Rules NERDs - RIP

[Knestis]

Kirk, my thought is only, why hasn't anyone done it ...?[/b]

Because they haven't been listening to Geo: "If it says you can..." Because they've been presuming that the Elders of IT had more limited vision than the words in the rules allow. Because they are closeted NERDS.

The new piece would serve exactly the same purpose as the OE part - no ifs, ands, or butts.

Did I mention, "Whee?"

K

[Bill Miller]

Because they haven't been listening to Geo: "If it says you can..." Because they've been presuming that the Elders of IT had more limited vision than the words in the rules allow. Because they are closeted NERDS.

The new piece would serve exactly the same purpose as the OE part - no ifs, ands, or butts.

Did I mention, "Whee?"

K
[/b]

[JLawton]

I tell ya, if some of these "rules nerds" (ie Kirk and Greg) decide to turn to the dark side, we're all in trouble!!

[ddewhurst]

Greg, were ya feeling alone out in the garage ? Ya needed to stir the pot................

[bldn10]

Ed, this goes too far back for me but I'm not so sure that the coil-over situation was not just like the ECU one. In other words, at the time the rule was enacted coil-overs were available but end-around-the-rule ersatz "coil-overs" were not. The intention may have been to limit you to the stock shock and spring arrangement except that you could subsititute after-market shocks and springs. That intention would not have been to ban coil-overs because they were higher technology or even if they were more expensive but because they were simply felt to be inconsistent w/ the class philosophy. Then, unanticipated, the pseudo-coil-overs appear and fall w/i the scope of the rule. So we are left w/ a more expensive legal alternative to illegal but less expensive true coil-overs. Again, the error would not be w/ the philosophy but w/ the rule drafting - if they did not want fake coil-overs, the rule should have been more explicit.

I do not think that technology and affordability are mutually exclusive and did not mean to imply that. What I do mean is that IT on one hand is explicitly intended to be "affordable" racing, and on the other is not intended as a high tech class in the SCCA universe of classes. It was intended to be SS w/ some additional leeway to create more of a "real race car" while maintaining the stock basis. Prod and GT were available for the techies. We've moved pretty far afield but the ITCS class philosophy has not been changed.

Zacre, I don't know about you but after a race, especially in the summer down South, I'm not going to crawling under cars in my drivers' suit in impound.

[lateapex911]

I do not think that technology and affordability are mutually exclusive and did not mean to imply that. What I do mean is that IT on one hand is explicitly intended to be "affordable" racing, and on the other is not intended as a high tech class in the SCCA universe of classes. It was intended to be SS w/ some additional leeway to create more of a "real race car" while maintaining the stock basis. Prod and GT were available for the techies. We've moved pretty far afield but the ITCS class philosophy has not been changed.

[/b]

Correct, but to a degree. I think that if you look at SS today (Touring, as SS became impossible to have in the current technical and political point in time), and Prod, with it's billet cranks, slicks, nonstock bodywork, and GT with it's 'start with a bunch of tubes' basis, IT IS still a relative bargain and sits not that far up the "real race car" ladder.

Fact of the matter is that the world changes, and all categories have to change with it. I think that IT has had some missteps, to be sure, but overall, is poised to provide a vibrant and relatively simple place to race.

It is strong in it's ability to provide a good structure for a huge variety of makes and models to race in a relatively easy to police state. It is weak in making it 'easy' for newcomers to just 'run what they brung' as the currrent ruleset doesn't represent what a lot of owners do when modifying their cars.

I think that, in the big picture, IT really hasn't moved that far afield, but the field has certainly moved on it's own.

[turboICE]

What I do mean is that IT on one hand is explicitly intended to be "affordable" racing, and on the other is not intended as a high tech class in the SCCA universe of classes. It was intended to be SS w/ some additional leeway to create more of a "real race car" while maintaining the stock basis.[/b]

This is part of the problem Bill, I read on here a lot of intent about rules whether explicit or implicit - yet rarely is any of it what is written is evident in the written word. This is the problem with oral histories, where has it ever been written that IT is explicitly intended to be affordable or SS with some additional leeway?

A. PURPOSE
Improved Touring classes are intended to provide the membership with the opportunity to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition.[/b]

B. INTENT
It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car. This class is intended to allow a variety of popular, inexpensive cars to be eligible; however, those determined by the Club to be outside of these parameters will not be classified.[/b]

Low cost cars and inexpensive cars - it doesn't mention any purpose or intent that the modifications to the cars be low cost, inexpensive or affordable.

It is a consistent problem whether it is the day an entry in the rules becomes effective or ten years later - each and every entry into the rule book should say what it means and mean what it says. If it doesn't it is both ineffective and inefficient. When they really want to limit something they do quite a good job of it, I can only assume when language isn't exactly limiting something then they aren't trying to limit it.

If the intent of the prior wording was "to limit you to the stock shock and spring arrangement except that you could subsititute after-market shocks and springs" it wasn't even close and why would any ride height below stock be allowed? The least expensive way to adjust ride height on a majority of our cars is threaded body coil overs - custom height springs and custom length oem style struts are extremely expensive - the limitation on a threaded body was hardly sufficient to achieve the potential intent.

I don't necessarily disagree with your view on where IT "fits" but I listed out its fit in a similar manner once on this forum and was told I was absolutely wrong. And believe me I am one who very much could use rules that result in affordable full preparation under the rules - but I don't see a set of rules in the ITCS that support that except on a relative basis.

What I am saying is that if what a lot of people say IT is and what a lot think the rules should be to support it, write the CRB - because telling someone on here what it is when the rule language doesn't support it is going to be a losing battle.

[bldn10]

" low cost cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition ... Low cost cars and inexpensive cars - it doesn't mention any purpose or intent that the modifications to the cars be low cost, inexpensive or affordable."

Now, Ed, you aren't serious are you? You read that to mean that the purpose/intent/philosophy is cheap chassis w/ unlimited-cost mods? No way. It means that the car you put on the track is "low cost." Of course, as you point out, that term is indeed relative. How are the cars kept low cost? By classifying only those that are cheap and readily available and allowing only "limited modifications" primarilly for the purpose of making the car "suitable for racing competition" which primarilly means safe and durable (because durable = affordable). This is the reason I believe the BMW should not have been classified when it was - not because it would be an overdog but because decent tubs generally did not satisfy the affordability criterion.

The reason I write is to try do one of 2 things: either hold the class to the stated philosophy; or change it to reflect modern technology and the desires of the IT community. I think that the problems we have w/ cheating and argument over rules are the result of the natural conflict between these 2 directions. Racers will always want to change their cars to make them faster, but it is up to the sanctioning body to keep them from going too far. We should not get bent out of shape when they do their job. We should get bent out of shape when they fail to do so. If we think the current philosophy is out of step - write 'em and tell 'em.

[turboICE]

The cost of mods is unlimited though - it has been illustrated in instances where there is a deep pocket it will be reached into. This happens most often in the areas of vague rule language, whether being vague was intentional or not.

I have seen too many instances where affordable (including especially durable = affordable) full preparation have been bypassed in areas, where the performance effect is already permitted, to believe that the rules are currently being set within the philosophy of an affordable full preparation car. I don't buy that affordability is a significant function in the rule making process as written and maintained.

Remember that there is a group that believes durable does not equate to affordable but rather to improved performance because why would you increase the durability if your performance wasn't going to be improved.

Of course that goes back to what is performance. In the context of ITCS, I think performance should be defined in terms of consistent repeatable lap times - not in some much broader application such as durability. Some positions taken could even be translated to be that affordability is part of performance in that being more affordable is an increase in performance.

While I admit that I suffer from the same limitations in communicating actual thoughts as most, I do generally mean what I am writing and writing what I mean and it can be taken as such as long as it isn't read into. Reading into what I write may well result in taking my thoughts to be other than what they are. And when I read the ITCS and look at BoD actions I get no warm fuzzy feeling that the class is meant to result in cars that are affordable as fielded in full to the rules preparation. And definitely not the most affordable means to achieve full to the rules preparation. A much more affordable car with the same lap time performance could be fielded if the rules were written with affordability of full preparation in the purpose/intent/philosophy of the actual rules.

[lateapex911]

You guys are getting into a dangerous zone here, LOL.

There are some instances where the rules could be written in such a way as to produce a more economical result for some, but there are always things that seem like a good idea, but then are shown to be more....or less than expected.

It is my opinion that consideration to expense is given in the rules writing process, and that rules are crafted where possible to result in a "point of diminishing returns" manner. In other words, some rules are written that allow you to spend a gazillion dollars to go far beyond what most will do, but will only return 1/10th of a second in lap time. Yes, I am aware of the argument that in a popular class, there will be those who will take the option and spend the money, which forces others to, but it is very difficult to control spending in racing or nearly any competition. If the cost can be crafted to far outstrip the reward, then we are most of the weay there.

And look what happens when we try, LOL. Case in point: The suspension bushing/SB issue. A rule that existed for years, and about which reasonable men differed. So the CRB was asked: "What do you REALLY mean by this? Did you want SBs to be allowed?" And they said "Yes". So the rule gets a 'clarification', and then the mounting of the SBs is addressed. Again, the CRB decided that it was an easier and more affordable solution to allow simple tackwelds to retain the SBs, rather than requiring expensive 'cassettes' and other pricey solutions.

So, going in we had guys spending lots of money on machined delrin solutions, and making sleeves that are heat/chill contraction fits (guys like me) and spending lots of money to do so to meet the letter of the rule, when $30 SBs were available. And coming out, the solution is cheaper, faster and easier, and results in no incrreased performace on the track than what was had previously.

But......some very wise and bright observers have pointed to that rule change as the unraveling of the category, and a point in time from which nothing will be the same. A virtual opening of the Pandoras box.

So...point of all this? It's not as simple as it seems, and there is considerable disagreement as to the need for a solution.

[bldn10]

Ed, if I sometimes seem inconsistent it because I see, as apparently you do too, a difference between what the language and intent of the Rules seems to say and what Club Racing, the CRB, and some stewards and COAs say they say. If I have not made it clear before now, I believe that a lot of our problems go back to initial rule drafting and then subsequent tampering w/ and faulty interpretation of them by the aforementioned. There has not been a firm policy of drafting and interpreting consistently w/ the class philosophy. It is easy to point out numerous anamolous situations, but I think they are for the most part the result of ad hoc rule changes and interpretations that strayed from the class philosophy. "Low cost" always has to be viewed in the context of the class philosophy so there will indeed be instances where a lower cost mod will not be allowed because it will be deemed inconsistent w/ class philosophy. That is the anti-technology factor I mentioned before and a perfect example of the affordability - technology tension. There is a balancing and sometimes the result will not come out as some people prefer. As I have said before, the premise of opening up the rules to make all cars faster across the board has no place in IT. It is natural for us to want that but, again, it is up to mother SCCA to save us from our baser instincts. What I am saying is that an argument that X mod should be allowed because it is cheaper than Y mod, which is already legal, is not necessarilly valid if X is deemed a more exotic mod that is not in keeping w/ the "limited modifications" aspect of the class philosophy.

"A rule that existed for years, and about which reasonable men differed. So the CRB was asked: "What do you REALLY mean by this? Did you want SBs to be allowed?" And they said "Yes". So the rule gets a 'clarification',"

Actually, even though I wasn't there, I don't think that is how it went down. I don't think they were asked what the rule was originally intended to mean [although they should have] - I think they were simply asked, or they asked themselves, whether we now want SBs to be legal or not. We know the answer. It was done in the guise of a Technical Bulletin so it could be effective immediately rather than as a substantive rule change, which goes out for comment w/ a delayed effective date. To be a TB it had to be a "clarification" rather than an outright change. FWIW because I think SBs were never legal, and the TB in fact actually changed a defininition in the Glossary, I don't like the way this was done. It sets (or perpetuates) a dangerous precedent that substantive rules changes can be made overnight w/o notice if cloaked as a "clarification."

[lateapex911]

Actually, even though I wasn't there, I don't think that is how it went down. I don't think they were asked what the rule was originally intended to mean [although they should have] - I think they were simply asked, or they asked themselves, whether we now want SBs to be legal or not. We know the answer. [/b]

I was there. If you, as a lawyer put me on the stand as a witness, and asked, was the CRB asked if they intended the SBs to be legal when the original rule was drafted, my answer would be affirmative.

You will have to ask the CRB whether they are truthful in their response.

The net net on it is this though:
before the 'clarification' I spent big money in a high tech manner to acheive a result. legally. to the conservative reading of the rule.

after the 'clarification' I am spending less and taking less time to acheive the same result.

The class has not gotten faster across the board as a result.

The mod is easier.

I understand your distrust of the process, and I can not say whether the CRB was less than truthful in my dealing with them, you will need to determine that fact for yourself.

[turboICE]

Bill, I think we are mostly in agreement about what should be and what is, certianly more so than in disagreement.

[ddewhurst]

***FWIW because I think SBs were never legal, and the TB in fact actually changed a defininition in the Glossary, I don't like the way this was done. It sets (or perpetuates) a dangerous precedent that substantive rules changes can be made overnight w/o notice if cloaked as a "clarification."***

Thank you Bill ^, I had typed up a similar post & then deleated it because mostly the only people posting are the I TOLD YA SO types.


***I was there.***

Jake, does that "I was there" mean you heard the the originator/orginators of the rule speaking or did you year a dribble down conversation ?



I could post a thread about what I beleive the rules would call illegal side hoops within ITA & Spec Miata cars. I also would argue that if enough of these side hoops were protested the CRB would make the illegal side hoops legal with one swift stroke of their Technical Bulletin pen.

This S.B. rule response is the same rules responses that has been going on in Production for years. If ya think I am wrong go ask someone who has been around since the 60's. That person will tell ya that is exactly what got Production where they are today.

[lateapex911]

***I was there.***

Jake, does that "I was there" mean you heard the the originator/orginators of the rule speaking or did you year a dribble down conversation ?

[/b]

"I was there. If you, as a lawyer put me on the stand as a witness, and asked, was the CRB asked if they intended the SBs to be legal when the original rule was drafted, my answer would be affirmative."

That statement refers to a con call with two CRB reps.

Is that clear?

[bldn10]

"If you, as a lawyer put me on the stand as a witness, and asked, was the CRB asked if they intended the SBs to be legal when the original rule was drafted, my answer would be affirmative."

And you would be a competent witness since you have first hand knowledge of the question being asked. But if each current member of the CRB was put on the stand and asked that question, I would object on the grounds of lack of foundation. I.e. they first have to demonstrate that they have first hand knowledge of the initial drafting of the rule. Because, I stated in another post, unless the membership of this CRB is substantially the same as the one that was responsible for the rule to start w/, they are no more competent and have no more authority to say what the original intent was than do I or anyone else here.

"You will have to ask the CRB whether they are truthful in their response."

I have no reason to doubt that they were not truthful in their opinions on the SB issue - but again, unless they were there when the rule was drafted, their opinion and "understanding" is all they can give. And those opinions and understandings were undoubtedly influenced by what I think was an erroneous interpretation by the staff as well as the water-under-bridge" or genie-out-of-the-bottle factors. Those members of the CRB who were not in on the initial drafting should have answered, "I will have to recuse myself because I was not there."

"The net net on it is this though: before the 'clarification' I spent big money in a high tech manner to acheive a result. legally. to the conservative reading of the rule. after the 'clarification' I am spending less and taking less time to acheive the same result."

I'm not sure what you mean by "conservative reading of the rule" but if you mean that using SBs was a conservative or safe reading of the bushing rule, I obviously disagree. But, since you are evidently saying that the "clarification" is saving you money, let me ask you this: are you spending more or less on SBs than you would have on the simple substitution of urethane or Delrin or whatever material bushings for the stock ones? I suspect you are paying more. A truly conservative (and IMO correct) interpretation of the rule would have saved you more. Now your car might not handle as good, but that is another issue and is perhaps justification for changing the rule, but it is not justification for strained interpretation of the rule.

[lateapex911]

Bill, good points, and what a refreshing change for the sling-fest in the BMW section, LOL

Yes, we are at the mercy of the lack of direct connections to the original ruling, and of course I can not state what caused the CRB members to respond as they did.

Now, regarding the effect on my car. A conservative approach in the "PC" days, (Pre Clarification, ) would have been to use delrin, for example, and to machine it into parts that nest and capture themselves that can emulate the actions and functions of a SB. It is of course, a bit tricky, and time consuming, but it isn't impossible. The result is that the SBs performance characteristics are mimic'ed very closely. Now, post PC, I can just buy a $30 off the shelf part and go to work.

Thanks for your thoughts.

[ddewhurst]

***Yes, we are at the mercy of the lack of direct connections to the original ruling, and of course I can not state what caused the CRB members to respond as they did.***

Jake, thank you, the above statement is CLEAR. That above ^ is answering a question with what I believe is a fact. The above ^ fact response is my expectation of ALL ITAC, CRB & BoD members.