Poll on rules changes

[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).

[Catch22]

1. No. The rule has been made, and some of us have spent hundreds of dollars on modifications and dyno pulls. If we have to undo things, we'll have to spend hundreds more to get the car running well again. It really isn't as easy as plugging in some sort of super chip and getting 10 free horsepower. At least it wasn't on my car.

2. No. I just don't see the need here.

3. Yes to all. These things are just silly. It costs nothing to take them out and they serve no purpose. Being able to remove this stuff will also allow some folks (like Kirk) to get their fat-assed cars down closer to their minimum weight.

4. My first thought was yes, but then I started thinking that SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE would figure out how to use this to gain an advantage, which is not the intent of the thought.
So my answer is "It depends upon the wording.'

5. None. I'm actually pretty darned happy.
I'd like a new ITA Integra though, if anybody has an extra $20K burning a hole in their pockets.

------------------
#22 ITC Honda Civic
3rd Place 2004 ARRC
1st Place 2004 ARRC Enduro

[Turfer]

1. I am divided. I've already made a fairly substantial investment in this area but at the same time, we keep coming up with ideas for modifications. I would like to see the rules backtrack to "only a chip may be replaced or the prom flashed" or something like that.

We need to stop looking at how to fit stand alone ECU's into the current housing.

2. I don't really care on this one but I lean towards yes.

3. Yes

4. Yes, if carefully worded. Which might be impossible.

5. This will never change but I don't think final drives should have ever been made free.

Rick Delamare
#340963

[This message has been edited by Turfer (edited February 03, 2005).]

[Joe Harlan]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">(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)?</font>

Yes make all mods to the factory unit.

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

Yes having the battery in a crash zone is stupid.

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...)

Kinda I would like to see minor crap like water bottles be allowed to remove or replace with none OE unit. I think the heater cores are fine and should be left alone. Yes Remove pass windows and gut pass door

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?

Repair is already allowed and fine just the way it is.

5) Any other suggestions for current irritations that exist in the rules (be sensible, please).
Narrow up and close most of the loopholes. Make sure future rules are clear and well thought out.


[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited February 03, 2005).]

[Bryan Watts]

1) I say keep the current rule. As emissions controls become stricter, the stock computer becomes a serious limiting factor. Newer cars will be more and more tamper proof.

[RacerBill]

1) Kinda mixed on this - driving a car that has very minimal computer.

2) Absolutely - make it safer!

3) Leave the heater stuff, washer bottle (but allow replacement of bottle) but get rid of the glass.

4) Fine as written

5) a) Align the roll cage rules with other classes so all are in the same format.

clean up the legalize jargon ie 17.1.4.d.8.6 - 'two total holes'. What the h... is a 'total hole'? Who speaks like that? If you mean 'a total of two holes', then say it like that!

Thanks.

------------------
Bill Stevens
BnS Racing
83 ITA Shelby Dodge Charger

[RacerBill]

1) Kinda mixed on this - driving a car that has very minimal computer.

2) Absolutely - make it safer!

3) Leave the heater stuff, washer bottle (but allow replacement of bottle) but get rid of the glass.

4) Fine as written

5) a) Align the roll cage rules with other classes so all are in the same format.

clean up the legalize jargon ie 17.1.4.d.8.6 - 'two total holes'. What the h... is a 'total hole'? Who speaks like that? If you mean 'a total of two holes', then say it like that!

Thanks.

------------------
Bill Stevens
BnS Racing
83 ITA Shelby Dodge Charger

[Geo]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Yes having the battery in a crash zone is stupid.

Just a point to ponder for a moment Joe...

The trunk is a crash zone as well. Furthermore it would place the battery in a position to become a cockpit projectile.

Your thoughts?....


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

[racer-025]

1. no
2. no
3. yes
4. yes

[java]

1. Yes, this will get out of hand. This will lead to car's being adjusted during the race by a 'data acc device', and as said 'spend lot's of money' to be up front.

2. Yes, to a safer location. More impacts to front.

3. Heater core No, Washer bottle don't care, Passenger door glass Yes - Safety.

4. Doesn't require change.

5. Before publishing rules allow to be reviewed for wording problems and 'holes' by maybe a seperate review board.

[This message has been edited by java (edited February 03, 2005).]

[wbp]

1. No, too deep already. (bad idea to start)
2. No, short wires safer than long wires.
3. No, no real need and defrosters are needed at times
4. No, maybe repairs only
5. No, need rules stability.

"Allowed" quickly becomes manditory. If everyone else moves battery, you feel you must.
I began racing Production when rules looked very much like today's IT rules. Look what happened to them (what an expensive mess!). Expense ran me out of Production. Don't let it happen to IT. Production still exists for those who love modifiying cars and who are well financed.

[apr67]

1) ECU. The cat's out of the bag. I would change the rule to just allow any ECU that will plug into the stock unmodified harness. This will allow some people a cheaper route (DIYFI, which is looking pretty good). Closing the rule down would be nice, but the club doesn't have the stones to do it IMHO.

2)Battery. Tuff call. I would leave it alone. If I were for any change it would be something like:
Stock can remain as it is, or the battery can be moved anywhere but the passenger compartment and may be stock size or (spec a size that fits in the normal plastic battery box available from summit) and must be in a battery box.

3) Why? Prehaps allow removal of washer bottle, but I see no gain from gutting passenger door other than losing weight. You can already do NASCAR style bars that side of the car, they just can't extend into the door, and they don't need to since we don't carry passengers. Heater core? You can already by pass it.

4) We already allow repair of the factory harness.

[Matt Rowe]

1) Yes, changes to stock boards only for programming.

2) Undecided. If it's impact areas we are worried about why not make the requirement be to locate within the area protected by the cage? With proper mounting it would be no less a projectile threat than ballast, accusump, etc..

3) Heater core and W/W bottle, I'd keep mine anyway. Door glass, I can see removing, but gutting the door is unneccessary.

4) Yes, if worded properly.


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

[1stGenBoy]

Just a couple of thoughts here.
1. When you write to the CRB about these items they, will pass them on to the IT advisorary committee for comment before considering any changes.
2. Having names on the letters along with member numbers and phone numbers if posssible carrys much more weight than "I have a hundred people who agree with this and want it changed"
3. Remember the timeline for rule changes.
Things that are brought up now for possible changes will not happen until Jan 06 at the earliest. Rules and cars that were moved that were published recently in the March 05 Fastrack were actually submitted to the BOD in Aug 04 for them to vote on at the Dec 04 BOD meeting.
A letter written today would be reviewed by the IT committee at our the next meeting in late Feb. Several things can happen then. We can review the letter and comment on it ( thank you for your imput,rules are Ok as written,etc),We can table it for more info (yes we actually do research and contact the letter writer if needed),We can pass it along to the CRB for approval at their next meeting.The CRB can then pass it along to the BOD for a vote(which would be at the Aug or Dec BOD meeting),Send it back to us for more review or info, Not approve the request,table it for review at a later date by them.
4.Every letter sent to SCCA regarding IT gets assigned a number by SCCA and is forwarded to the IT committee for review.Be specific in your letter and maybe even include a possible wording for the rule change. Every little bit helps.
5. Remember we are all volunteers on the committee. We do the best we can and devote a lot of time and effort into making IT the best it can be.

Bob Clark
#76 ITB Cen-Div
SCCA IT Advisorary Committee

[ddewhurst]

1. No

2. No

3. No

4. No

5. No

Expense runs people out of Production. Don't let it happen to IT. Production still exists for those who love modifiying cars and who are well financed.

Have Fun
David Dewhurst
CenDiv

[Joe Harlan]

....

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

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Production still exists for those who love modifiying cars and who are well financed.

Not to hijack this topic, but why is it anytime someone mentions a rule change, someone else tells them to leave and run production? We have people worried about attracting new racers, what about not telling a significant number of current drivers to leave? Rampant rule changes would make a mess of IT but being completely inflexible and showing people the door isn't any better for the long term health of the class.



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

[mustanghammer]

1) No, this cat is out of the bag and there is no way to put it back

2) Yes to both. This is a safety issue that is used successfully by other classes

3) Yes - make it optional. The only benefit is if this saves you weight and or removes unnecessary completixty

4) No

5) Remove head lights - safety issue




------------------
Scott Peterson
KC Region
IT7 #17

[RSTPerformance]

Originally posted by evanwebb:
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).

1.) It never should have changed but it's probably to late to go back.

2.) Bad Idea.... car companies do thousands of tests for safety they wouldn't be where they are if it wasn't a safe spot. I agree loger wires = unsafe. Keep the battery cables short and stock. I could however care less about equal wieght and size.

3.) I would be in favor of a rule stating that you could be allowed to remove anything you want in IT. However you should not be allowed to add or modify anything unless the rules say you can. Removing cost nothing and since this is a grassroots beginer class than things that are cheap/free should be allowed. (I wouldn't remove the heater core in NE.)

4.) Stock wiring harness is meaningless. modify if you need to do repairs otherwise leave it alone. I think this should be free I see no competition advantage by allowing you to change it.

5.)Do not keep getting IT closer to Production. SCCA should allow IT cars to put on slicks and run in Production.... this would be several more entries at regionals and a better stepping stone for IT drivers to take a step up to nationals. (DO NOT EVER ALLOW IT TO GO NATIONAL!)

Stephen

[DavidM]

1) Yes. Only allow replacement of the stock ECU chip with a remapped one. I do think there should be some sort of grandfathering for people that have already invested in the whole Motec thing. Maybe give them 2 years or some time period to get rid of it. The current rule seems to be a large source of increasing cost and I think everyone wants IT to keep costs down. I'll be interested to see if SCCA has the attachments to fix a mistake.

2) I would say no because this increases cost and moves the car away from its stock configuration. Most of our cars (except for the mid engine guys) are nose heavy. That's just the way it is.

3) Yes to all. These are race cars. Crap like that has no business on a race car. I think anything that serves no useful purpose should be allowed to be removed. It makes the car simpler and easier to work on. That doesn't mean you have to remove it and, as mentioned, people may elect to keep things like heater cores in the north. I don't think everyone else should be limited to what they can remove, though. The notion that IT *race cars* should maintain their streetability doesn't make sense. If you drive your race car to the track, cool. I think it's good that you can race. I don't think everyone else should be limited by this notion.

4) Not sure. People seem to have differing opinions on what the current rule allows. I think somebody should be allowed to do whatever they need to do to the wiring harness to keep it in good shape. That includes repairing pieces of the existing harness however they see fit or replacing the harness with a custom built one. If the current rule allows this, then keep it. If not, make a new one.

5) I like the suggestion to get rid of head lights. This kind of falls under #3. I think you should have to replace the headlight with a piece of sheet metal or something else to fill the hole so that it can't be used for cooling or other purposes.