassurance.
G

[Tom Donnelly]

Both my 240z's have turn signal stalks. It doesn't say you can remove them so I didn't. They are bent out of the way and it could be argued that that is a modifcation but they are out of the way when I'm "flailing around".

Just my point of view.

Tom Donnelly
ITS 240z

[Joe Harlan]

No 100 engineers would be the last group I would listen to...You said it yourself "SWITCH" Please read yer GCR.

While it would be a Chicken S**T protest if I knew it was done on purpose I would gladly write the check to get it clarified.

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
No 100 engineers would be the last group I would listen to...You said it yourself "SWITCH" Please read yer GCR.

While it would be a Chicken S**T protest if I knew it was done on purpose I would gladly write the check to get it clarified.

Joe,
This is what really bothers me. If you won't listen to engineers concerning automotive parlance and such, who do you listen to?

"Switch" is not defined in the GCR. But I discovered something else of interest: "Instrument Panel" is shown to be "...a mounting area for various gauges and controls." Is it not significant that something called an INSTRUMENT Panel contains both gauges and controls - i.e., all inclusive by definition.
Does this not suggest anything to you?

Please admit that "instrument" means controls (switches) as well as gauges and that whoever defined "instrument" in the glossary may have inadvertantly overlooked that fact, so I can award you reasonableness.

G

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 11, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 11, 2005).]

[ITANorm]

Interestingly enough, here's a theoretical dilemma:

With the seatback anchored (per the rules), and a fixed steering wheel in place, it is extremely difficult to get out of some cars. On some of those same cars, it IS impossible (through any means I've found) to mount the release mechanism for the wheel if the turn signal saddle assembly remains in place. Since it is a cast unit that bolts to the steering column - it has to go (and before you suggest relocation, that is as illegal as removal, under the same set of rules).

So - if someone reasonably removes the signal stalk assembly in order to facilitate his being able to get out of the car in an emergency, it becomes a safety issue. I realize that only "required" safety items trigger the loophole - but when the requirement becomes a common-sense one as opposed to a GCR mandated one, I'll chhose to live with common-sense as opposed to dying by the GCR.

And then the conpiracy theorist in me wonders whether some of this isn't a tactical maneuver by the CRB / BoD to force cars from the plentiful IT ranks into the maundering Prod. ranks. Hmmmm . . ..

[DavidM]

Turn signal stalks!?!?!?!?! Holy crap! I can't believe I just spent 10 minutes reading a debate on !@#$%^&* turn signal stalks! Who cares! Unless there's some car out there with the magic "go fast" turn signal stalk, it doesn't make a bit of difference to the speed of a car whether or not it has the turn signal stalk.

I personally would never protest anyone because they didn't have the turn signal stalk, or they removed their passenger side window glass, or they took out the heater core, or any of the other nonrelevant to speed things discussed. The guy didn't beat me because he didn't have a washer bottle. He beat me because he was faster than me. Now, an illegal ECU or compression is a different story.

How bout the rules address things that make a car go and stop faster as well as safety. Leave everything else up to the discretion of the driver/builder. You want to keep your turn signal stalk, go right ahead. Or you can remove it if you want. I have yet to figure out how removing the washer bottle and heater core (as examples) move IT down the evil path towards prod, yet open diffs don't? Open (as in you can do what you want) diffs was one of the big shocks I had when I started looking at IT racing. I'm sure there's some reason, but open diffs seem a long ways away from stock to me. Engine management systems in the stock box seem pretty far from stock as well.

Perhaps the rules should specifically address the stuff that really matters and the trivial things can be handled however you want. That way the rules guys can focus on things like minimum weights and car classification instead of whether or not you can remove the water bottle.

Just my $.02.

David

[Joe Harlan]

WTF? I can't believe how stupid this crap gets. I have been in the automotive industry for 25years.......way to freakin long A switch is not meant to be an instrument and I will gladly prove it in the COA...100 engineers that have no practical experience means nothing other than than went to school to learn what I learned in the field...Who's got better information?

[grjones1]

Originally posted by DavidM:
Turn signal stalks!?!?!?!?! Holy crap! I can't believe I just spent 10 minutes reading a debate on !@#$%^&* turn signal stalks! Who cares! Unless there's some car out there with the magic "go fast" turn signal stalk, it doesn't make a bit of difference to the speed of a car whether or not it has the turn signal stalk.

I personally would never protest anyone because they didn't have the turn signal stalk, or they removed their passenger side window glass, or they took out the heater core, or any of the other nonrelevant to speed things discussed. The guy didn't beat me because he didn't have a washer bottle. He beat me because he was faster than me. Now, an illegal ECU or compression is a different story.

How bout the rules address things that make a car go and stop faster as well as safety. Leave everything else up to the discretion of the driver/builder. You want to keep your turn signal stalk, go right ahead. Or you can remove it if you want. I have yet to figure out how removing the washer bottle and heater core (as examples) move IT down the evil path towards prod, yet open diffs don't? Open (as in you can do what you want) diffs was one of the big shocks I had when I started looking at IT racing. I'm sure there's some reason, but open diffs seem a long ways away from stock to me. Engine management systems in the stock box seem pretty far from stock as well.

Perhaps the rules should specifically address the stuff that really matters and the trivial things can be handled however you want. That way the rules guys can focus on things like minimum weights and car classification instead of whether or not you can remove the water bottle.

Just my $.02.

David

[grjones1]

Just my $.02.

David[/B]

Well said, David.

GRJ