Poll on rules changes

[racer-025]

Originally posted by DavidM:
5) I like the suggestion to get rid of head lights.

you mean like this?

[evanwebb]

Hey everyone, please post your actual name, and member number so I can include that info on both the yays and nays to the comp bd.

Hey Bob Clark, I don't know if you saw my comment in the March Fastrack thread on here, but I am very happy with the new positive direction IT is going, I think the ITAC and I think the comp bd have been doing a great job recently. That's why I'm bothering to take this poll and try to take forward issues that have wide agreement here, in the "old" SCCA it would have been pointless. Keep it up guys! :-)

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by 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

David,

Guess you missed that analysis I did where it showed that Prod cars are cheaper than IT cars. Coulda had Weisberg's RX7 for ~60% of what a top E36 goes for.

But, as Joe says, it's a poll

1) Yes (Keeping a bad rule becaue people spent money is not a very good reason)

2) Yes

3) Yes

4) Yes

5) allow removal of headlights

6) run any wheel up to the max listed on the spec line


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

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

David,

Guess you missed that analysis I did where it showed that Prod cars are cheaper than IT cars. Coulda had Weisberg's RX7 for ~60% of what a top E36 goes for.

HA! A VERY well built ITS RX-7 goes for $12K...Weisberg's car was for sale for $20K. Learn me the math on that. Try an Apples to Apples comparison.

As far as the poll goes:

I place much more value in individual letters with peoples own thoughts. A funny thing actually happens when you have to write something yourself...you actually think about it.

1. Yes - I would like to see the Genie stuffed back in the bottle. Give people a couple years...effective Jan 2007

2. No
3. No
4. No

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com


[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited February 03, 2005).]

[Knestis]

Let's honor Evan's point and please try to just reply to the question, rather than turning this into another philosophical conversation.

1. Leave the ECU rule the way it is. There are logical reasons to get more restrictive and equally good rationale for opening it up. No.

2. This - in and of itself - is not a big issue but I can't help but wonder why we do this and then not take additional steps that make just as much sense, when viewed at a micro level. At the end, no.

3. If it's allowed that heater cores be disabled, requiring them to be there is dumb. Washer bottle - who cares. ALLOW the removal of passenger door glass, irrespective of door bar design. There's no logic to gutting the door to put tubes in there because it's stronger leaving them straight. Don't require it. So, yes, yes, yes, and no.

4. The current repair rule suffices. No.

5. Nope. I'm cool.

K

[pfcs]

absolutely Andy-like how do you keep the snow out of your car if don't have a window. Sure, I can leave one in the door, but if I can move several pounds down in the chassis, I'd want to. KISS! If it works, don't fix it. If you want to obsess over something, obsess over how you can prep your car to these sensible rules in a way that maximizes the package-think about it-really. I'd bet there's a lot of stuff you haven't done, or haven't imagined you could do. Ignition is free-how high is your coil mounted?
edit-I give up! how did I bash Andy by agreeing with him?
------------------
phil hunt

[This message has been edited by pfcs (edited February 06, 2005).]

[lateapex911]

1- No- the genie has long since outgrown the bottle, and getting him back in will reak him or the bottle or both. It SUCKS, but thats the way it is.

2- No- No really good reason to. Cars were all classed with the 40lbs in it's stock location, and thye should remain as such. Some cars will benefit much more than others when they shift 40lbs around. besides...I prefer my battery to do it's exploding up front, thankyou.

3- No to Passenger window glass et al. No reason to. Again, thousands of us will HAVE to do it just to keep up with the Jones, then figure out a way to keep the car dry in the rain. No gain here.

3A- No to Heater core. Again...it serves no harm, is beneficial to those in the rainy climates, and can be blocked easily if so desired.

4- No- wiring is fine as is.

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited February 03, 2005).]

[erlrich]

1. Not sure what the "old rule" was - if that means going back to a completely stock ECU, then no, if it means restricting modifications to re-programming or "chipping" the original ECU, then yes.

2. Lukewarm yes.

3. Yes to all - you can block off the hoses to the heater core now, and if you choose to do so then the core just becomes so much ballast.

4. No - what Joe said.

5. I for one would like to see an open wheel size rule; just give a min and max wheel diameter, say between 13" and 17", and keep the widths as they are for the different classes. As aftermarket wheel sizes continue to increase, it won't be too terribly long before we start having the same problem with 15" wheels that guys have been experiencing with 13" and 14". Even now when you go shopping for wheels you'll see three or four times the selection of wheels in 16" & 17" than you do in 15".

Earl

[TypeSH]

1) Any ECU to stock harness.

2) Yes

3) Yes, all.

4) Yes

[Ron Earp]

1) Should we ditch the ECU rule? Yes, especially if we can do something with wiring harnesses for old cars.

2) No.

3) Yes, kick all that stuff to the curb.

4) Yes, especially in light of the open ECU rule.

------------------
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?

[ShelbyRacer]

Wow, I feel like this is deja vu all over again...

1. Any ECU that goes thru the stock connector
OR, BETTER YET
You must retain the stock ECU. Up to TWO chips may be desoldered for the purposes of reprogramming. The ECU must "ping" stock when polled by any aftermarket or factory scan tool (this would make it very expen$ive the cheat and hide it).

2. Isn't that against class philosophy? (no offense to the current ITAC)

3. Believe it or not, I have no opinion on this one.

4. I think we all know where I stand on that one...

Matt Green 306988

Oh, and I find it interesting that yet again, Phil Hunt pops in to bash someone and adds NOTHING to the conversation (and as usual, the post isn't even relevant). Even more interesting though is the fact that I "responded" to it... :P I just have too much time on my hands. I guess I need to get back to the other SCCA nerds now...

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

[Bill Miller]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">HA! A VERY well built ITS RX-7 goes for $12K...Weisberg's car was for sale for $20K. Learn me the math on that. Try an Apples to Apples comparison.</font>

Andy,

So, I can buy Nick's car for $12k? I'm not going to get into it. Go back and look at the cars I found. Sure, you can find examples that go the other way. However, I've seen used SpeedSource ITS RX7's for double the figure you've quoted. Also, where'd you find that E36 RX7 for $12k?

[/hijack]

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

[shwah]

1 - Yes. Bad idea to start with. Just because a mistake was made doesn't mean it should not be fixed. The old rule was right, but hard to police, and no matter how explosive the topic we all know we have cheaters that love the rules that cannot be policed. I guess that limits us to stock hardware, replace/program chips only.

2. No. It's fine the way it is.

3. No. I don't see the big deal for all the people that want to lose the water bottle and heater core, but I think they are fine. I don't buy the safety argument for the passenger door glass. The window is down in the door, with a door panel covering it.

4. No. Repair is allowed. That is sufficient.

5. Just continue the current trend of identifying and correcting past mistakes.

Chris Schaafsma
Chicago Region

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by evanwebb:

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

Just a note that I didn't notice anyone mentioning... you ARE currently allowed to replace your battery with an "alternate type", such as a gel-cel, etc... i.e.: SAFER type... Read your 2005 ITCS...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited February 04, 2005).]

[Super Swift]

Chris Schaafsma
The old ECU rule was not just hard to police it was impossible to police. When the tech inspectors at the ARRC kicked out protests on the issue it became an un-police-able area. The only reason to change the current ECU rule is to outlaw Motec. While I am not a big fan of it I don’t think it needs to be eliminated just because I will never have it.

As for the other rules… I fear change.

I have been told by several people that RR Shocks should come back because they last longer and are more durable than our current rules so in the end cheaper. So maybe Moton’s should come back.

[bldn10]

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)?

Just delete the words "or replace" to effect the original intent of the rules change.

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

I don't have any great yearning to do this so, no.

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...)

yes

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 if replacement not available


130586



------------------
Bill Denton
87/89 ITS RX-7
02 Audi TT225QC
95 Tahoe
Memphis

[RSTPerformance]

1)No, didn't they change the ECU rule that allows replacement of the computer because it was to hard to govern? If you change the rule back it wasted a lot of peoples money, and secondly tell me what we have now that would allow us to be able to govern it VS then when the rule was changed.

2)Battery relocation NO, replacement with a different SIZE yes. I hate trying to fit the dam HUGE Audi battery in around the dam wiring harness... ALSO FYI on the argument of longe unsafe wires... Many of us already have those wires (and some have very long ones) as we had to install a Kill Switch.

3) We should be alowed to gut what is REQUIRED in Production so the car can be more multipurpose. Either that or change the production rule to not require the removal of the similar parts.

4) Yes, Have you ever tried rewiring a car after an electrical fire??? It sucks...

5) Make ALL IT cars eligable to run Production (for fun, as they obviosly would not have the potential to win). Make it so you would not need to change the car at all to run in Production. This would help people in the bridge to production/national racing, and it most likely will increase car counts in production classes making it a more desireable class than it is now...


Raymond Blethen (SCCA #270386, 20 year member)

[MMiskoe]

1. No - leave it alone, too hard to back track on something like that, plus it is not badly written as it is.

2. Allow different batteries in stock location. Different types of batteries elimintates the crap of "how do I get an OEM battery for my 1963 Wombat?"

3. Windsheild washers yes, door gutting no. Washer bottles are typically in the way of working on motors, door interiors on the passengers side are just ballast, allowing moving them would be rules creep.

4. No. Current rule is OK as is.

5. Allowance to add jack points to allow safe/easy jacking up of a car. Allow 2 locations total, each w/ a maximum of 64" square inches of material used, but no dimension longer than 10" in length, perimeter of reinforced area no more than 32" long, maximum mtl thickness of 3/16". Or something to this effect.

Matt

[lateapex911]

Ahhhh...the jacking point..I had forgoten about that.

Yup! THAT would be useful. Adds no performance, but makes the cars last longer.

I would prefer we weld an extension of the rollcage structure that passes through the floor to jack on, or and extension that has a pad that is inside the floor, but is not attached to the floor. (the old paper pass test)

In any case it should be written in such a way as to prohibit any "9th & 10th" points of attachment.

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited February 07, 2005).]

[Bryan Watts]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
or and extension that has a pad that is inside the floor, but is not attached to the floor. (the old paper pass test)

This seems perfectly legal as the rules are written now.

Or am I totally missing something?

[This message has been edited by Bryan Watts (edited February 07, 2005).]