Short Shifters in ITS

[dj10]

The way the rules read it seems that you are not allowed a short shifter. Am I correct? But it seems that every ITS car I see has one in it. Would you get disqualified at the IT run offs for a short shifter?
Thanks
DJ

[RSTPerformance]

you should get DQ'd... but I don't think I have ever seen anyone check that...

Raymond

[Geo]

Originally posted by dj10:
Would you get disqualified at the IT run offs for a short shifter?

Apparently not since Bob Stretch has is ITA car for sale in the classifieds and clearly lists that it has a short shifter.

Anybody think it may be time to change this rule?


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

[dj10]

[quote]Originally posted by Geo:
[B] Apparently not since Bob Stretch has is ITA car for sale in the classifieds and clearly lists that it has a short shifter.

Anybody think it may be time to change this rule?

I believe it is not a big ticket item, it doesn't offer any performance advantage. It is only a driver conveinence. I would never protest anyone for it but then again I would don't like the idea of having something illegal on my car. How do we get this rule changed?
DJ

[Geo]

Originally posted by dj10:
How do we get this rule changed?

Send an e-mail to: [email protected]

Be clear about what you're asking for and why it would be a good change to make.



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

[Knestis]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...it doesn't offer any performance advantage. </font>

I find it tough to buy, whenever someone trots out this argument. I tend to believe that people won't do things that they don't THINK will make their cars faster. The fact that some part is for "driver comfort or convenience" doesn't change that. I'm pretty sure that I'm faster when I'm comfortable and have good mirrors, a dead pedal, grippy wheel, and all that stuff...

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Anybody think it may be time to change this rule?</font>

Anybody think it may be time to enforce the one we have?

We are looking forward to more changes in IT for next season than we have seen at one time - probably since the class was started. For the most part, they make sense in terms of benefit to the category set against (known) downsides.

The exact same argument can be made for a complete aftermarket shifter assembly. How about pedals? If I can change them, it would actually be easier to use aftermarket master cylinders, too. None of these things offer any "performance advantage" either, right?


The point is that if everyone has to use - or not use - the same thing, and there is no major cost to the program for doing so, why bother?

K

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Anybody think it may be time to enforce the one we have?

Absolutely.

I don't consider myself a "RULES NERD" in that I am often open to some creative interpretation of grey areas and exploitation of loop holes for a performance advantage. They can close the loop next fast track.

Generally speaking, I would not protest someone for a non-performance enhancing issue. However, when someone blatantly ignores (not creatively interprets) a rule they deserve to get penalized, they aren't even attempting to play by the rules.

[Bill Miller]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Generally speaking, I would not protest someone for a non-performance enhancing issue.</font>

Unfortunately, this is one of the main problems w/ our system today. More than one person has stated the same (or similar) thing on several occasions, relating to any number of items (washer bottles come to mind).

It's one of the pitfalls of a self-policing organizatoin, peer pressure. People are reluctant to call for enforcement of the rules if they A) don't feel that it's an important enough issue, or feel that they will be ostracized (sp?) by their peers, because others feel that it's not an important issue. The fact that B could occur has been reinforced by comments made by people on this very board.

Maybe it's time for our officials to actually step up and take a pro-active position on enforcing our rules. After all, I believe that I read something in the recent FasTrack that a National tech team can tear someone down (w/o a formal protest), and not have to stand a bond, even if the car is found in compliance. I certainly don't agree w/ the change in policy re: bond, but it appears that our officials can initiate a tear down on their own (besides at the Runoffs).

I agree w/ Kirk, let's enforce the rules that we have. I am curious as to why George trotted out Stretch's car as apparent supporting evidence to get rid of the rule.

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

[erlrich]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I am curious as to why George trotted out Stretch's car as apparent supporting evidence to get rid of the rule.

Gee Bill, that's about 180 degrees from the way I took George's comment. It appeared to me that, in response to another member's question, he was pointing to an example of a car that has probably been through as many post-race tear downs as any car in IT and has never been DQ'd for having a short shifter. JMHO

I do find it interesting that if you browse ads for IT cars, on this board and others, this is probably the most often advertised illegal part you come across. I realize among rules nerds (and those who aspire to be) the ubiquitous IIDSYCYC covers this, but I wonder if this is one case where we need to either a)spell it out; or b)make it legal.

Earl

[This message has been edited by erlrich (edited December 06, 2004).]

[erlrich]

Sorry - double click...

[This message has been edited by erlrich (edited December 06, 2004).]

[Knestis]

"Spelling it out" - saying specificaly that short shifters are "not allowed" - would just be another chink in the IIDSYCYC armor. That is a bad tactic that has created more problems than it solves.

Write a rule excluding "short shift kits" and the door is open for me to make a case for complete, aftermarket shifter assemblies as legal, since they are not explicitly prohibited. My sequential gearbox? Not a short shifter so it's okay, right?

(That was BB hyperbole, used to illuminate the extreme for the sake of argument, just so nobody misses it.)

Now in the real world, we have to work these things out. I will start the 2005 season with an illegally modified hood, since I put Dzus fasteners in it for the enduro lights. To be scrupulously correct, I need to replace it and remove the auxillary light harnesses.

I have made the decision to take my chances with protests and if someone "writes paper" on me, I won't go kicking and screaming to the CoA or try to make some disingenuous argument that they fall under the heading of "driver comfort" or "gauges."

When I said that we should enforce the rules, I guess that really does mean "we" - the drivers - since that's how the system is designed to work. WE just have to figure out what we are OK with and what we aren't, and do it.

Changing the rules because people won't is a bad idea.

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited December 06, 2004).]

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I am curious as to why George trotted out Stretch's car as apparent supporting evidence to get rid of the rule.

Bill, Earl was 100% correct. Having been at the ARRC this year and watched some of the tear-downs and all, I found it curious to see Bob's car for sale advertised with a short shifter.

Changing the rule or not is a completely separate issue. Bob running one is hardly reason to change the rule.

FWIW, I think it would be a rather innocuous rule change. I don't think they make anyone faster. Some people like them (me for one) and others don't. I don't see where if the rule were changed it would make the rest of the field have to have one. Anyway, I was just kind of wondering aloud how people felt about the rule.


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

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis:
"Spelling it out" - saying specificaly that short shifters are "not allowed" - would just be another chink in the IIDSYCYC armor. That is a bad tactic that has created more problems than it solves.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Knestis:
I have made the decision to take my chances with protests and if someone "writes paper" on me, I won't go kicking and screaming to the CoA or try to make some disingenuous argument that they fall under the heading of "driver comfort" or "gauges."

Driver comfort wouldn't cut it anyway. I think that line is often way over played. The only place I remember reading any allowance for driver comfort is in modification to the foot pedals. If driver comfort was allowed for in general, we'd have all sorts of creative interpretations for illegal things IMHO.

Originally posted by Knestis:
When I said that we should enforce the rules, I guess that really does mean "we" - the drivers - since that's how the system is designed to work. WE just have to figure out what we are OK with and what we aren't, and do it.

Changing the rules because people won't is a bad idea.

Agreed.


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

[ddewhurst]

***Anybody think it may be time to enforce the one we have?***

Yes........

Two items I beleive to be true about the short shifter.

A. Because of the lever length ratio with the hand speed movement equal of a normal shifter as a compared to a short shifter less time is required while using the short shifter. Atvantage to the people the short shifter.

B. Info from a National E Production driver before he installed a PBS. The syncro teeth from a Mazda RX-7 join the trans oil sooner. Atvantage to the people with more money.

Have Fun
David

[dj10]

Thank you all for some very interesting & intelligent points of view.

I am still going to lobby for the change to what I see is as a non enforced rule, and from what I read and talk to, (other IT racers) the majority would want the short shifters on the cars.
DJ

[jhooten]

Be prepared for the rules creep argument to start next. Yes a short sifter may seem like an unimportant rule that is not inforced. BUT, if some one running a similar car to mine is half a second a lap faster than me it must be because he has one and I don't so now I have to go buy one to stay competitive. So the cost of racing just went up for IT. And IT rules just crept a little closer to Production rules.

If you want to do all these mods to your car get the VTS sheets from Topeaka and request your car be classed in one of the production classes. When it is then you can mod the crap out of it with out raising the cost for the rest of us in IT.

After all isn't that what IT is supposed to be, a lower cost place to race? Entry level racing, so to speak.

And, BTW, my ITS car does not have a short shifter.

------------------
Jerry
ITS/E 85 Toyota Supra
Lone Star Region

[JohnRW]

Engine builders generally think that short-shifters are great for 'repeat business'.

[Tom Donnelly]

I don't have the rules in front of me but doesn't it say somewhere that you can bend the shift arm, thereby shortening it?

Or am I missing the point completely. I know this isn't a short shift kit but it seems enough for IT.

Did Bob's car have a bent 'short shifter' or an aftermarket kit?

Tom

[erlrich]

Originally posted by Knestis:
"Spelling it out" - saying specificaly that short shifters are "not allowed" - would just be another chink in the IIDSYCYC armor.

Kirk - point taken, but I was thinking more along the lines of "Shifters may be bent...no other modifications to the stock shifter/linkage may be made...". That said, if I were king short shifters would be legal already.

And I do get the rules creep issue, but I don't think we can use that as a blanket argument against any changes that might benefit the class. Not saying that's necessarily the case in this instance, but we do have to realize this is a dynamic sport, and some growth/change is inevitable.

[dj10]

Well I summitted the request for legalization of the short shifter to the CRB. As for me, I don't give a rats *** if it is legal or not. I bought my car from some guys in the South and it ran ITS and had more cheating parts than I cared to replace, along with a short shifter. If SCCA deny the request, I be more than happy to replace it to stock. When I get on the track this year I will have a legal ITS car.
Thanks for everyone's input.
Good luck all and have a safe and happy holidays!
DJ