October Fastrack

[JeffYoung]

Greg, that makes sense except for...what about the cheater with deep pockets? They guy who runs the full on EMS in a stock appearing box with stock electronics. Can be done probably with $$$$$. Probably was done before ECUs were opened up.

This seems to me to be a grudging rule change to even the playing field as much as possible, making it easier for everyone to take advantage of what before only those with unlimited resources could. In that regard, and while I believe it contrary to class intent, I find it the easiest to digest of the choices.

And of course, it benefits ME. ME!

[vr6guy]

Ive watched improved touring go from ex ss cars which are no longer competitive. With bolt in cages, stock suspension, and or trunk kits, full interiors, mandatory passenger seat. Now we have coil overs, with remote reservoirs, soon to be open ecu, open exhaust,(within db ratings of course), stripped interiors,(its safer). The point Im trying to make is that a rule about one inch on the width of a rim to most likely keep someone from being a participant is ridiculous. Ive also watched this "club" be more like a business over the last few decades. This is "improved touring", not national racing. This is supposed to be fun, something that all of us need to be reminded of. I went through the same thing my father went through during his racing career. People wondering how he went so fast with a considerable less amount of HP,(1986 gt-4 510's averaged over 200 whp, while my father had only 160 whp). My father is a highly respected national chief steward, who took this past year off for a number of reasons. Mostly beacuse of the way the "club" has become, and all the politics. Im not saying anyone is to blame here, only that we all remember why we all race. We are not pro, nor will alot of us ever want that in life.

p.s.
im not the person that will stop at nothing to get more and more rule changes
this is a is a simplistic topic of supply and demand....... someone posted the availability of 15x6 rims compared to 15x7 rims..... look at it, and actually put some thought about it. thats all i ask

oh and raymond, I know you have put alot of money and time into your cars(I remember when the audis were both white) and i would never not give you credit for that. Im just sayin that one inch shouldnt make a race car driver sit out another year..... or maybe ill just get the 15x7s and run ITE

no bashing please

Marc Rider
1990 vw gti
Bildon race car

[Greg Amy]

...what about the cheater with deep pockets?[/b]

There are far, far fewer opportunities for chasms in performance by cheating within the architecture of a stock box, than there are with open hardware.

The guy who runs the full on EMS in a stock appearing box with stock electronics.[/b]

"Stock-appearing"? You mean the original housing? Or are you implying someone will use the stock motherboard, stock chip, stock soldering, stock caps, stock resistors (all easily and visually detectable by removing four or so cover screws) and brew up some Motec-killer while using all those original electronics? I won't go so far as to say it "can't" be done, but you can only go so far with the stock board and electronics, even if you're a mad scientist with an electron microscope and you find a way to micro-encode your own Cray supercomputer inside the confines of the original motorola chipset.

Then, of course, you can only connect through the car with the stock wiring harness (but then there's the guy that'll engineer a high-speed network within the confines of the wiring harness, using the rear tail light bulbs as a SAN storage system...)

We deal with those guys the same way we deal with cheaters who do other things we can't easily detect with a cursory glance (e.g., pop-up pistons, oversize valves, porting/polishing, shaved heads, illegal cams, illegal gearsets, etc): we protest them. to say we can't police physically-manipulated ECUs is to say we can't control our existing ruleset in other regards.

And please allow me to reiterate: there's only so much performance gain one can get with purely-electronically-manipulated ECUs, far less than what we're proposing with open architecture.

This seems to me to be a grudging rule change to even the playing field as much as possible...[/b]

I hope that this has never a case of trying to "even the playing field"; to fall into that mindset is to fall into a never-ending trap. If you want to even the playing field to its nth degree, remove rules restrictions entirely, and that way everyone is even...

It's vitally important that as rulesmakers your core belief for such a rule - and the original stated reason for the change - is that you're believing people are cheating and you believe it cannot be policed, ergo it must be allowed. I do not agree with that mindset, but that's the only way I can justify it in my mind (well, except for "I want it".) Even then, that's another trap, which can lean towards such things as allowing balancing and blueprinting in Spec Miata, for example.

You will never be able to "even a playing field" when money is involved. NEVER.

...making it easier for everyone to take advantage of what before only those with unlimited resources could.[/b]

Rhetorical question: do you truly believe an open ruleset hands opportunities to those that do not have unlimited resources while limiting opportunities for those that do, bringing both in parity? Or do you believe that someone with unlimited resources will easily take advantage of the new opportunities and increase that chasm further? See my "open ruleset" example above.

We're starting to re-hash old discussions here, and I really don't want to. What's done is done, time to let the chips fall. But I truly, honestly hope that this change wasn't made for the wrong reasons...and I'm beginning to believe this is one of those decisions we're all going to regret later, just as we did that very moment we each individually learned about Motec-in-a-box (I remember that moment well...) - GA

[JeffYoung]

Your points are valid, but I would say that yes, the rules makers and many of the unwashed masses (among whom I count myself) proposed this/supported this/"voted" for this because of the various choices available it seemed to be the most equitable to all.

I guess where I have some issue with your post -- which as always is well thought out -- is this. We always use the concept of fairness as the basis of rules creation or rules changes, whether we admit it or not. For example, what was the "reason" for the change from creation of ad hoc weights for cars to a system? Repeatability? Yes. Openess? Yes. But the fundamental reason was fairness and as level a playing field as possible with the constraints of the IT paradigm.

The same is true with the selection amongst the three "bad" ECU choices. Given the three choices, open ECUs are probably the "fairest" to all.

But at the same time, they are the furthest outside the IT paradigm and that is where a lot of us who support them have some pretty severe heartburn.

[RacerBill]

... Do you think that the budget racer is going that much faster because thier wheel weighs 5lbs less??? I don't buy it.
[/b]

I ain't looking to go faster. I'll be 62 years old next year and humping 42+ lbs of wheel and tire on and off the car is not getign any easier!!!!!!!!




BTW, I don't have a huge supply of 15x7's to get rid off. All of the 18+ wheels I have are 15x6 ( I think they are some sort of lead alloy!!!!)

Seriously, I can see both sides of the issue on 6" vs 7" wheels. I would be satisfied with 6.5" wheels.

Looking forward again to the IT Fest, and if things go well, maybe even the ARRC next year!

Oh, no question! And I didn't mean to imply that I believed otherwise. My point is that arguments for the 15x7 option were based on the much less available 15x6 size, when 14x6 is a still viable solution currently allowed by the rules. I meant what I said (in a roundabout fashion, perhaps) - that the 14x6 is more common than either the 15x6 or 14x7.If the justification for the 15x7 is "can't find 15x6," then the first solution should be to use 14x6s, rather than changing the rules to allow 15x7, since it is ALLOWED to go +1, not REQUIRED.

K

[/b]

Shelby Charger is not allowed to use 14" wheels unless the spec line changes when the car moves from A to B. GCR specifies 15" wheels. So, 14's are not an option in this case.

I realize that this is just one car out of many.

Ain't going to keep me from racing, though.

[RSTPerformance]

Ive watched improved touring go from ex ss cars which are no longer competitive. With bolt in cages, stock suspension, and or trunk kits, full interiors, mandatory passenger seat. Now we have coil overs, with remote reservoirs, soon to be open ecu, open exhaust,(within db ratings of course), stripped interiors,(its safer). The point Im trying to make is that a rule about one inch on the width of a rim to most likely keep someone from being a participant is ridiculous. Ive also watched this "club" be more like a business over the last few decades. This is "improved touring", not national racing. This is supposed to be fun, something that all of us need to be reminded of.
[/b]

The progression above is also something I have seen... although the Remote reservoirs are not legal anymore (interesting huh)... as for some of the other stuff, it cost nothing to remove parts and not replace (interiors) and I don't ever remember a quite IT car, but then again my brother was always crying next to me in the strolers because I was always beating him ... If I was around back when coil overs were introduced I probably would have been against them as well. Look at them now, it is something you could not feasibly live without on most cars. I am 100% against the Open ECU rule. Basically the rules as written could work, and I think we need to stop "building" these cars bigger and better in the rules process, and put a limit at some point... We all know the end of IT as we know it is when they finnaly give up the battle on washer bottles and battery location.

or maybe ill just get the 15x7s and run ITE
[/b]

I ran SPU this past weekend in my brothers car and it was a blast. I got to beat up on EP, FP, and GP cars. I would have run ITE but then I would have been runnig with all the big bore GT stuff where I had absolutely no chance at having fun... I know you were joking but their are a lot of other options besides IT where you could have fun...

At anyrate, I am sorry if I am coming across as bashing, I respect those that want change especially to save money but I am just not into the ECU or wheel thing yet.

Raymond "Sometimes I wish it were still the 80's, when Capri's, RX3's, 2002's and Corvairs were ruling ITA" Blethen

[ScotMac]

Again, it's not about you. It's the way I have been trained to look at things:

- although I admit that my orientation creates certain biases.

[/b]

Yes, and in this case your biases are incorrect. You are interpreting what i am saying based on your own biases, and those biases are leading to an incorrect conclusion. As i stated, this has nothing to do w/ a benefit for me, other than the benefit of making IT more healthy for everyone, me included.

Again, the ITAC/CRB has no obligation to any subgroup of racers (make, model, geography, etc.) to help them be competitive. Affording a light racing wheel for less money than might otherwise be obtained IS helping them be competitive. If a rule truly impacts everyone equally, then of course this isn't an issue but that doesn't happen very often, even in cases where arguments are presented as being for the good of the category.
[/b]

As Josh and i noted, the rule is neutral. It does not make one group more competitive, and simply allows *all* the B and C racers to take advantage of greater supply of appropriate wheels.

Oh, no question! And I didn't mean to imply that I believed otherwise. My point is that arguments for the 15x7 option were based on the much less available 15x6 size, when 14x6 is a still viable solution currently allowed by the rules. I meant what I said (in a roundabout fashion, perhaps) - that the 14x6 is more common than either the 15x6 or 14x7.If the justification for the 15x7 is "can't find 15x6," then the first solution should be to use 14x6s, rather than changing the rules to allow 15x7, since it is ALLOWED to go +1, not REQUIRED.
[/b]

Oh, you did very much imply that 14x6 was the most available. Yes, it is instead 15x7, which is very much part of this discussion, since we are discussing allowing 7" rims for B and C.

I disagree that the supply of the 14x6 rims is enough for the B and C racers. It is not, as my research in my previous post clearly pointed it. It is only marginally greater than the supply of 15x6 and 14x7. Also, my point is not one size versus another, as you seem to bring up, but simply that B and C taking advantage of the greater supply of 7" rims (15x7) will encourage more racers to participate in a less expensive manner.

PS - If any of you camel nose "deniers" are out there, make note of how the recent allowance of increased diameter wheels in IT is being used as justification for an increase in width - not even a year out. THAT'S rules creep at work and it's making me regret taking a pro position on that allowance, after the fact...
[/b]

Again, you need to read what i have said. I did NOT use the increased diameter as a justification for this change. This change is valid on it's own right. What i was saying is that the arguments used for increased diameter apply here, since they are both about supply (the same supply, in fact).

PS: Scot- Do you think that the budget racer is going that much faster because thier wheel weighs 5lbs less??? I don't buy it. I run the same lap times with heavy wheels or light wheels, I picked my wheels because they look "pimp" not because of weight, but hey, maybe thats why we are top 5 and not top dog...

[/b]

Yes, he definitely is faster, if every wheel is 5lbs lighter. We are talking improved acceleration, and lower unsprung weight...concepts that are unequivocally performance enhancing. Even more so for the big-budget racer that is running 8lb wheels vs low-budget racer that has been relegated to 18-20lb stock wheels (10lb difference/corner).

And Kirk, please quit trying hide behind the "we do not ensure the competiveness of any car" argument. It does not apply. This is not about a particular car. This increases the supply for everyone, not a particular car, sub-group, region, ...

I will give you that this proposal attempts to level the field between the big-budget and the low-budget racer, but that is an admirable goal, and no amount of your trying to *SPIN* it as "we do not ensure the competitiveness ..." will change that.

[Renaultfool]

I find it interesting that some of the group think the open ECU thing will kill the class.
I think it will save the class by allowing more competitive cars. If that is competitive adjustment so be it. The fields are smaller each year, we must do something.

Drag racing had to change because they almost priced themselves out of existance with the specific rule/car type of approach. They went with bracket racing in which you could do anything you wanted to your car, just say which bracket you would run.

I don't suggest we go there, but IT-B and IT-C are dying now. The rest of you are not far behind. Everyone in the club does not chose to and cannot afford to run $40,000 BMWs in IT-R or whatever. IT needs to remain a class where someone can build a car, out of junkyard parts if necessary, and have a chance to compete.

The club is just letting IT-B and IT-C die. I am not convinced that in the time of $3.00 gas, the only cars being made and sold are $40,000 sport sedans. That seems to be the only interest of the club right now. Where are all the Toyotas, Hondas, Nissans, Dawoos, Caveliers, Cobalts, Kias, etc. even the new Wal Mart Chinese car eventually. I see them on the road everyday. OH thats right, they all have ECUs and are not sports models so no one makes anything for them. Poor you if you own one of those. Might as well stay home.

If you don't make it cheaper and simpler for them to get involved they won't come.

While I am on my soapbox, where are the younger racers in our club? There aren't any because they cannot afford a $40,000 race car. Make them a place and they will come.

If you want to make it work get rid of IT-R because it is pricing IT out of the original intent of the rules.
Put a claiming price on all cars in IT to limit some of the over spending.
Don't let anything in that cost over $20,000 new.
Now you have some practical limits.

[JeffYoung]

Several ITR cars can be had for less than $5k (300ZX, Contour SVT, etc.)

Most can be had for less than $10k (968, 944S2, various BMWs, etc.)

Almost all can be had for less than $20k.

You can get an R car on track for about the same cost as in S, if you pick the right model. Doing away with R, which is in my view one of the biggest advancements we've had in many years, is not the solution to what ails B and C. No one contemplating road racing is choosing R over B and C or vicey-versey.

But you make a valid point about where are the Kias, etc. in B and C? Kirk has addressed this in the past. Is it:

1. The owners of those cars have no real desire to race them?

2. Owners of those cars don't ahve the resources to race?

Others?

I am more and more becoming convinced that the savior of B is the 1st Gen RX7. Lots of folks disagree but I see a lot of race cars out there that could be put in that class, be competitive and could get the car counts up. That might result in more folks looking at B as a viable option again and building other B cars.

I think that is what you need right now in B -- an injection of already existing race cars to make the class more attractive to all. I will admit that when I started looking at racing SCCA, I considered B (because of the TR7 being classed there, yes I am an idiot) and the car counts in my region in B turned me off to B.

C is probably dead. I don't see any real way to revive that class. Just aren't that many 60-80 whp cars out there, and more importantly no people who want to race them.

[JoshS]

But you make a valid point about where are the Kias, etc. in B and C? Kirk has addressed this in the past. Is it:

1. The owners of those cars have no real desire to race them?

2. Owners of those cars don't ahve the resources to race?

Others?
[/b]

People who already own cheap economy cars aren't racers. They only own those cars because it's all they can afford.

The only people who would want to race them are already racers, or at least, are in the process of becoming racers, and they need to BUY a car to race.

I'm not saying we shouldn't class them. I'm just saying that if you had the choice of buying 15-year-old VW or a 5-year-old Kia to turn into a race car, for the same price, wouldn't most people pick the VW?

I don't believe for a second that classifying a Kia will fix ITB or ITC. Not saying we shouldn't do it, we should be inclusive, but it's not going to make any sort of dent.

[erlrich]

...and I'm beginning to believe this is one of those decisions we're all going to regret later, [/b]

What he said.

IMHO all that changed with the new ECU rule is racing in IT just got that much more expensive.

[Knestis]

...Shelby Charger is not allowed to use 14" wheels unless the spec line changes when the car moves from A to B. GCR specifies 15" wheels. So, 14's are not an option in this case. ...[/b]

Sorry - my error. Please disregard any arguments based on that assumption!

K

[jjjanos]

I spent thousands of dollors developing the suspension in our Audi's...[/b]

Silly me. I thought the intent of having a category like Improved Touring was so that spending thousands of dollars developing suspensions not only wasn't needed, it wasn't going to be allowed so that everyone else didn't have to spend thousands of dollars developing their suspensions too.

I'm soooooooooooo happy we have consistent rules that enforce the intent and desires of the IT Founding Fathers. It's what makes running IT so darn cost effective.

[jjjanos]

I'm not saying we shouldn't class them. I'm just saying that if you had the choice of buying 15-year-old VW or a 5-year-old Kia to turn into a race car, for the same price, wouldn't most people pick the VW?[/b]

Why? Cause it's uncool to drive a Kia? Try telling a non-racer that the neon was a class killer a few years ago and don't even get me started on when Le Car was Le Bad Ass.

Given the choice of buying a 23-year old Honda or a 5-year old Kia for the same price and classified to have the same approximate competition potential, yeah, I'm going to pick the Kia because there's going to be a whole heck of a lot more parts out there to repair not only my brain farts, but the brain farts of those who use their cars to shove people out of the way on a start.

Problem is, the Kia won't be the same price and for the price of a 5-year old car, I might as well move up a class.

That being said, C is in ICU and it ain't going to get better.

[Knestis]

Scot, I'm sorry if I can't explain the concerns in a way that resonates with you. I tried. Just open your mind to some of these more complex issues, watch for the effects, and you might see some of them. And maybe you'll come to understand why they are a problem but until then - or if you don't - I hope that you're happy with the results, intended or otherwise.

Just remember that less than a year after it happens, someone will use the 7" rim allowance as fodder for his own idea of what has to get changed to keep someone else from abandoning IT.

And (everyone except Scot, because I've clearly failed to convince him and am OK with that) PLEASE try to remember that rules won't ever control costs unless we go to a claimer system. Competitiveness drives spending, and popularity and competitiveness seem to be interactive. Any argument for a new allowance that is based on saving money is either a red herring or a misconception, unless it acts to hurt popularity and make the class less competitive - then whoever is left can go back to spending less money.

K

[Bill Miller]

Any argument for a new allowance that is based on saving money is either a red herring or a misconception, unless it acts to hurt popularity and make the class less competitive - then whoever is left can go back to spending less money.[/b]

Thank you Kirk. I believe that's probably the number one justification among those supporting an open ECU rule, is that it will cost people less than it does today.

Renaultfool,

I'm not sure where you're getting your information. Take a look at the NARRC results and then tell us that ITA is 'not far behind' ITB & ITC, in terms of dying. And exactly how is an open ECU rule going to help add more competitive cars to ITC? You can probably count the ITC cars that could benefit from an open ECU on one hand (the only one that I can think of off the top of my head is the New Beetle), and there aren't that many more in ITB.

Greg,

I think you hit the nail on the head. I hope you're wrong, but I don't think so.

Andy,

Those that don't learn from the past are sure to repeat it. Can you honestly say that going from 'MoTec in a box' to an open ECU rule w/ added sensors isn't a textbook case of rules creep?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

Those that don't learn from the past are sure to repeat it. Can you honestly say that going from 'MoTec in a box' to an open ECU rule w/ added sensors isn't a textbook case of rules creep? [/b]

It most certainly isn't 'textbook'. Is it creep? Maybe. I just see it is the least 'bad' option.

Technology and the lack of a way to police stock ECU's has gotten us where we are. The option the 'don't open it up' people mostly want is a stock box with chips and reflashes. Trust me when I tell you my research has shown this will end up costing MORE to get to 10/10ths than the current state of programmable units. I have explained how and why I believe this before.

I don't like where we are - but I believe in rules that don't create huge gaps in prep level based on deep pockets - and going backward does that IMHO.

[lateapex911]

....., but IT-B and IT-C are dying now. The rest of you are not far behind. Everyone in the club does not chose to and cannot afford to run $40,000 BMWs in IT-R or whatever. IT needs to remain a class where someone can build a car, out of junkyard parts if necessary, and have a chance to compete.
[/b]

Wow. I have to respectfully, but strongly disagree with your insinuations and suggestions here. ITC? Well, sure it IS withering, and you know what? That's OK.....time moves on. As others point out, there just aren't many cars that fit the class that racers want to race. Honestly, Jeff hit the nail...people buy cars like that because they are cheap transportation. Heck, if we get a request, we'll class them, but aftermarket parts aren't common. If there was a market, they would be. It's pretty straightforward.

But ITB? The very thing you cite that the club needs...a place where you can get a cheap racecar...exists in ITB!!! And I don't know where you live but I just watched a nearly 30 car ITB field take the green at Lime Rock a week ago.

And throwing the demise of IT on ITR, well I think thats stretching it a bit. IT offers choices. Want to race cheap? ITB...heck, even ITA. Want to go a bit faster and have more to spend? ITS, or ITR. Honestly, I could go out and win ITR right now for less than it would cost to win ITB. Seriously. Why? Because it's less popular right now. Thats what drives costs...popularity. It's like an auction. You need two people who want to win. Then it's a spending race. Until then, it's easy and cheap pickings.

Ultimately, people decide which level fits their needs and their budget, and they make their choice. We hit this in another thread, but SCCA is a racing club, where the cars are appliances, and it's about racing. So, yes, if you must race a Honda S2000, you might need to get the checkbook out if there's someone else who wants the trophy more. But....if you want to compete, the rules are setup to give you choices in performance levels and cost levels, you do the research, and you choose whats right for you.

The club is just letting IT-B and IT-C die. I am not convinced that in the time of $3.00 gas, the only cars being made and sold are $40,000 sport sedans. That seems to be the only interest of the club right now. Where are all the Toyotas, Hondas, Nissans, Dawoos, Caveliers, Cobalts, Kias, etc. even the new Wal Mart Chinese car eventually. I see them on the road everyday. OH thats right, they all have ECUs and are not sports models so no one makes anything for them. Poor you if you own one of those. Might as well stay home.
[/b]

Huh??? Look around....again...who drives those cars??? Daewoos? Not a choice of a racer.... but hey, if we got a request, I'm sure we'd class it.

Hondas?? Now really, have you looked at the ITCS in , oh say, the past dozen years?? There are PAGES of Hondas classified! In ITB too! My head SPINS when we go over some Honda DX-LX-EF-CVCC model on the ITAC con calls! Honestly I can not fathom how you can deduce the only interest the club has is in 40K sports cars.

If you don't make it cheaper and simpler for them to get involved they won't come.
[/b]

I agree that simpler would be good, but it's really not that expensive as it stands. Simpler des get problematic, because a simple ruleset is very often an expensive rules set, and an unfair one at that.

While I am on my soapbox, where are the younger racers in our club? There aren't any because they cannot afford a $40,000 race car. Make them a place and they will come.
[/b]

This question is much more complex than that. But, it's NOT because there isn't a cheap entry. And be real, I can hit you with a dozen ads for cars right now that are viable and fun racers that can compete for $5K.

But thats not the problem. The kids have the money, and the time. Cruise a carshow sometime. Or check out some lapping days. I've seen younger guys in their 20s at lapping days with $50K Cadillacs and equally bucks up BMWs, and show cars with paint jobs that cost 5 digits.
But SCCA is about racing, and winning, and lots of people would rather not find out that they aren't #1, or they just get off on cool video displays or whatever. And that's fine.

If you want to make it work get rid of IT-R because it is pricing IT out of the original intent of the rules.
Put a claiming price on all cars in IT to limit some of the over spending.
Don't let anything in that cost over $20,000 new.
Now you have some practical limits. [/b]

ITR is an option...nobody has to choose it. HOW can one option be pricing the rest out of existance> Not logical.
Nothing classed that costs over $20k new? That is a great way to kill IT. First, new pricing is massively unrelated to used residuals. IT requires 5 year old cars, and there are LOTS of really expensive cars that are worth 25% of their new price 5 years old...and some that are worth 80%!

I don't, for one second, think that eliminating choices will foster greater car counts, at least not based on such a limited scope and view.

[vr6guy]

one inch..... not lookin to take a mile.

[lateapex911]

Why? Cause it's uncool to drive a Kia? Try telling a non-racer that the neon was a class killer a few years ago and don't even get me started on when Le Car was Le Bad Ass.

Given the choice of buying a 23-year old Honda or a 5-year old Kia for the same price and classified to have the same approximate competition potential, yeah, I'm going to pick the Kia because there's going to be a whole heck of a lot more parts out there to repair not only my brain farts, but the brain farts of those who use their cars to shove people out of the way on a start.

Problem is, the Kia won't be the same price and for the price of a 5-year old car, I might as well move up a class.

That being said, C is in ICU and it ain't going to get better. [/b]

Really, think about that more critically....you'd take the KIA because of parts availability? Be serious! What cage would you use? Dampers? Bushings? anti roll bars? a header? Aftermarket support, Honda to Kia is not even comparable. You're right though, that for the cost of a KIA race ready, you could buy a one class up, already built, 20 year old................Honda.

YOU might race a KIA regardless of it's cool factor, but the market won't.