Jacking Points

[wbp]

Andy, I'm glad to hear that you feel you are free to support rules as you see the situation after you consider what you hear, and any other information you have. And that you don't feel you should just go with whatever seems to get the most "votes" on a forum.
And modifications to make jacking the car safe and non-damaging are totally free already, just so long as you make these mods to your jack and stands, not to the race car.
If I had a vote (and I don't) I would say no changes to the jack points on the car.

[mbuskuhl]

That IS the response. If only half read, how can they change their vote based on what is here?

[/b]

Andy,

Half of the ITAC has seen the discussion and votes, perhaps that has changed their opinion. I understand clearly you are against a jacking point rule and the rationale, that is fine, it does not mean that other ITAC members still maintain their original position. To the half that do not read this forum, perhaps the discussion on this thread has crossed over on to the ITAC private forum.

The jacking point issue is over it looks like, I'm going to take a wild guess and say we will not see a jacking point rule any time soon. Maybe that guess is wrong. It has been interesting though to learn more about the rules process and the ITAC's role as the thread has progressed. I do not agree though. MAZDASPEED did a survey and will do what it's customers want, we elect our government officials by majority vote, members in clubs usually vote on issues, but we do not move forward on a proposition supported by a small sampling of the IT community which clearly leans a particular way.

As Tom said so well, most of us had to achieve some type of success in life with good decisions to be able to do what we do. Surely 80% of those sampled couldn't be wrong. I did write a rule as you recommended but it was not torn apart, the invitation is still open to anyone... have it create a benefit not intended. Oh well, on to other business...


-Mark

[Andy Bettencourt]

It has been interesting though to learn more about the rules process and the ITAC's role as the thread has progressed. I do not agree though. MAZDASPEED did a survey and will do what it's customers want[/b]

Actually, MAZDASPEED has just asked the questions. They have yet to DO anything.

we elect our government officials by majority vote, members in clubs usually vote on issues, but we do not move forward on a proposition supported by a small sampling of the IT community which clearly leans a particular way.[/b]

To play devil's advocate once again, please understand that 50 people on IT.com (more than 75% I would guess haven't even weighed in with comments, just voted silently) does not represent the majority. Would you like us to move forward based on this or should we include the people we talk with at races? This board has tremendous value but it is not the end-all.

Surely 80% of those sampled couldn't be wrong. [/b]

Depends on the sample, no? And besides - this isn't a right or wrong issue.

We hear the request but again, the hook - as a few have pointed out - is that you can 'fix' your jacking problem a variety of different ways now. All without creating a rule that could get abused.

[MMiskoe]

Sorry, could not stay silent on this one.

the hook - as a few have pointed out - is that you can 'fix' your jacking problem a variety of different ways now.[/b]

And how does this relate to the items I mentioned earlier which have to do w/ making old mods easier to do or making repairs easier?

14" OE wheels can now run 15" because 15" tires are easier to find

ECU's are open because its easier than forcing new mods in the old box & wire harness

spherical bearings are OK now so no one has to go back and re-engineer their suspensions

threaded body struts are now OK simply because they are more common (therefore cheaper) than when IT originally got thunk up

Go ahead and overbore .040" so you can re-use that block that has a scored cylinder instead of sourcing a new block

Accusumps & windage trays are OK rather than making some cars just not worth the effort



Shall I continue? It's not hard. Many of the rules we have are aimed at making street cars better race cars. I just can't stomach that statement copied above considering some of the changes of the last couple of years & the way the original rule set was written.

Matt

[Andy Bettencourt]

Sorry, could not stay silent on this one.



And how does this relate to the items I mentioned earlier which have to do w/ making old mods easier to do or making repairs easier?

14" OE wheels can now run 15" because 15" tires are easier to find

ECU's are open because its easier than forcing new mods in the old box & wire harness

spherical bearings are OK now so no one has to go back and re-engineer their suspensions

threaded body struts are now OK simply because they are more common (therefore cheaper) than when IT originally got thunk up

Go ahead and overbore .040" so you can re-use that block that has a scored cylinder instead of sourcing a new block

Accusumps & windage trays are OK rather than making some cars just not worth the effort



Shall I continue? It's not hard. Many of the rules we have are aimed at making street cars better race cars. I just can't stomach that statement copied above considering some of the changes of the last couple of years & the way the original rule set was written.

Matt

[/b]

Because you can already do what you want to do Matt. Some don't see the 'need' outweighing the potential issues. It's really that simple for the guys who voted 'no' on your request.

[lateapex911]

Matt, interstingly, many of your examples are issues that have been affected by the passage of time. But hey, if anything, Jacks are lower and better and lighter since IT's inception. If anything, jacking has gotten easier.

I don't think your arguement, "Hey, look at all these things you guys have done that are much more questionable, so you should do this" hold much logic.

Regarding the "popular" vote, where's Kirk????

[Bill Miller]

Jake,

It's not about the jack, it's about how you're able to use it on the car. Jacking hasn't gotten easier, jacks have gotten better. And making a special saddle to jack the car from the side may not work if you need to jack the car from the front or the back.

And I don't think that Matt is saying that because 'questionable' things have been done in the past, is justification for anything. What he is saying, is that there have been changes made to the rules to make it easier to facilitate things. Talk about putting words in someone's mouth!

many of your examples are issues that have been affected by the passage of time[/b]

And I'm sorry, even after reading that several times, I have no idea what you're trying to say, or why it has any bearing on the topic at hand.

And really Andy, 'need outweighing potential issues'? Please explain how the 'need' for open ECUs w/ added sensors outweighed the potential issues.

[lateapex911]

And how does this relate to the items I mentioned earlier which have to do w/ making old mods easier to do or making repairs easier?

14" OE wheels can now run 15" because 15" tires are easier to find

ECU's are open because its easier than forcing new mods in the old box & wire harness[/b]

Actually, another reason cited by the ITAC is the fact that computing power doubles every 9 months or so, and that prices drop in half, so it has gotten to the point that ECUs are plentiful, and relatively cheap. ...and the asage of time saw an inequitable rule passed years ago...

threaded body struts are now OK simply because they are more common (therefore cheaper) than when IT originally got thunk up

Go ahead and overbore .040" so you can re-use that block that has a scored cylinder instead of sourcing a new ...
[/b]

and I'lll add: and possible rare considering some of the IT cars are over 20 years old..

block

I just can't stomach that statement copied above considering some of the changes of the last couple of years & the way the original rule set was written.

Matt

[/b]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. but many of his examples relate to items that have physically changed over the passage of time...and the ruleset has adapted as the keepers feel is necessary.

Look guys, it's not black and white. This thread has seen goood reasons for, and good reasons against.

I think the iTAC meets tonight, and if it's on the agenda, we'll find out what the current consensus is.

[mbuskuhl]

To play devil's advocate once again, please understand that 50 people on IT.com (more than 75% I would guess haven't even weighed in with comments, just voted silently) does not represent the majority. Would you like us to move forward based on this or should we include the people we talk with at races? This board has tremendous value but it is not the end-all.

[/b]

You've already alluded to the fact that whether there is a majority consensus or not, the ITAC will do what it wants. I find it interesting how the responses have changed... initially it was write a rule THEN vote... as the voting progressed we were told that majority opinion does not create law.... and now, the poll is not a good representative sample of the IT community.

Invitation still open to tear apart my rule, make it do the unintended....

[Andy Bettencourt]

And really Andy, 'need outweighing potential issues'? Please explain how the 'need' for open ECUs w/ added sensors outweighed the potential issues. [/b]

Bill,

The ECU rule is nothing like this issue. To put it simply, we had a bad rule, we needed to fix it - and given current technology it makes more sense to open it up than it did to shut it down (or leave it alone). The costs and seperation of haves and have-nots has been explained to death. I'm just not going to get into it again.

People keep citing the ECU rule as creep but it was driven by the advancement of technology and the ability to police stock stuff that can be reprogrammed without modification. We had to choose the 'smallest pile of crap' wrt this issue because its something we just can't leave alone and have the most parity possible - even measured in IT-granularity.

You've already alluded to the fact that whether there is a majority consensus or not, the ITAC will do what it wants. I find it interesting how the responses have changed... initially it was write a rule THEN vote... as the voting progressed we were told that majority opinion does not create law.... and now, the poll is not a good representative sample of the IT community.

Invitation still open to tear apart my rule, make it do the unintended.... [/b]

The point being for those who are voting to think about the rule from all angles before you vote. Not just a 'hey, I want that too' vote.

I don't think the responses have changed. The 'how it works' info is just hitting your desktop. Many here know how it works.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Wanted to reiterate something. If you feel strongly about something, keep writing letters. It wasn't so long ago that only 1 or 2 ITAC members were willing to send a recommendation to strike the VIN requirment...

[1stGenBoy]

Anyone that doesn't understand where unintended consequences can take you needs to review how we ended up with an open ECU rule. That being said, I don't think that the folks that originally wrote the 'anything you can stuff in the stock housing' rule were anywhere near as diligent as today's ITAC. And IIRC, that rule change was never put out for member input.

I was one of the people involved in the ITR AdHoc group. I have to tell you, it was one of the best project teams that I have ever worked with. For the most part, the egos got left at the door, and we were pretty much all business and no BS. I think everyone that was involved should be proud of what was accomplished. I know I am.

Andy,

While I can certainly understand why some members of the ITAC may not want to participate here, this is too much of a window into the IT community for them not to at least read it.
[/b]

FYI: I log in and check this forum as much as possible and do read and think about all the discussions. I choose not to post too much as I do not have the time to get into arguments and get flamed for posting my thoughts. I do think the ITAC has done a great job over the past few years ( I'm baised of course ) but when the leaders of the CRB and BOD tell us we really have are stuff together it's hard not to feel proud.
For those of you who want to get invloved and are interested in serving on the ITAC,send a letter of interest and a resume to the CRB. They keep the letters on file and when an opening in the ITAC comes up the letters are reviewed for possible canidates.

Bob Clark
#76 Cen-Div ITB
#76 Cen-Div GTL
SCCA ITAC Member

[tom_sprecher]

Are the CRB and ITAC members elected or appointed?
In either case how often and by whom?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Are the CRB and ITAC members elected or appointed?
In either case how often and by whom?

[/b]

I believe the CRB members are appointed by the BoD and the ITAC is appointed by the CRB. As with everything, the ITAC makes recommendations and the CRB approves/disapproves.

On the ITAC, we try and have representation from a variety of IT classes as well as representation from all over the country. Most of our volunteers as of late are very East-coast oriented...and while very qualified, we try and stay diverse.

As far as how often, when someone decides thay are done, a spot opens up. We may have at least one, maybe two for 2008 opening up. If anyone is interested, please submit your resume and note as to why you would like to volunteer to the CRB.

crb at scca.com

[Harvey]

FYI: I log in and check this forum as much as possible and do read and think about all the discussions. I choose not to post too much as I do not have the time to get into arguments and get flamed for posting my thoughts. I do think the ITAC has done a great job over the past few years ( I'm baised of course ) but when the leaders of the CRB and BOD tell us we really have are stuff together it's hard not to feel proud.
For those of you who want to get invloved and are interested in serving on the ITAC,send a letter of interest and a resume to the CRB. They keep the letters on file and when an opening in the ITAC comes up the letters are reviewed for possible canidates.

Bob Clark
#76 Cen-Div ITB
#76 Cen-Div GTL
SCCA ITAC Member
[/b]

I agree with Bob here. I log onto this site at least once a day and do take info into consideration. I have been a member for quite some time as you can see.

[mbuskuhl]

Good morning ITAC,

Did this topic make it in the phone conversation last night? If so, any summary?

Thanks.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Good morning ITAC,

Did this topic make it in the phone conversation last night? If so, any summary?

Thanks. [/b]

No it didn't. It's currently not an item that the ITAC as a group sees the value in given what can legally be done currently. I now that isn't what you want to hear, but it is what it is - for now.

[tom_sprecher]

Like the BoD I think the ITAC has done an excellent job with some of the challenges they have faced in the past few years. While I may not agree with all the decisions made and level of importance of certain factors like stability or the history and integrity of IT when making the rules I can respect it. Perhaps it is the open mindedness of inexperience or that I do not understand those aspects as well as some of you. Someday hopefully I will.

I also strongly feel you can not have the rule set voted on in a true democratic way. The reason for this is twofold. First, there has yet to be a successful government whose laws are formed in the same manner. And second, I feel a large percentage of this great country of ours is comprised of folks that fall somewhere between being an idiot and that of a moron. It is a serious fault of mine that I am trying to overcome and have come to the conclusion that drinking in excess is not the cure, yet.

Based on some of the responses on this thread it is safe to suppose that some here would prefer the ITAC from time to time as they see fit, but more often than less, bounce proposed rule changes off the rest of us if only to gauge public opinion but mostly to satisfy our need to feel included, respected and that our opinions are given due consideration.