Rules Creep..

[lateapex911]

I read the term "rules creep" in many posts here, and it always seems to have negative conotations...

But...is it really THAT bad???

The automotive world, and racing has changed a LOT since the 80s, and so has the ametuer club racer.

How many of us would drive our car to the track, and to work if the rules mandated that the dual nature of the car was retained? I doubt that even 5% would. The rest of us would have cars that COULD be driven to work, but would have them on stands in the garage, just as we do now.

That's just one example of the evolution of the class...and lots of rules "crept" to change the dual purpose car into a more track dedicated car.

Recently Kirk Knestis wrote here on IT.com that he planned to write in a request to allow changes regarding the central lock system. A rule that could be considered "rules creep" but is actually a reasonable concept for todays cars.

I read certain posts that say they want IT to adapt and be vital in the "new world", but in the same paragraph warn against allowing rules creep.

So..I think rules creep is a part of the landscape...a necessary evil, if you will. Some rule changes are required, others are "good ideas" and some are bad ideas...even though the powers that be think they are required.

So...what are examples of how "rules creep" has ruined..or damaged..IT racing???

Bill?

[Ron Earp]

I look forward to some replies on this post. As a new(er) person to the board and SCCA racing I see this term a lot, "rules creep", and it'll be nice to see what people consider examples of this phenomenon and its effects.

[Knestis]

Since Jake kind of called me out on this ...

I am NOT honestly as anti-creep as it might seem. Instead, I just make sure that my first instinct is to be reluctant about any change or new allowance, the thought being that an overly conservative approach is more likely to prevent unanticipated outcomes. If nothing gets changed, the chance of a surprise is zero.

That said, I DO drive my race car to the track most of the time and will continue to retain that option next year. I save a lot of dough by not owning a truck and trailer and it doesn't cut into my fun in the least to poke the stuff I need in the back of the car, and motor off to VIR, CMP, Lowes, or Rockingham - all of which are within appropriate oh-crap-I-need-to-hire-Luke-the-tow-guy distance. This is a decision that's right for me and I wouldn't presume to impose a demand (for example) that cars retain road-legal emissions and inspection status just because I do.

THAT said, there is - so far as I can figure out - NOTHING in the removal of front passenger seats, headliners, or any of the other stuff that's been changed since the inception of IT, that makes the racing any better. It makes the cars a little faster, arguably a little safer (although in concept only so far as I can tell), takes a little more time and money, and makes us FEEL a little racier. I'd argue that part of the motivation for most of the requested changes are driven by the last factor more than we are willing to admit.

Do hard bushings make a car handle better? Sure. If everyone had to use stock ones, would we all go a little slower? Yup. Would the status quo be upset? No. Would some people wail about how unsafe their car is with those terrible rubber bushings? You bet. Would Showroom stock and Touring cars, required to use them, kill off lots of our club-mates? No way. Would we all save some dough? You bet! Would we have EVER had to have angst-ridden conversations, protests, suspensions, etc. when someone pushed the envelope, first with uniball joints, then with modified suspension arms and/or pick-up points to make them easier and better? NO. Is there someone out there reading this thinking that I'm out of my mind for even picturing what IT might look like if we had to use stock bushings? OF COURSE THERE IS. That's one of those people who think "racing cars" have certain things on them, including solid bushings...

I've used stock ones for two years, by the way but am taking another incremental step myself, and upgrading the front A-arms with bits from http://247-parts.com

Now - do any of the marginal changes that we might think of as rules creep actually HURT IT? Probably not. But the incremental slinking toward Productionism makes me and some other folks very nervous. The ECU allowance goes too far, I think but most of the rest of the changes have been pretty benign.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

I consider rules creep to be a bad thing. Having said that, the rules have to evolve so for this duscussion, I will seperate the two. Creep and Evolution.

Rules creep IMHO is a change for the sake of change. No safety benefit, no clarification of intent, no adaptation to current technological conditions. In addition, usually something that makes something easier or more convenient with no tangible benefit.

The thing about change is that it always brings unintended consiquenses - and THAT is what you have to consider and weigh before making a change.

AB

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 11 2005, 06:51 PM
Since Jake kind of called me out on this ...

I am NOT honestly as anti-creep as it might seem. Instead, I just make sure that my first instinct is to be reluctant about any change or new allowance, the thought being that an overly conservative approach is more likely to prevent unanticipated outcomes. If nothing gets changed, the chance of a surprise is zero.

That said, I DO drive my race car to the track most of the time and will continue to retain that option next year. I save a lot of dough by not owning a truck and trailer and it doesn't cut into my fun in the least to poke the stuff I need in the back of the car, and motor off to VIR, CMP, Lowes, or Rockingham - all of which are within appropriate oh-crap-I-need-to-hire-Luke-the-tow-guy distance. This is a decision that's right for me and I wouldn't presume to impose a demand (for example) that cars retain road-legal emissions and inspection status just because I do.

THAT said, there is - so far as I can figure out - NOTHING in the removal of front passenger seats, headliners, or any of the other stuff that's been changed since the inception of IT, that makes the racing any better. It makes the cars a little faster, arguably a little safer (although in concept only so far as I can tell), takes a little more time and money, and makes us FEEL a little racier. I'd argue that part of the motivation for most of the requested changes are driven by the last factor more than we are willing to admit.

Do hard bushings make a car handle better? Sure. If everyone had to use stock ones, would we all go a little slower? Yup. Would the status quo be upset? No. Would some people wail about how unsafe their car is with those terrible rubber bushings? You bet. Would Showroom stock and Touring cars, required to use them, kill off lots of our club-mates? No way. Would we all save some dough? You bet! Would we have EVER had to have angst-ridden conversations, protests, suspensions, etc. when someone pushed the envelope, first with uniball joints, then with modified suspension arms and/or pick-up points to make them easier and better? NO. Is there someone out there reading this thinking that I'm out of my mind for even picturing what IT might look like if we had to use stock bushings? OF COURSE THERE IS. That's one of those people who think "racing cars" have certain things on them, including solid bushings...

I've used stock ones for two years, by the way but am taking another incremental step myself, and upgrading the front A-arms with bits from http://247-parts.com

Now - do any of the marginal changes that we might think of as rules creep actually HURT IT? Probably not. But the incremental slinking toward Productionism makes me and some other folks very nervous. The ECU allowance goes too far, I think but most of the rest of the changes have been pretty benign.

K

[snapback]67895[/snapback]

Not gonna wade too deep here. But one class should not start to creep into the next class as part of the process. The I have always said is resticting a car would be more IT in nature than opening the rules try to balance things up. A great example is the current group of tweeners that got moved down with weight rather than given something outside the scope to make them faster.

[lateapex911]

I hope you don't think I "called you out" in a mean sprited way Kirk... I am aware of your general philosophies, and I thought your recent comment about your intent to request a change was a great example of how the rule book must, as Andy calls it, evolve.

Good example in the bushings reference. I imagine that it MAY have come about from the inability to require "stock" bushings be kept in "stock" condition on cars that were getting to be 20 years old...and the 'convenience need' arose that as 'stock ' ones would be difficult or impossible to obtain, then maybe freeing up the requirement across the board was the better option. Of course, the consequence is that now the bar has been raised across the board...everybody needs them to be at the front...theoretically, at least. I imagine the headliner and interior trim rule came about that way too, and we see the washer bottle comment constantly...about how dumb it is that we still have to run it. (And I can hear you all saying, "Yeah,, but THAT one is obvious!..LOL)

Kirk also pointed out, in another thread, that IF there were to be an ITR class, that somebody would think that allowing wings would be a good idea. Is that crossing the line? And if it were allowed for the new class, (I am sure some of the cars have them as stock items), would the other classes clamour for them? Is that a good example of rules creep?

I guess my main thought or concept here is that I hear a lot of "the rulebook should be rewritten" but also, "Rules creep is bad"....and "IT needs to change for the future". Sometimes I read that in the same post!

If you were king, what would you rewrite? What would you eliminate or retrun to the genie bottle? And how would it keep bad creep under control, but allow for evolution? Essentially, how do we balance the past and present, but allow for the future? ( If a new class were added, these kinds of big picture questions come to mind.)

(I knew the ECU rule would come up!)

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Dec 11 2005, 07:48 PM

(I knew the ECU rule would come up!)

[snapback]67903[/snapback]

Haha...but I didn't do it..

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Dec 12 2005, 02:48 AM
(I knew the ECU rule would come up!)

[snapback]67903[/snapback]

...Just for a laugh,......The first time I heard "Rules Creep" I thought that it referred to some Creepy Guy that made up the Rules.

....And now you do not want to talk about people from our local college: East Carolina University

.... Sorry, I couldn't help it

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Dec 11 2005, 07:48 PM
Kirk also pointed out, in another thread, that IF there were to be an ITR class, that somebody would think that allowing wings would be a good idea. Is that crossing the line? And if it were allowed for the new class, (I am sure some of the cars have them as stock items), would the other classes clamour for them? Is that a good example of rules creep?

I guess my main thought or concept here is that I hear a lot of "the rulebook should be rewritten" but also, "Rules creep is bad"....and "IT needs to change for the future". Sometimes I read that in the same post!

If you were king, what would you rewrite? What would you eliminate or retrun to the genie bottle? And how would it keep bad creep under control, but allow for evolution? Essentially, how do we balance the past and present, but allow for the future? ( If a new class were added, these kinds of big picture questions come to mind.)

(I knew the ECU rule would come up!)

[snapback]67903[/snapback]

Jake,

Any trim part that came on the car stock, including wings, should be allowed. However, if we're talking about the alumium thing placed on every F&F street racer then that's a horse of a different color. Now as for allowing 17x8 in rims in ITR. I doubt that's rule creep same as 16's are allowed in ITA/S. ECU's are out of the bottle, and I'd rather they stay out otherwise we'd end up with cars that go into limp mode when we remove the rear wheel speed sensor, or how do you deal with a throttle by wire car without changing the tamper proof ecu?

James

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 11 2005, 09:18 PM
I consider rules creep to be a bad thing. Having said that, the rules have to evolve so for this duscussion, I will seperate the two. Creep and Evolution.

Don't anyone freak about the example but different policy positions within an issue often times get defined by semantics. The difference between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" depends ENTIRELY upon which side of the conflict one is on, but arguments use all kinds of weighted language to make distinctions that they each side thinks should be blindingly obvious to any and all.

AT the end of the day, it might be that semantic differentiations between "creep" and "evolution" depends completely on whether we are discussing a change one wants, for whatever reason, or a change one does NOT want. What is creep to me might be evolution to someone else - particularly if I drive an old Fiesta and you drive a New Beetle, for example.

IT rules change proposals get rationalized in all kinds of ways, many of which are simply spin on "I think my car will go faster and look cooler" or "It will make me more competitive." In my central locking proposal, I mentioned safety as a rationale - it's really hard to be sure that the doors and hatch stay unlocked - but the primary motivator for me is that it is just a royal PITA rat's-freakin'-nest of crap to have to deal with, building and maintaining the car.

K

[bldn10]

The ECU rule itself is another excellent example of rules creep - we start out w/ bone stock, open it up a bit, open a lot more, and now people are arguing for stand-alone engine management systems. Any change that simply makes cars faster across the board and is not w/ the intent and effect of making them safer, cheaper, or more reliable w/i existing class philosophy is a step backward IMO. It is in our nature to want to go faster, I understand that, so it is a necessary function for the Club to keep those instincts in check. We don't like it but it is best for the class in the long run. There are always faster and more expensive classes for those who have the need and the wherewithall. Just because a driver "outgrows" a class does not mean that the class has to grow w/ him/her. But I do agree w/ Andy that rules may have to evolve to reflect availability of parts, etc.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by bldn10@Dec 12 2005, 08:27 AM
The ECU rule itself is another excellent example of rules creep - we start out w/ bone stock, open it up a bit, open a lot more, and now people are arguing for stand-alone engine management systems. Any change that simply makes cars faster across the board and is not w/ the intent and effect of making them safer, cheaper, or more reliable w/i existing class philosophy is a step backward IMO. It is in our nature to want to go faster, I understand that, so it is a necessary function for the Club to keep those instincts in check. We don't like it but it is best for the class in the long run. There are always faster and more expensive classes for those who have the need and the wherewithall. Just because a driver "outgrows" a class does not mean that the class has to grow w/ him/her. But I do agree w/ Andy that rules may have to evolve to reflect availability of parts, etc.

[snapback]67968[/snapback]

I agree 100% and beyond that we should be working on the structure of club racing all together. For those that desire to go faster there needs to be a place to go. Production and GT have never been interested in having these cars up grade to join them until they needed IT cars to save their classes. Maybe looking at a radial set of classes with prep levels that are slighty above IT will be the future of club racing. Whoe knows but anything that gets close to the stupidity of Full prep Prod will eventually eat it's self up in cost and revolving door rules. I would be all for putting the genie back in some of the go fast stuff that is hurting the numbers.

[Bill Miller]

Well, since Jake called me out on this one as well, I'll add to the discussion. Kirk probably has more policy making and implementation knowledge than the rest of us (certainly me), and I think he's nailed it down pretty well.

I don't really have an operational definition of rules creep, but I'll try and put one together. Others have made some very good comments. Here are some of what I think are the key components of rules creep:

* things that are done under the guise of an altruistic reason (e.g. safety), but really have a performance gain as their desired result. This covers a multitude of sins, including, but not limited to, people in a decision-making role setting policy so as to benefit themselves or their associates.

* things that are done out of expidency (sp?) (e.g. ECU rule, it's more expedient to make them open, than to expend to effort to enforce the rule)

* things that are done w/o looking at the way they will impact other aspects.

* implementing policy w/o any regard to the original intent or mission statement of the category

* strained and tortured interpretation of language so as to implement a desired performance enhancement (e.g. spherical bearings being considered bushings).

Far from a complete list, but those are some of the things that I think constitute rules creep. That being said, please don't think that I'm implying that changes in the rules are in and of themselves, bad, because I don't. Rules need to change and evolve to effectively respond to the changing state of technology, as well as what the members want.

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by bldn10@Dec 12 2005, 08:27 AM
The ECU rule itself is another excellent example of rules creep - we start out w/ bone stock, open it up a bit, open a lot more, and now people are arguing for stand-alone engine management systems. Any change that simply makes cars faster across the board and is not w/ the intent and effect of making them safer, cheaper, or more reliable w/i existing class philosophy is a step backward IMO. It is in our nature to want to go faster, I understand that, so it is a necessary function for the Club to keep those instincts in check. We don't like it but it is best for the class in the long run. There are always faster and more expensive classes for those who have the need and the wherewithall. Just because a driver "outgrows" a class does not mean that the class has to grow w/ him/her. But I do agree w/ Andy that rules may have to evolve to reflect availability of parts, etc.

[snapback]67968[/snapback]

Bill didn't I read that you had a heck of a time setting up your Rx7? All due to a defective stock ECM, that's a known problem child? I'm of the opinion that IT needed the open ECM rules, and while making it be installed in the stock container to the stock wire harness is more expensive than an open system, are an excellant compromise. For an example as to satisfy the removal of wheel speed sensors, per the GCR's, for disabling traction control puts the stock ECM in permenant limp mode, now who thinks that's a good idea in a race car? Sounds the same as removing the auto locking feature/remote locks to me :P

James

[bldn10]

James, I have had ECUs go out in the past w/ previous cars but spares are readily available so it was never much of an issue. I have run bone stock ECUs on occasion. When they first opened up the rule I bought a chip that was supposed to give me X additional HP, etc. but it did not do a thing. I have had zero ECU or other electrical issues w/ my SpeedSource-built current car. It has no rev limiter but I don't think the ECU is otherwise modified. The big mistake (and I suspect it was a mistake) IMO was the words "or replace" in the current rule. I doubt the CRB had any idea people would actually stuff Motecs in the stock box. I think what was intended, and what I would favor, is unlimited mods inside the box - but only to the stock motherboard. Chips, flashes, whatever - but you retain the essence of the stock ECU. I assume that would alleviate the issues you mention. Part of the problem, and someone has already touched on this, is that when the SCCA changes a rule to address an issue - they end up creating a whole batch of new ones. Then you address those. And so on and so on. Creeeeeeeeeeeeeeep.

[mustanghammer]

For the best example of rules creep - study the evolution/creep of A Sedan rules. For example:

OEM GM F-Body rear axles turn out to be weak sisters and are failure prone. Solution - give everybody 9" Ford rear ends! And don't stop there, let them have full floating, cambered 9" Ford Rear Ends!! And if that is leagal, then let Ford guys use 8.8 housings with 9 inch differentials and 9" Ford Axle flanges or floaters installed. Creep, Jog, RUNNNNNNN

The A Sedan lesson is that at no time did the rule makers consider smaller carbs, less agressive intake manifolds, reduced cam lift, rev limiters, narrower wheels, restricted gear ratios...etc.

What would I change about IT?

Nothing. Yes I think there are allot of things that I have to have on my IT car that make no sense - like a heater core, factory wiring etc. But I fear that the effort to do away with those items could be subverted by the best and worst intentions of the rules makers.

So, there are things that frustrate me and make me shake my head that I do not want messed with.

[pfcs49]

I'm with you, Scott. The great thing about IT has been it's simplicityand
affordability combined with great racing-even thought that wasn't promised.
IT provides the biggest bang for the buck. The original concept was to allow very limited modifications that provided large increases in performance, especially in the chassis dept. Early on (83-88 or so) there was a raging argument between the conservatives and the liberals/strict constructionists and the enlightened ones. The enlightened ones prevailed but it was a difficult time! Strict constructionists wanted a lawyers class like showroom stock, and literal reading of rules even when it flew in the face of common sense. If the rule said you could substitute any swaybar you chose, then the conservatives said that if your car came without one, you weren't allowed one. They protested a Volvo at Summit for removing his frt bump stops even though at legal ride height the car would be riding on them. Over time, these disputes got resolved in favor of the enlightened ones and IT entered its Camelot years. In recent times, people have become more contentious and
polarized in a nasty way (similar to the current political scene in every way!)
I wish there was more concensus and cooperation and tolerance in IT and in national politics. If we don't all realize that we stand for one anothers greatness, we won't stand at all. Writing this, I'm aware of just how important and significant IT racing, the IT community, and IT related activities have been in my life. It has taught me many good lessons about all kinds of things civic and mechanical. Lets hope it can remain healthy and vital.
Phil

[Tom A]

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

[Knestis]

But I guess I don't understand why.

ANY place where the line is drawn is arbitrary, right? Why stop with removing stuff that "has no place being on a race car" as you may have defined it?

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? Removing stuff costs time, which = money.

K

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 14 2005, 10:31 PM
But I guess I don't understand why.

ANY place where the line is drawn is arbitrary, right? Why stop with removing stuff that "has no place being on a race car" as you may have defined it?

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? Removing stuff costs time, which = money.

K

[snapback]68328[/snapback]

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