Rules Creep..

[Tom A]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 14 2005, 09:31 PM
Parking lights and turn signals - go or stay?

Door glass, regardless of door bars - go or stay?

Other side glass?

Windshields in real racing cars are polycarbonate.

Tiny little steps to a TransAm car. If there has to be a line, why bother taking the first step? So our cars look a little more like real racing cars?

I am generally talking about the "That which is not specifically permitted, is forbidden" stuff, that gives no competitive advantage, but some of the mandated stuff is a little silly, particularly now that the "dual purpose" intent has been dropped. I don't care how much my car looks like a race car, but I find it silly that I could be protested and lose because I don't have a heater. If I make weight, what is the competitive advantage I have by not having a heater core, or the aforementioned turn signal stalk?

Removing stuff costs time, which = money.

So don't remove anything. You don't have to install $10,000 worth of Motec engine management inside your hollowed-out stock ECU box, but that is allowed.

I have a car that isn't competitive in ITB, but battle for last place in ITE when I race with SCCA (which shockingly isn't very often).

Tom

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Tom A@Dec 14 2005, 11:43 PM
I am generally talking about the "That which is not specifically permitted, is forbidden" stuff, that gives no competitive advantage, but some of the mandated stuff is a little silly, particularly now that the "dual purpose" intent has been dropped. I don't care how much my car looks like a race car, but I find it silly that I could be protested and lose because I don't have a heater. If I make weight, what is the competitive advantage I have by not having a heater core, or the aforementioned turn signal stalk?

So don't remove anything. You don't have to install $10,000 worth of Motec engine management inside your hollowed-out stock ECU box, but that is allowed.

I have a car that isn't competitive in ITB, but battle for last place in ITE when I race with SCCA (which shockingly isn't very often).

Tom

[snapback]68330[/snapback]

So Tom , Your talking to a guy that thinks removing the Motec rule would be way better than allowing more stuff to be pulled off the car. Why is your car not competitive in ITB?

[ddewhurst]

***I would be up for a little rules creep that said something to the effect of "Any item/equipment that has no business on a race car may be removed, provided the car meets class weight limits and ballast restrictions"

If your car makes weight, and you don't have more than the allowed ballast, nobody should care that you removed the rear window wiper motor and the turn-signal stalk.***

Tom, it sounds like your evolve to race in a different class.


***Haha---If we are talking what some would consider the only real race car then fenders roof windshields ect. are all not needed on a race car....Pretty soon its a tube car with no body***

Dam Joe, I bet no fenders & bumpers would straighten out the fender bending fest in E Production & T2.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Tom A@Dec 14 2005, 11:12 PM
I would be up for a little rules creep that said something to the effect of "Any item/equipment that has no business on a race car may be removed, provided the car meets class weight limits and ballast restrictions"

If your car makes weight, and you don't have more than the allowed ballast, nobody should care that you removed the rear window wiper motor and the turn-signal stalk.

Tom

[snapback]68326[/snapback]

I hear this one a lot. It would create mayhem. Kirk is spot on - you then have to define what you can or can't do. You have something in that I think can be removed...and there is inequity.

With regard to 'who cares as long as you meet minimum", that creates class killers. Some cars have a tough time making weight. No problem for them, they now get to run where they should be...but what about all the car that require ballast now? They start throwing away this and that - and then start 'hiding' ballast in perfect spots. 50 lb mufflers in the right rear, lead in the lower cage tubes / frame rails...somebody then creates a car that meets minimum that out brakes, out handles and never seems to go away...

Besides, you say you find it silly that you could be protested for not having a heater in your car - I find it equally as silly that you wouldn't have one in - because the rules require it. These are simple things that people get lazy about - and that sure as sh*t is no excuse to not have a legal race car.

AB

[tom_sprecher]

Time for me to rant and I'm cutting loose. I'm with Tom A. Rules, we don't need no sting-king' rules. As long as you make weight, I don't care. If adding or removing something to make the care faster, safer, cheaper, easier to repair and maintain or to just give you a leg up is OK by me. Some simple drive train rules would be enough, and I don't care if it sounds like Production. The two groups should be re-adjusted and merged to eliminate a group and give the others longer sessions on the track anyway.

There is no real equality in IT now so who said anything has to be fair in racing or life for that matter? Since "entrants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car" why in the hell can't I try to make it so? In my opinion that's half the fun. You use your brain instead of your ass. I don't know, but maybe God gave me a butt that's not as sensitive as the next guy as far as to what the car is doing under me. Instead, I ending up with a brain that can conceptualize a better way of doing something to the car to make me competitive. Should I be penalized for my handicap? That wouldn't be fair, would it?

Currently the class killers already exist, I know, as I plan to run a 1st gen Rx-7. You don't hear me bitching about the CRX in ITA. Fortunately, here in the South we know a thing or two about racing tin tops and we instead of rules creap we did a rules leap and adopted IT7. Was I happy to hear about the spec tire rule? No. That limits the tire pile diving I can do now. What made racing this class cheaper for one guy made it more expensive for me.

And who got into this sport thinking it was going to be cheap? When someone mentions racing and cheap in the same conversation it cracks me up. If you want cheap racing buy a video game. If you want a dual nature car go race SS or T. I'm racing to compete and win. That usually means everyone else looses, right. If you don't like loosing do what I did or do something else on the weekends. Like that video game I suggested.

Wow, that was fun, but I gotta go...

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by tom_sprecher@Dec 15 2005, 09:36 AM
Time for me to rant and I'm cutting loose. I'm with Tom A. Rules, we don't need no sting-king' rules. As long as you make weight, I don't care. If adding or removing something to make the care faster, safer, cheaper, easier to repair and maintain or to just give you a leg up is OK by me. Some simple drive train rules would be enough, and I don't care if it sounds like Production. The two groups should be re-adjusted and merged to eliminate a group and give the others longer sessions on the track anyway.

There is no real equality in IT now so who said anything has to be fair in racing or life for that matter? Since "entrants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car" why in the hell can't I try to make it so? In my opinion that's half the fun. You use your brain instead of your ass. I don't know, but maybe God gave me a butt that's not as sensitive as the next guy as far as to what the car is doing under me. Instead, I ending up with a brain that can conceptualize a better way of doing something to the car to make me competitive. Should I be penalized for my handicap? That wouldn't be fair, would it?

Currently the class killers already exist, I know, as I plan to run a 1st gen Rx-7. You don't hear me bitching about the CRX in ITA. Fortunately, here in the South we know a thing or two about racing tin tops and we instead of rules creap we did a rules leap and adopted IT7. Was I happy to hear about the spec tire rule? No. That limits the tire pile diving I can do now. What made racing this class cheaper for one guy made it more expensive for me.

And who got into this sport thinking it was going to be cheap? When someone mentions racing and cheap in the same conversation it cracks me up. If you want cheap racing buy a video game. If you want a dual nature car go race SS or T. I'm racing to compete and win. That usually means everyone else looses, right. If you don't like loosing do what I did or do something else on the weekends. Like that video game I suggested.

Wow, that was fun, but I gotta go...

[snapback]68348[/snapback]

haha...Tom good one....Ill go ya one more....If you want SP then race SP we have a class just for you no rules everything is wide open.

[tom_sprecher]

That's funny because about this time last year when I started looking into getting a car I seriously considered SPO. But I wanted to keep it cheap.

[Tom A]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan+Dec 15 2005, 07:03 AM-->

So Tom , Your talking to a guy that thinks removing the Motec rule would be way better than allowing more stuff to be pulled off the car. Why is your car not competitive in ITB?

[snapback]68341[/snapback]

[/b]

Without starting that discussion again, it is a Rabbit GTI.

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Dec 15 2005, 07:09 AM
Tom, it sounds like your evolve to race in a different class.

I do race a different class. The car is set up for NASA GTI cup, which is a similar level of prep as IT, but with a lower weight and slightly hotter cam. Even with these advantages, our class track records are still slower than the better ITB lap times any given weekend.

<!--QuoteBegin-Andy Bettencourt@Dec 15 2005, 07:11 AM
I hear this one a lot. It would create mayhem. Kirk is spot on - you then have to define what you can or can&#39;t do. You have something in that I think can be removed...and there is inequity.

With regard to &#39;who cares as long as you meet minimum", that creates class killers. Some cars have a tough time making weight. No problem for them, they now get to run where they should be...but what about all the car that require ballast now? They start throwing away this and that - and then start &#39;hiding&#39; ballast in perfect spots. 50 lb mufflers in the right rear, lead in the lower cage tubes / frame rails...somebody then creates a car that meets minimum that out brakes, out handles and never seems to go away...

We have class killers now, (CRX in ITA, BMW 2002 and Volvos in ITB, etc)I don&#39;t see how that is any different. Hiding ballast is clearly cheating for competitive advantage, the rules are clear on where/how ballast can be carried. What baffles me is the attitude some people have that not having a turn signal stalk is "cheating" as much as having an illegal engine.

Besides, you say you find it silly that you could be protested for not having a heater in your car - I find it equally as silly that you wouldn&#39;t have one in - because the rules require it. These are simple things that people get lazy about - and that sure as sh*t is no excuse to not have a legal race car.

[snapback]68343[/snapback]

I do have a legal race car, for the classes I race. I haven&#39;t removed anything from the car (except sound deadening crap from the interior). When I bought the car, it had no heater, no turn signal or wiper stalks (but has a wiper switch on the dash, which works) no heater/vent control panel, no glove box, no parking brake handle, no rear wiper, and one of the rear side marker reflectors is missing and the hole covered.

I picked up a heater core and a stock cam from a junk yard, but all the other piddly sh*t that offers no competitive advantage but is against the rules, and frankly is too much effort and expense to add to race in (what in my region anyway) is a dead class.

Instead, when I race with SCCA, I will enter ITE where my car is fully legal, and my POS ~95 HP rabbit can do battle with Porsche 911s & 928s, Mistubishi Evos, BMW M3s, a 350Z, and a bunch of other cars that run 15-20 seconds per lap faster than me. I really don&#39;t give a sh*t, either way, I have the same chance of winning in either group, and I am not talking about the car.

For those of you who think I am advocating no rules at all, you are entirely missing the point.

Tom

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by tom_sprecher@Dec 15 2005, 10:02 AM
That&#39;s funny because about this time last year when I started looking into getting a car I seriously considered SPO. But I wanted to keep it cheap.

[snapback]68354[/snapback]

Now that&#39;s funny......I can see the look on Darin and Andy and Jakes faces right at the moment they read that part.....YOu win the crack me up award of the day.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Tom A@Dec 15 2005, 10:11 AM
Without starting that discussion again, it is a Rabbit GTI.

I do race a different class. The car is set up for NASA GTI cup, which is a similar level of prep as IT, but with a lower weight and slightly hotter cam. Even with these advantages, our class track records are still slower than the better ITB lap times any given weekend.

We have class killers now, (CRX in ITA, BMW 2002 and Volvos in ITB, etc)I don&#39;t see how that is any different. Hiding ballast is clearly cheating for competitive advantage, the rules are clear on where/how ballast can be carried. What baffles me is the attitude some people have that not having a turn signal stalk is "cheating" as much as having an illegal engine.

I do have a legal race car, for the classes I race. I haven&#39;t removed anything from the car (except sound deadening crap from the interior). When I bought the car, it had no heater, no turn signal or wiper stalks (but has a wiper switch on the dash, which works) no heater/vent control panel, no glove box, no parking brake handle, no rear wiper, and one of the rear side marker reflectors is missing and the hole covered.

I picked up a heater core and a stock cam from a junk yard, but all the other piddly sh*t that offers no competitive advantage but is against the rules, and frankly is too much effort and expense to add to race in (what in my region anyway) is a dead class.

Instead, when I race with SCCA, I will enter ITE where my car is fully legal, and my POS ~95 HP rabbit can do battle with Porsche 911s & 928s, Mistubishi Evos, BMW M3s, a 350Z, and a bunch of other cars that run 15-20 seconds per lap faster than me. I really don&#39;t give a sh*t, either way, I have the same chance of winning in either group, and I am not talking about the car.

For those of you who think I am advocating no rules at all, you are entirely missing the point.

Tom

[snapback]68356[/snapback]

Well Tom i think a better approach may be to present a real argument as to why the GTI is not competitive in ITB rather than I want to take a bunch of stuff out and be completely different than an established set of rules. Or race ITE and NASA and leave this set of rules alone.

[Tom A]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 15 2005, 09:21 AM
Well Tom i think a better approach may be to present a real argument as to why the GTI is not competitive in ITB rather than I want to take a bunch of stuff out and be completely different than an established set of rules. Or race ITE and NASA and leave this set of rules alone.

[snapback]68360[/snapback]

You are completely missing the point. I am not trying to make my car more competitive, I really don&#39;t care. Some cars are going to be faster in any given class, and given the number of cars eligable to compete in IT, SCCA has done a very good job with classing.

What I am saying is, if it makes weight, my car, or your car, or Andy&#39;s car is no more or less competitive because it doesn&#39;t have a turn signal stalk, yet if you beat me in a car that is otherwise legal but missing the stalk, some people would brand you a cheater.

What I am saying is the "established set of rules" in some instances makes no sense, particularly now that the "dual use" intent has been dropped.

My car is probably 30 pounds lighter by not having all that crap in it, but still makes weight for ITB. It is really too bad it isn&#39;t ITB legal, if I could race ITB my participation would increase the SFR ITB field by 25%

Tom

[DavidM]

This to me is starting to sound like a lot of other discussions I&#39;ve read on here. There was a good one a while back where I think the 5 (or maybe it was 6) holy sacrements of an IT car were proposed. It was something like engine, suspension, brakes, transmission, and maybe body or wheels/tires (I don&#39;t remember). The premise was to have a good set of rules to govern these areas because they are what makes a car fast. Extraneous stuff like wiper stalks, heater cores, washer bottles, etc., who cares? Take it off if you don&#39;t want it or leave it on. It&#39;s up to you. It ain&#39;t gonna make your car faster one way or the other. [ Please don&#39;t try to argue that the few grams or pounds you save by removing stuff makes a difference after all the discussions that classifying the weight of a car within 50 to 100 pounds make no difference. ]

I personally want my car as simple as I can make it. To me, the less crap I have on it the better. That&#39;s less crap to get in the way when I&#39;m working on things or trying to debug a problem. Since the wiper stalk seems to be the item du jour I&#39;ll use it as an example. I&#39;m 6&#39;5" and working in the interior of the car is a bitch. I had to do some work on the brake pedal because the little pad the brake light switch hits broke. So I&#39;m trying to squeeze my 6&#39;5" frame under the dash to fix this thing. I can&#39;t tell you how many times I ran into the damn wiper/turn signal stalk. I&#39;m surprised I didn&#39;t break it and someday I may. I&#39;ve also thought I had a problem with the stock tach (which is what I&#39;m currently using). I had to take off both the wiper and turn signal stalk to get the instrument cluster out. I&#39;m just using this as an example and you can think it&#39;s a lame example or not, but I&#39;d much rather just take the damn stalks off. Same with any other crap that isn&#39;t needed.

My $.02 anyways.

David

[Knestis]

So, how do you respond to people who extend the same aguments - safety, economy, simplicity, need to make the cars more attractive in a changing market - to something like camshafts? There&#39;s no cheaper way to make more horsepower and EVERYONE wants more ponies. Or carbon hoods? I could have purchased one for the Golf for less dough (and a hell of a lot less trouble) than finding a new stock one.

See - it doesn&#39;t matter if we stop the creep now (where some people are happy with the product), where Tom A. suggests, or where David wants it. It&#39;s ALWAYS going to be short of SOMEONE&#39;S vision of "what IT should be." You ask, "Who&#39;s Kirk to tell me what the rules should be?" Who are YOU to tell someone else that they can&#39;t have their pet change adopted, too?

Given that - and the huge potential of unanticipated consequences of any additional allowances - the sensible thing is to just leave well enough alone.

K

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 15 2005, 02:50 PM
So, how do you respond to people who extend the same aguments - safety, economy, simplicity, need to make the cars more attractive in a changing market - to something like camshafts? There&#39;s no cheaper way to make more horsepower and EVERYONE wants more ponies. Or carbon hoods? I could have purchased one for the Golf for less dough (and a hell of a lot less trouble) than finding a new stock one.

See - it doesn&#39;t matter if we stop the creep now (where some people are happy with the product), where Tom A. suggests, or where David wants it. It&#39;s ALWAYS going to be short of SOMEONE&#39;S vision of "what IT should be." You ask, "Who&#39;s Kirk to tell me what the rules should be?" Who are YOU to tell someone else that they can&#39;t have their pet change adopted, too?

Given that - and the huge potential of unanticipated consequences of any additional allowances - the sensible thing is to just leave well enough alone.

K

[snapback]68392[/snapback]

Try this one Kirk. From the Calclub website about the ITR question.

The important 3 steps of success:

1) Go out and buy a car, any car, no matter how wild and unique it is. All wheel drive, a huge wing, and a supercharger are always good pointers for that.

2) AFTER you have bought your car, do your homework and find out that is really fits in none of the numerous race classes, despite the fact that there&#39;s a place for 99% of all cars made.

3) Finally, ask your racing organization to create a class built around YOUR car.

Let&#39;s see how much support that finds . . .


But hey . . . here&#39;s another way:

1) Do your homework first. Check with your racing organization what classes they have.
2) Find out which of them fits your taste and budget.
3) Buy a car that fits in your chosen class, is competetive, and affordable
4) Go racing and have fun

Small changes have to happen just cause technology changes. But to re-create the rules set cause you don&#39;t want the TS stalk in your car is just not part of the class. I for one can say that there are still ITS cars out here that can still be driven to the gas station 4 blocks from the track. Thats not a bad thing. As soon as our rules take that away(cause as soon as it is allowed then it must be done to keep up) these guys need a tow vehicle and a support truck ect. If you want to do all that stuff the prod class has room for you.

SS--->IT----Prod----GT or SPE or ITE or ICSSC or NASA or vintage ect. ect. As much as I wish we could we just can&#39;t be all things to all people with one set of rules.

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 15 2005, 09:50 PM
So, how do you respond to people who extend the same aguments - safety, economy, simplicity, need to make the cars more attractive in a changing market - to something like camshafts? There&#39;s no cheaper way to make more horsepower and EVERYONE wants more ponies. Or carbon hoods? I could have purchased one for the Golf for less dough (and a hell of a lot less trouble) than finding a new stock one.

See - it doesn&#39;t matter if we stop the creep now (where some people are happy with the product), where Tom A. suggests, or where David wants it. It&#39;s ALWAYS going to be short of SOMEONE&#39;S vision of "what IT should be." You ask, "Who&#39;s Kirk to tell me what the rules should be?" Who are YOU to tell someone else that they can&#39;t have their pet change adopted, too?

Given that - and the huge potential of unanticipated consequences of any additional allowances - the sensible thing is to just leave well enough alone.

K

[snapback]68392[/snapback]

Those may be valid points Kirk, but the washer bottle and wiper stalk take about 5 min each to remove. No cost, no time, also no performance advantage gained or lost....as I see it this rule applies to the guy who drives his car to the track and him only. Just make the wording similar to the windshield clips rule ....MAY be added. Just say washerbottles or stalks....MAY be removed- if you want to great if not keep it......done.

Rob

[Knestis]

To you, the test is "does it take 5 minutes and cost nothing." Someone paying a tuner to build and support a full-boat ITS BMW might apply a different standard like, "Does it cost me more than $500?" He thinks your standard is as dumb as you think MINE is.

If your perspective should be respected, shouldn&#39;t his?

Will you be pissed when some OTHER guy, who thinks the $500 guy is a cheapskate, applies a $1000 threshold of pain? Hell - to someone like the NASA guys who just unloaded a brand new Porsche GT3 Cup car off of a 747, a grand is chump change.

K

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 15 2005, 10:34 PM
To you, the test is "does it take 5 minutes and cost nothing." Someone paying a tuner to build and support a full-boat ITS BMW might apply a different standard like, "Does it cost me more than $500?" He thinks your standard is as dumb as you think MINE is.

If your perspective should be respected, shouldn&#39;t his?

Will you be pissed when some OTHER guy, who thinks the $500 guy is a cheapskate, applies a $1000 threshold of pain? Hell - to someone like the NASA guys who just unloaded a brand new Porsche GT3 Cup car off of a 747, a grand is chump change.

K

[snapback]68399[/snapback]

With all do respect...."HUH?"

I understand totally the arguement "let sleeping dogs lie" aka...change nothing in the rules in regards to these "trivial" items. However, if you put in verbiage like "....may be removed..." how is that problematic. I see it as free will. If a guy wants windshield clips so be it. If I don&#39;t want a washer bottle so be it. I see no performance advantage/disadvantage to either of these. If we don&#39;t want to celebrate and embrace free will then why not run a spec class? IT is a class based on variety and ingenuity which is why it is so damn addicting, however the cars are evolving as is the industry and society.....so must the rule book.

Another example....I run a functioning heater in my car. I have it set to hi heat, defrost and max fan on a toggle switch, thinking it could help in the rain. If heater cores "....may be removed..." I wouldn&#39;t do it. Some other guy might. Free will nes pas? Performance advantage/disadvantage depends on your side of the fence. He thinks- less weight, won&#39;t leak or blow. I think- can see in the rain. Would my feeling change if mine let go and was 400 to replace....you bettcha. Would his change if I beat him in the rain while his windshield was fogged....you bettcha.


Rob

[Fastfred92]

Face it guys, we already have rules creep.... Take a look at a 90&#39;s IT rule book, bunch of stuff has changed! Control the creep seemed logical until the motec in the box thing blew up. I would ditch all the wiper stalks, heater cores and fricking wiper blades before allowing 5-10k engine management systems in, but thats just me. I know all the rules nerds will say it illegal to do this or that but I, for one, will gladly tuck my tail and go home before I would protest somebodys wiper stalk. As I have said before, if we want to make this a better club eliminate the wennie protest ( protesters )

[Tom A]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 15 2005, 01:50 PM
So, how do you respond to people who extend the same aguments - safety, economy, simplicity, need to make the cars more attractive in a changing market - to something like camshafts? There&#39;s no cheaper way to make more horsepower and EVERYONE wants more ponies. Or carbon hoods? I could have purchased one for the Golf for less dough (and a hell of a lot less trouble) than finding a new stock one.

[snapback]68392[/snapback]

It is different in that nothing I am talking about would improve the performance of the car. You start monkeying with camshafts, you need to rebalance all the cars, in every class, and that is not what anyone is talking about. I am talking about (and Rob and David) are making it optional to remove things that have nothing to do with performance, but are artifacts of the old "dual use" intent of IT, and serve no purpose in a car that isn&#39;t street driven..

Nobody here is suggesting making the removal of this stuff mandatory, and without changing the minimum weights, this will have zero effect on performance of any given car.

Andy says to avoid mayhem, "you then have to define what you can or can&#39;t do." Ok, then make a list of parts that can be removed, without penalty. Here is a start:

G: OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT
Reflecting the change in the Statement Of Intent of the Improved
Touring Category away from "Dual Purpose" cars, the following
equipment may be removed, at the competitors discresion:
Turn Signal/wiper stalks, Windshiled/headlight washer bottles
Rear wipersand mechanism, parking brake lever, horns, the nifty
little light that comes on when you open the trunk......

Etc.

Tom

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Tom A@Dec 15 2005, 05:18 PM
It is different in that nothing I am talking about would improve the performance of the car. You start monkeying with camshafts, you need to rebalance all the cars, in every class, and that is not what anyone is talking about. I am talking about (and Rob and David) are making it optional to remove things that have nothing to do with performance, but are artifacts of the old "dual use" intent of IT, and serve no purpose in a car that isn&#39;t street driven..

Nobody here is suggesting making the removal of this stuff mandatory, and without changing the minimum weights, this will have zero effect on performance of any given car.

Andy says to avoid mayhem, "you then have to define what you can or can&#39;t do." Ok, then make a list of parts that can be removed, without penalty. Here is a start:

G: OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT
Reflecting the change in the Statement Of Intent of the Improved
Touring Category away from "Dual Purpose" cars, the following
equipment may be removed, at the competitors discresion:
Turn Signal/wiper stalks, Windshiled/headlight washer bottles
Rear wipersand mechanism, parking brake lever, horns, the nifty
little light that comes on when you open the trunk......

Etc.

Tom

[snapback]68404[/snapback]

Tom, YOu are missing the point. You take that 30lbs of crap out of your car and it then becomes a necessity for everyone else to do it. You now get to put the 30lbs back in the car in the form of ballast. Now I will take 30lbs on the floor rather than 30lbs in the dash anyday. Allowing what seams like a small thing can be a huge advantage to some....The ECU rule should show you the unintended issues that come up. I am sure that was a "if we let them chip&#39;em it will be the same as rejeting a carb" deal. Problem I have never seen a 5,000 dollar carb rejet.