Poll on rules changes

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
How is having half the cars without bumpers and half the cars with going to cut down on intentional bumping. If you have an integral bumper you're going to be jut as, or more, likely to ram the rabbit in front of you that is unprotected.

Well, Matt, I guess it would only cut down on half of the intentional bumping. Still cuts down on the bumping. And I think the integral bumper people are usually less willing to nudge because their plastic bumpers with foam cushioning withstand less punishment than our steel and aluminum I-beams.

GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 19, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 19, 2005).]

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by grjones1:


The integrated bumper cars are the ones presently given the unfair advantage. Their bumpers are aerodynamically superior and they weigh a great deal less than the anchors hung on the ends of the older cars. But no one was concerned with that when the new cars were classified.

GRJ,

Again, you state your opinion as if it were fact. Got some hard data to support that claim? I can tell you that the bumpers on my old AW11 MR2 weighed more than the ones on my Rabbit, and I'd guess they weigh more than a set of Fiesta bumpers (the MR2 bumpers that is).

Simply, changing rules that affect some cars but not others post classification just isn't fair.

Any rules change to the category must affect all cars equally...

(The oft mentioned ECU rule is a GREAT example of a TERRIBLE rules change, and partly because of it's non symetrical effect)

Boy Jake, did you hit the nail on the head w that one. That's the gripe I've had w/ the ECU rule since day one. And, to a somewhat lesser extent, what I think is wrong w/ not letting everyone run wheels up to, and including 15" (or larger, if the car came w/ 16" or greater).



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

[ed325its]

ECU rule - Yes it does need to get returned to some sense of reasonableness, and to using only stock ECU's and programming. The rule was originally changed to allow chip replacement because it was difficult to police. However, the newer ECU's can simply be reprogrammed, so how does one write a rule to control and police that activity. I am afraid the rule needs to be at either end of the spectrum (a) stock only or ( unrestricted. I am against the latter simply because of the cost.

Passenger door rule - Yes, the same rules should apply for the passenger door as apply for the driver's door. Some of these cars see double duty in DE's and Rally. Both of which allow or requirer an occupant in the passenger seat. This change would provide no advantage in Road Racing.

------------------
Ed Tisdale
#22 ITS '95 325is
Racing BMW's since 1984

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

OK, Bill, you are correct, after owning a few cars with metal bumpers and a few without, I from everyday maintenance and repair estimated that the plastic bumpers were lighter than the steel and aluminum bumpers. Now tell me how much do the Rabbit bumpers weigh and how much do the MR2 bumpers weigh? So that we are not dealing with speculation.

GRJ
I would also add that the MR2 bumper composes part of the "body work." So perhaps we are comparing apples to oranges?



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 20, 2005).]

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by ed325its:
I am afraid the rule needs to be at either end of the spectrum (a) stock only or ( unrestricted. I am against the latter simply because of the cost.

I have offered this before. Write the as such:
---------------------------
The stock ECU must be used (including board, housing, and connector). Up to two chips may be desoldered for the purposes of programming, and may be socketed (regular or ZIF sockets). Any replacement chips must have the same number of pins as stock. The ECU must be able to be read by any commercially available scan tool using the stock ECU configuration and ID.
---------------------------

This allows reprogramming, without making the rule overly cumbersome to read and enforce. Hook up any scan tool, set the stock ID for that car, and check. If it don't respond, it's out. If there's a reason to look further (as in it's identified in the protest), pull the unit and check (probably a $50-75 bond).

What can you guys find wrong with this one? (that's an honest question- I really would like to know for my own improvement).

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

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by grjones1:
OK, Bill, you are correct, after owning a few cars with metal bumpers and a few without, I from everyday maintenance and repair estimated that the plastic bumpers were lighter than the steel and aluminum bumpers. Now tell me how much do the Rabbit bumpers weigh and how much do the MR2 bumpers weigh?

Who cares?? It's totally irrelevant! Sorry, but I gotta call BS on this...the category has dozens and dozens of cars, and they all have different bumper configurations, weights, and distances from the CG. You can't even fantasize about such a change that would be SO unbalanced!

On the same grounds, I have issues with the battery relocation idea, and to a lesser degree, the window glass idea. The battery location idea is a material difference that won't affect all cars equally, so No to that, and the window idea is as well, but to a much lesser degree.

It is interesting that if we got all the rules changes proposed here, from bumpers to window glass to swithches to batteries, what would we have?


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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by lateapex911:

It is interesting that if we got all the rules changes proposed here, from bumpers to window glass to swithches to batteries, what would we have?

With all respect, Jake, and I mean that; however, there is great fear expressed here of any changes because of their possible impact on the category with absolutely no such fear expressed when the NB was introduced.

I don't want to go back to that old discusssion, but I would appreciate some consistency in attitude.

People, other than a few who post here regularly, have some good ideas. Please don't dismiss them out-of-hand because they are not suggested by a few members who I may fear have their own agendas and that is don't do anything that might require some rethinking.

And, changes suggested here as far as I can see do not push us towrds Production as I thnk is your implication, because none of the changes cost a great deal of money, which is what actually killed Production, as you and I know.

Sincerely,
GRJ

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by grjones1:
OK, Bill, you are correct, after owning a few cars with metal bumpers and a few without, I from everyday maintenance and repair estimated that the plastic bumpers were lighter than the steel and aluminum bumpers. Now tell me how much do the Rabbit bumpers weigh and how much do the MR2 bumpers weigh? So that we are not dealing with speculation.

GRJ
I would also add that the MR2 bumper composes part of the "body work." So perhaps we are comparing apples to oranges?

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 20, 2005).]

GRJ,

You were the one that started comparing integral bumpers w/ 'conventional' bumpers. Now you say that it's apples to oranges. But no matter, it's typical of how you change your tune when you're shown to be wrong.

As far as the actual weights of the Rabbit and MR2 bumpers, I don't have them. However, the MR2 bumper (not the cover) was steel, and comparable in size to the Rabbit bumper, which is aluminum. You figure out which weighs more.

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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

GRJ,

You were the one that started comparing integral bumpers w/ 'conventional' bumpers. Now you say that it's apples to oranges. But no matter, it's typical of how you change your tune when you're shown to be wrong.

As far as the actual weights of the Rabbit and MR2 bumpers, I don't have them. However, the MR2 bumper (not the cover) was steel, and comparable in size to the Rabbit bumper, which is aluminum. You figure out which weighs more.

Bill.
You can still twist an argument with the best of them, but the "apples to oranges" thing has to do with integral bumpers being "part of the body work." I'm not going to argue this any farther -if the rule would ever be considered, a way of making it fair to the integral bumper people might make it difficult and Lord knows, we don't want to make anything difficult.

Until you give me the exact weights of the MR2 bumper and the Rabbit bumper, you haven't proven any thing wrong.

And BTW, Bill, some of the Rabbit bumpers were steel - now you of all people should know that.
GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 20, 2005).]

[wrankin]

I'll be the first to admit that I'm the novice here, but it seems to be that the no bumpers vs. integrated bumbers consideration would be more at home in the production classes rather than IT.

Now this post may never get read because it sits at the bottom of a long line of bumper-talk ;-) but one rule change that I would like considered would be to allow chassis (and chassis only) from models not allowed in a specific class to be utilized in that class as long as that chassis is identical to one already allowing in that class.

Examples of this would be the VW Golf/GTI or the RX-7 FC NA/Turbo-II. The models are different (and classed different) but the chassis is common between the two models and should be allowed to be interchanged. Common assemblies between the two models are already allowed to be used (body panels, steering racks, etc) but not the chassis assembly itself.

Allowing this would provide a larger availability of platforms (for both models) for future cars.

Just a thought - anyone know of additional examples of this?

Thanks,

-bill


[This message has been edited by wrankin (edited February 21, 2005).]

[lateapex911]

You may be a rookie here, but your bumper comment hits the nail on the head.

I suspect (but it is a guess) that the reason for the chassis rule is the difficulty in ascertaining (without a little more legwork that the (at the time) stand alone CRB was willing to do) if there were subtle but important differences between the chassis of different models.

Your point is good in that it would open a population of existing chassis up for use that is not available now.

IF the reason is the research involved, I wonder if the current organizational structure (the Advisory commitees) would be more open to such a rule? Perhaps as a line item allowance?

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

[Geo]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Your point is good in that it would open a population of existing chassis up for use that is not available now.

IF the reason is the research involved, I wonder if the current organizational structure (the Advisory commitees) would be more open to such a rule? Perhaps as a line item allowance?

It makes sense in the micro. In the macro it's another story entirely. There are over 300 classification lines in the ITCS and IMHO it's asking too much of the techs, the ITAC, the CRB, and others to be experts about all chassis classified (and many more that may not be but people want to use them).

Another example is the Nissan B13 Sentra. The shell is the same whether it's an SE-R or a base model. But would I expect the CRB, ITAC, and all techs to know this, or more importantly that some seemingly similar shell is almost the same, but there is an important difference?

I have a good example of this. The lower models of BMW E36 (like specifically the 325i) does not have the suspension mounting reinforcements of the M3. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples in those 300+ classification lines, some of which are over 30 years old. It could become a true nightmare.


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

[Spinnetti]

Originally posted by evanwebb:
Hi! I'd like to get some opinions (should be easy on this board), and if there is enough interest I'll start writing the comp board. Also, if you give an opinion please let me know if I can use your name in the letter to the comp board. Everybody please tell me what you think! I'd like to get 100+ responses on this... I'm willing to be a pain in the comp boards butt if we have widespread agreeement on any of this...

1) Should we ditch the ECU rule that allows replacement of the computer, and go back to the old rule (or something similar, make suggestions)?

2) Should battery relocation and/or replacement with a different type be allowed?

3) Sould we be able to remove the heater core/hoses, windshield washer bottle, and passenger door glass & gut the passenger door same as the driver door (including NASCAR bars? (Any or all of these...)

4) Should we allow repair, modification and/or replacement of the stock wiring harness as long as the new harness does not perform any other (prohibited) function?

5) Any other suggestions for current irritations that exist in the rules (be sensible, please).

Yes to 1-4, though 1 is already a done deal, so no point in beating that horse.. the other suff? Absolutely. I want a CHEAP RACE CAR, not just a dumbed down street car. Let us remove the junk - it costs next to nothing, and makes are cars faster, and easier to maintain which is the whole point for me.

I sure wish they would allow the battery relocation - in one wreck, my car went up in smoke as the front mounted battery was crushed, dead shorting and spraying acid everywhere. Needless to say, that was a total loss.

[Chuck Davis]

My friend, you're kidding yourself about IT rule change requests. The Comp Board is comprised of who knows what. The standard answer from this group is "creep" or making comparisons with other classes of cars. The only success any of us will have in making requested changes is to provide a uniform front with enough signatures on a partition so it can't be blown off by the Board. And getting competitors in this group to unite is very very difficult. When you look at the summary of entrys around the country, IT tops the list. Shouldn't we get the most attention? If "creep" means the cost of car prep think about what it cost to enter an event, to get there, and a set of tires.
I wish you well. Good luck.



------------------