ITE RULES

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 14 2005, 11:30 AM
Matt R.

Point of fact is, our tech inspectors should be determining if welded cages meet minimum safety requirements (from both a design and an installation perspective) before they issue a logbook for the car. I've also got an issue where it's deemed thta a welded in cage is required for one car, in the interest of safety, but not in another. Case in point, as off 1/1/08, all Touring cars will be required to have welded cages, and any car registered after 1/1/03 has to have one. IF SSC doesn't become T4, and nothing is changed w.r.t. the cage rules for SS, you'll have a case where ex-SSB cars (now in T3) will have welded cages, but the SSC cars will continue to be allowed to use bolt-in cages. How can you mandate it for one (T3) and not the other (SSC)? Would you want a bolt-in cage in an ITS E36 BMW that was capable of 130+ mph?

Matt M.

Yep, Rich passed me on plenty of occasions at Bridgehampton too (damn I miss that place!). I remember thinking how honkin' fast and cool that car was. His wife, Linda, had the other hot Mustang that she ran Time Trials with. Sadly, Linda lost her battle w/ cancer earlier this year. They used to live ~ 5 min. from me. Rich sold the house earlier this year, and I'm not sure where he moved to.

[snapback]68267[/snapback]

Bill, the only time I take issue with the differences in safety is when we start mixing safety levels in run groups.....Mix a trans-am car with an ITC 510...Now does the IT510 have enough cage ,fuel cell, firesystem,nascar bar requirement to be mixed with the car? 165mph compared to 105 mph at portland? Or as we do mixing a boltin cage 944T/ite car with same 510....944 likely gets to at least 148mph? If you take it from the prod page it should be the drivers own choice on safety?

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 14 2005, 01:30 PM
Matt R.

Point of fact is, our tech inspectors should be determining if welded cages meet minimum safety requirements (from both a design and an installation perspective) before they issue a logbook for the car. I've also got an issue where it's deemed thta a welded in cage is required for one car, in the interest of safety, but not in another. Case in point, as off 1/1/08, all Touring cars will be required to have welded cages, and any car registered after 1/1/03 has to have one. IF SSC doesn't become T4, and nothing is changed w.r.t. the cage rules for SS, you'll have a case where ex-SSB cars (now in T3) will have welded cages, but the SSC cars will continue to be allowed to use bolt-in cages. How can you mandate it for one (T3) and not the other (SSC)? Would you want a bolt-in cage in an ITS E36 BMW that was capable of 130+ mph?

[snapback]68267[/snapback]

Bill, no offense to those of us that are tech inspectors, but many do not have the training/education/experience to judge what is "safe" and they certainly shouldn't be forced to accept the liability of making such a judgement. When someone has a seriuos incident would you want some lawyer going to his logbook and coming after the tech inspector that said the cage was safe. The inspector says it meets the descripiton in the GCR and stamps the cage, that puts the responsibility on SCCA to make sure the GCR is appropriate.

As for SS/Touring and that change I'll wait and see what shakes out for next year but yes I agree that in general the rules should be consistent within classes of similar cars.

But to answer your last question depending on how the bolt in cage was built for the E36 was built I would take it over a poorly built (but GCR legal) weld in. For instance my basic cage dates back to the days of bolt in only. I have done some work to it to improve safety that takes it beyond the minimum for a weld in cage. Is it as safe as if I started from scratch with a no expense spared weld in effort? No, is it safer than a bare minimum welded cage, probably. It would be interesting to see what the percentage of bolt in cages are for each IT class. I have a feeling that requiring a weld in cage would only add to the reduction in car counts seen in ITB and ITC.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 14 2005, 05:19 PM
Bill, the only time I take issue with the differences in safety is when we start mixing safety levels in run groups.....Mix a trans-am car with an ITC 510...Now does the IT510 have enough cage ,fuel cell, firesystem,nascar bar requirement to be mixed with the car? 165mph compared to 105 mph at portland? Or as we do mixing a boltin cage 944T/ite car with same 510....944 likely gets to at least 148mph? If you take it from the prod page it should be the drivers own choice on safety?

[snapback]68283[/snapback]

Yeah Joe, but if you look at what's going on w/ cages in some of the older Prod cars, it seems that they're taking the choice away from the driver. And if you look at most of the endurance races, you've got GT3-Cup Porsches (running in ITE) out there w/ ITC 510s and Rabbits. Gets REALLY interesting at 3AM in the rain!

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 14 2005, 02:51 PM
Yeah Joe, but if you look at what's going on w/ cages in some of the older Prod cars, it seems that they're taking the choice away from the driver. And if you look at most of the endurance races, you've got GT3-Cup Porsches (running in ITE) out there w/ ITC 510s and Rabbits. Gets REALLY interesting at 3AM in the rain!

[snapback]68293[/snapback]

Matt, as a tech inspector if you don't have enough experience to inspect cage welds and contruction then you should request someone that does. I don't expect every Tech official to know everything but, collectively the region should have enough people with the experience combined to cover all of our techical needs. The problem with our current system is that once a LB is issued and the cage is stamped it is very rarely ever looked at again. onc eyou have a number you could basicly cutout half the tubes and rebuild it without reinspection. Our rules require a little to much honor among thieves to self polic some issues.

Bill, I agree it happens way to much so what to do? 120% rule play here? Make so of the slowest car on the grid is 120% off the pace of the fastest car the whole class gets moved to a different rungroup for the weekend?

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 14 2005, 05:03 PM
Matt, as a tech inspector if you don't have enough experience to inspect cage welds and contruction then you should request someone that does. I don't expect every Tech official to know everything but, collectively the region should have enough people with the experience combined to cover all of our techical needs. The problem with our current system is that once a LB is issued and the cage is stamped it is very rarely ever looked at again. onc eyou have a number you could basicly cutout half the tubes and rebuild it without reinspection. Our rules require a little to much honor among thieves to self polic some issues.

[snapback]68295[/snapback]

Inspecting weld quality and how it meets the minimum GCR requirements are one thing. Making a decision about the placement of reinforcing bars outside of the GCR spec is another. You didn't include anything about my statements of liability of the Tech inspector in your response. Maybe you haven't considered it but I can see a lawyer taking a tech inspector to the cleaners for requiring changes based on his personal judgements outside of the scope of the GCR. If that driver is then injured in a crash I don't think the family would have to look too far to find a lawyer willing to say "Driver X would have been fine if you hadn't made him move this bar, your rulebook doesn't even require it". And really the original statement was about the idea that bolt in cages are far inferior to a minimal weld in cage. Would you agree with that and if so has someone done the analysis to prove it?

As far as the LB being issued and the cage never re-examined, it does vary some region to region and official to official. One series I participate in does continuously review each car at each event to ensure nothing has been altered. But in general no, not much attention is given to it but at the same time is this really a problem? How many people are doing it and who are they really hurting? Not many and themself. We have bigger fish to fry before you start asking Tech to do complete cage reinspections at annual tech.

[Joe Harlan]

We have bigger fish to fry before you start asking Tech to do complete cage reinspections at annual tech

Really? What would that be pushing for seat belts every year? If we are not going to be concerned enough to check that our main piece of safety equipment is not safe then WTF do we go through tech for? SO somebody can tell me my LFT rear brake light is out? Tell what fish you have to fry? Matt you convince me more and more there is a BOD position in your future cause you tow the party line pretty darn good. Again Why require a GT1 car to have more safety than an ITC car if you are gonna mix them on the grid...Somebody afrad the 510 will kill somebody in a GT1 car?

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 14 2005, 05:50 PM
Really? What would that be pushing for seat belts every year? If we are not going to be concerned enough to check that our main piece of safety equipment is not safe then WTF do we go through tech for? SO somebody can tell me my LFT rear brake light is out? Tell what fish you have to fry? Matt you convince me more and more there is a BOD position in your future cause you tow the party line pretty darn good. Again Why require a GT1 car to have more safety than an ITC car if you are gonna mix them on the grid...Somebody afrad the 510 will kill somebody in a GT1 car?

[snapback]68302[/snapback]

Joe, get a clue. You have NO idea what I think of the seatbelt rules but since you brought it up . . . my personal feelings is the change was one of the biggest sacks of **** handed down. It the result of a knee jerk lawyers reaction happening over the entire safety equipment industry after a few high profile incidents. The change was shoved through and we, the racers, end up paying the price. Hell, I have to throw out a perfectly good set of belts this winter that are still so knew the camlock isn't even broken in enough to easily snap together. So if you think I'm worried about one year limit on belts you must be smoking something pretty good.

By bigger fish I mean, standardize the cage specs to provide a progression, or fix the classing structure, enforce the rules that are in place, improve participation, and generally restructure the decision making process/long term planning. Do you need me to go on?

But I've let you try and drag me into too much of an argument already trying to argue things I never stated. The original statement I have a problem with is forcing all bolt in cages out based on someone's gut feel? That would be as much of a mistake as the seatbelt rule. If you would like to argue that point fine. But I've already told you repeatedly I don't want a BOD/CRB seat. And I've also said the idea of GT1 and ITC on the same track is a bad idea. It doesn't happen in my area if it happens in yours then do something about. It's a much better use of your time that incorrectly assuming you know where I stand on things.

[cbuzzetti]

If you should not run ITE and ITC together then how does SCCA justify running GT1 and HP together? This is the accepted/normal grouping for Regionals in CalClub. I believe this grouping is not acceptable for Nats.

At WSIR in Cal. the timing differential is 16 seconds between GT1 and HP on a 1:30 second track. This track is known as the fastest track in the west. The differential for ITE/ITC is 11 seconds at the same track.
I would not consider driving most HP cars. They look unsafe to me.
By the way, CalClub needs to revise it's ITE rules and get our car counts back up.
My current ITE car does not have a cell so it is not legal for any class in CalClub but is legal for San Fran Region ITE.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by cbuzzetti@Dec 15 2005, 11:53 PM
If you should not run ITE and ITC together then how does SCCA justify running GT1 and HP together? This is the accepted/normal grouping for Regionals in CalClub. I believe this grouping is not acceptable for Nats.

At WSIR in Cal. the timing differential is 16 seconds between GT1 and HP on a 1:30 second track. This track is known as the fastest track in the west. The differential for ITE/ITC is 11 seconds at the same track.
I would not consider driving most HP cars. They look unsafe to me.
By the way, CalClub needs to revise it's ITE rules and get our car counts back up.
My current ITE car does not have a cell so it is not legal for any class in CalClub but is legal for San Fran Region ITE.

[snapback]68434[/snapback]

Funny you should ask Charles I spoke with your past RE about this today also and he feels the same way. The small bore cars should be mixed Small bore and small bore. Even if it means radial tired cars and slick cars run together. I have listened to how radial tires and slicks tires don't mix and it screws up the racing but guess what. A coroners inquest messes up a race weekend. That's how I get to that point. There are better ways to get this done than we are doing it.

[cbuzzetti]

Unfortunately in our region we do not have enough racecars to split it up that way. We have 10-20 open wheel cars who think they should have separate run groups for small and big bore. Then we have SRF with their own group (12-18 cars) this does not meet the regional minumum most of the time. And then SM (20-30) who should be getting their own run group in 2006. We have the GT group (15-30) that includes ITE. The Pro7/Spec7 group of 20-25 cars. And the IT group that is now down to less than 20 cars (used to have SM). Oh yah forgot the Sports Racers (10-15). They want their own run group also. That is seven groups that must fit into five.

CalClub has proven in the past that we cannot handle more than 5 run groups in the Double Regional format. So one or more of these groups has to be combined with another.

The drivers were polled and concluded that most want 1 hour minimum of track time per day to justify spending the $$$ to race. That is a 15 min practice and 15 min qualify and 30 min race.

So now either track time has to be cut or the lesser subscribed groups have to combine for the greater good of all racing. Nobody wants to give up anything.
If we went based on numbers of entries only the sedans should get a larger portion of track time. That as we know will not happen.
Due to our low car counts we don't have many serious incidents. The fastest GT1 and the slowest HP are both heads up drivers who have raced together many times. The HP driver is over 80 years old. But he always knows when you are coming and always points you by.
There is a risk of death everytime we enter the track. I believe that most drivers know that and take what they consider a calculated risk. Nobody wants to get hurt or die but we have to accept that it can happen on track or even on the way to the track. If it feels too risky then go to VARA or whatever else suits your needs.
Defienetly do not reduce track time so that a few open wheelers feel safer. They are not the majority.

[dickita15]

combineing classes into race groups is the best way to make racer complain but here it the northeast we worry about wieght not speed or tire type. A 3500 lb T1 car and a bug eye scare the heck out of me.

here ITE runs with big bore and we don't let srf get away with running alone they run with small bore cars.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by dickita15@Dec 16 2005, 01:37 PM
combineing classes into race groups is the best way to make racer complain but here it the northeast we worry about wieght not speed or tire type. A 3500 lb T1 car and a bug eye scare the heck out of me.

here ITE runs with big bore and we don't let srf get away with running alone they run with small bore cars.

[snapback]68503[/snapback]

I figure if spec wreckers can get 15 cars they should have their own group cause nobody wants to run with them. SM does not need a group. I would give thema split start at the most. The fit the IT group just fine and that frees a group for you to goof with. We have 7 run groups here in PDX but our races are held to 25mins most of the time. I think we should all dump practice sessions everynbosy thinks they have to qualify in them anyway so why not have 2 qualifying sessions. If you want practice get a test day. I agree weight is the biggest issue but combine weight and speed and we have a huge issue.

And BTW Charles if I bring the RS car to south are you running the class much? I need somebody to show me the way around buttonwillow. I would ask Norris but rumor has it he doesn't stick around long enough to get the line.

[jhooten]

With starting grids of 25-50 both SM and SRF get their own run groups here. And that ain't breaking my heart at all. Every bit of damage on my car was cause by SM drivers bashing their way though the field on those few rare occasions when the IT and SM groups were combined.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by jhooten@Dec 16 2005, 10:20 PM
With starting grids of 25-50 both SM and SRF get their own run groups here. And that ain't breaking my heart at all. Every bit of damage on my car was cause by SM drivers bashing their way though the field on those few rare occasions when the IT and SM groups were combined.

[snapback]68563[/snapback]

Jerry I agree when there is room in the schedule but not at the expense of putting little cars in with GT1 cars. As far as cars banging their way thru we have rules for that and it's becoming more and more evident that the stewards need to be doing a better job on body contact.

[zracre]

Quote by cbuzzetti:
The Pro7/Spec7 group of 20-25 cars. And the IT group that is now down to less than 20 cars (used to have SM). Oh yah forgot the Sports Racers (10-15). They want their own run group also. That is seven groups that must fit into five.

put the sports racers ans SRF together then group the Pro7/SRX7 together with the small IT group...problem solved and similar cars on track...

[cbuzzetti]

Some how or another SRF has a stranglehold on the Board. They don't want to run with anyone and always seem to get their way.
The Sports Racers usually run with the open wheel guys. This seems to work but nobody likes it. If you split the group then it is very boring to watch. Only a couple of cars in each class.
Currently SM runs with IT and usually with a split start. Next year I believe that SM will get their own run group and Pro7 and Spec 7 will get melded back into IT.
CalClub was way behind on the SM growth. It was not well recieved in the Club. Their numbers are now close to 30 and warrant their own run group.
Joe: RS runs with the ITE/GT group so that allows up some crossover for the IT cars that want to run twice or if someone is sharing a car.
It has been gathering steam but has some weird rules.
I get to chase John when we both drive our ITS cars in RS. I don't see him for very long. We always welcome any new competitors to our club. Very friendly enviroment, and I would be happy to share any advice about track and setup.
What RS car do you have?

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by cbuzzetti@Dec 17 2005, 12:14 AM
Some how or another SRF has a stranglehold on the Board. They don't want to run with anyone and always seem to get their way.
The Sports Racers usually run with the open wheel guys. This seems to work but nobody likes it. If you split the group then it is very boring to watch. Only a couple of cars in each class.
Currently SM runs with IT and usually with a split start. Next year I believe that SM will get their own run group and Pro7 and Spec 7 will get melded back into IT.
CalClub was way behind on the SM growth. It was not well recieved in the Club. Their numbers are now close to 30 and warrant their own run group.
Joe: RS runs with the ITE/GT group so that allows up some crossover for the IT cars that want to run twice or if someone is sharing a car.
It has been gathering steam but has some weird rules.
I get to chase John when we both drive our ITS cars in RS. I don't see him for very long. We always welcome any new competitors to our club. Very friendly enviroment, and I would be happy to share any advice about track and setup.
What RS car do you have?

[snapback]68570[/snapback]

LOl on the weird rules. You can blame Kirk for part of them and me for part of them. I would stilll like to have a crack at fixing a bunch of the little stuff with them. I bought the whole GTI Nissan 240sx team that John and Craig ran for in the 90's. I converted 1 car to an IT car which Darin now owns. I converted the other to a World Challenge Touring car which run in RS. I am hoping to come south this year and run a couple of races down there to support the RS concept.

One thing I will say is that nobody has a right to their own run group no matter the level of participation. We all pay the same entry fee and should share a reasonable level of risk vs reward. Just because I choose not to build a SM should not mean that I should have my level of fun ruined by being pushed into a unsafe situation.

[jhooten]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 17 2005, 05:27 AM
Jerry I agree when there is room in the schedule but not at the expense of putting little cars in with GT1 cars. As far as cars banging their way thru we have rules for that and it's becoming more and more evident that the stewards need to be doing a better job on body contact.

[snapback]68567[/snapback]

Joe,
We run 7 rungroups. To do this one track session is sacrificed. The morning session is a 20 minute combined P&Q.

[itmanta]

I am just starting to run my ITE Volvo in conference in the Oregon region. Our run group ranges from GT1 to RS. It is a very fast run group. Right now with only one senior race under my belt in a new car I am turning high 1.27's to mid 1.28's. Before my first senior race I added significantly to my cage because of the mix of cars in the class and the speeds that are achieved. Now if someone wants to show up and run ITE in a spec miata or anything else, it is their responsibility to watch out for the safety of their car. Now i believe that stands true in any race class.