Proposed Change to IT Purpose and Intent

[D. Ellis-Brown]

As some of you in the Central Florida Region already know, I am fairly vocal about the IT rules, the CRB and the advisory committee that provides inputs to the CRB. I have been competing in Improved Touring for over 20 years. During that time, IT has matured and I do believe that the Purpose and Intent, as presently documented, are neither accurate nor reflective of that maturation. Therefore I propose to submit a change to the “original” Purpose and Intent of Improved Touring that will better reflect the reality of the current cars being added, the normal automotive product and technological evolution, and to restate the original “low cost” philosophy of the category to a more realistic “Cost Containment” focus that will better serve both the current and future competitors of Improved Touring.

Over the last year or so, I believe that the original philosophy and the Purpose and Intent of the category “Improved Touring” as currently documented, has been compromised. While I understand and usually concur with many of the decisions of the CRB, I find that the current trend of specification change decisions are not in accordance with the currently documented Purpose and Intent of the Improved Touring category. Therefore, I propose that a “New Purpose and Intent and subsequent Notes ” needs to be established to:

1. Better reflect the current thinking of the CRB and it’s advisors and
2. To better accommodate the configurations of cars be added and
3. To put in place, a focus on “Cost Containment”.

Recommended New Statement of Purpose:

Purpose: “Improved Touring classes are intended to provide the membership with the opportunity to compete in cars offered for purchase in North America with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition. They will be prepared to the manufacturer’s specifications except for modifications permitted by these rules”.

Recommended New Statement of Intent:

Intent: “It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe racecar. It is also the intent of these rules to keep the costs of preparing, maintaining and competing a car in the Improved Touring category to a minimum. The class is intended to allow a variety of popular cars to be eligible; however, those (cars) determined by the Club to be outside of these parameters shall not be classified. Entrants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car, and competition adjustments, other than as outlined in section 9.1.3.C, will not allowed. Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, substituted or removed for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage”.

Rationale:

I believe that these revised changes would provide both the CRB and its advisory committee the latitude to add cars like those now included within the category of ITR and other future groupings. Without the revised wording, I also believe that the current trend in newer car inclusion is not compliant within the scope of the currently documented Purpose and Intent. I also strongly beleive that a new focus needs to be established on "containing the cost" of building, racing, and maintaining a car in the Improved Touring Category in an attempt to keep the costs of racing an IT car to an acceptable level. The current combined “Purpose / Intent” of improved touring is to allow a variety of popular, inexpensive cars to be eligible, prepared and race in the category. “ However, those (cars) determined by the Club to be outside of these parameters will not be classified”. I do not believe that the current actions and subsequent rule changes of the CRB or its advisory committee, comply with the existing “P&T” statements. I further do not believe that the current statement of “Purpose and Intent” is realistic based on the vehicles that are currently included within the 2009 version of the Improved Touring Category Specifications (ITCS). I also believe that a “Revised” purpose and intent of IT should focus on keeping the “costs low“ with regard to building, maintaining and racing of an IT car by restricting and limiting modifications.

While I admit that the terms “low cost and inexpensive” are rather nebulous and undefined. Common sense does not permit the majority of current IT competitors to believe that the most recent crop of cars being added is either “low cost or inexpensive”. I believe that with the creation of ITR along with the newer cars that have been added, and future models / engines that are being considered, only validates my claim that neither term is applicable.

Whether it is a Lexus or a Porsche, newer BMW’s, or an Acura RSX, I don’t believe that any of these cars, and the years that are eligible, can be considered either “low cost or inexpensive”. Also the cars that are being constructed now, are purpose built racing cars. They maybe used streetcars, but they are being constructed with all of the precision and safety of a car that would normally built for a professional series, and the current rule wording adds unnecessary costs to be construction and maintainence of said vehicles.

In addition, I also believe that a “New Philosophy” for IT needs to be adapted to govern the rule making process to focus on “cost containment” by providing rules that are supportive of the construction and the maintenance of a “cost effective” racecar. And if adapted, I further believe that new rules should be freely made that facilitate cost effectiveness and vehicle maintainability while not jeopardizing safety or disregarding the original philosophy and concept of the IT category.

I have not submitted my proposal to the CRB. I have submitted my proposal to the members and readers of CFR's publication "The Checker". I submit my proposal to the readers of this website for constructive discussion.
Thank you in advance for your consideration, and comments,
Sincerely, David Ellis-Brown

[shwah]

Um. So IT is broken because we let people choose between cars that you think are low cost and cars that you do not think are low cost?

I guess I would love to see some evidence of how this is damaging to IT. Do you have any data to support this?

[tnord]

holy fuckballs.

It is also the intent of these rules to keep the costs of preparing, maintaining and competing a car in the Improved Touring category to a minimum.

no way. is it that hard to predict the landslide of requests to allow X stock part be replaced by X aftermarket part in the name of lower cost of maintenance? under the new statements, they'd probably be justified. i don't like this one bit.

[Xian]

How is limiting the types of cars classed going to restrict spending? If someone wants to build a top-notch 80's econo-box there isn't anything stop them. Heck, the cost to build an RSX isn't much more than the cost to build a CRX.

Change requests like this absolutely smack of some level of self-interest... what car/class do you race? What's the prep level?

Christian

[jjjanos]

No.

This is the first step to production-like irrelevancy.
AKA...keep out the newer cars so that my 30+ year-old car remains competitive.

Also the cars that are being constructed now, are purpose built racing cars. They maybe used streetcars, but they are being constructed with all of the precision and safety of a car that would normally built for a professional series,...

As well they should be. That's the standard towards which we all should aspire.

...

and the current rule wording adds unnecessary costs to be construction and maintainence of said vehicles.

Please provide specific examples.

[Knestis]

I feel like I'm not really getting the point of some of what you're describing David. What specifically are you trying to prevent or allow with the change?

The one thing I can say confidently, though (and it's been suggested already): There's NO way that we can write anything about costs into the rules and have it make sense, because there's NO way that rules can influence what any given racer might spend. That's as close to a "natural law of racing" as they come, to my way of thinking.

But again, maybe I'm confused. How about some examples of what the proposed language fixes...?

K

EDIT - I've read it again. Is it really about keeping out new cars that cost more (e.g., an ITC New Beetle that requires a $3000 donor)...?

[Greg Amy]

Huh. And here I was, thinking of proposing a rule to ditch the 4-years-plus-1 rule...

[Jeremy Billiel]

umm... NO.

[lateapex911]

LOL.

Lots of problems with the idea, if I even understand it correctly.

It appears that he wants the CRB (ITAC) to put a limit on cars that are classed, and he hints at rule changes as well, to limit expenditure.

I don't see an issue. I watched a top notch race last summer at the IT Fest between a 25 yr old car and a 8 yr old car. The new car won, by 2 seconds. I also watched a 22 yr old car clean up over much newer cars. As a matter of fact, "new" and (I assume) expensive cars haven't really cleaned up in any class.

That's a sign that the classification process is working. Old and new are on the same footing.

Now, where is the problem? Obviously, the category provides many low cost and competitive options. There is no real NEED to buy the latest and greatest if you want to be the fastest.

The category provides options of newer models as well...but hey, if you don't want to spend the money, DON'T! It appears that the writer is confusing the opportunity to spend lots of money with the need to...but that need just doesn't exist.

I find the proposal vague, lacking reasoning, and without concrete examples.

[D. Ellis-Brown]

Kirk.... I thought that I had command of the king's english, I must be wrong........ No where am I suggesting restricting any car from being included in IT!..... The ITAC has added, and will add new cars... great.... add whatever.... it makes no difference..... I beleive words mean something.... in the current "Purpose" are the words..."low cost".... correct, what does that mean?.... When IT was established, the initial cars identified were low cost, econo-boxes, correct?.... The term is no longer applicable to the purpose of IT, correct?.... Then why not remove it? .Period.... Now for the intent.... I have two significant interests.... 1. a general statement that permits, allows, modifications to the stock vehicle that do not alter performance. Example-- change and add switches, replace relays for switches, change/ alter both the location & configuration of the fuse panels, remove all un-necessary wiring, permit reinforced jacking panels under the car to faciltate "enduro" pit stops, and to reduce some of the damage that is being done to the bottom of the "sheet metal" frames from floor jacks not being placed on the right spots, and damaging welds , etc, etc, I could go on, but I hope that makes some of my points. 2. I am recommending adding rules guidance to the ITAC,, by including a statement within the Intent, to think about rules that are being considered to consider "cost containment" as a factor in the rules change process of IT.... Before a rule is made, does it add cost, to the category, but adds little or no value. , or would a change help reduce costs, say maintenance costs, such as the electrical issues that I mentioned above..... Think about the newer cars that are being added..... there is alot of stuff in the cars that have value in the salvage market, could be sold on e-Bay, that do not add value to the IT car, but the say of the item could help offset some of the construction costs for the car. Many standard options, cruise control, expensive switch assemblies, GPS systems, etc.... that are not identified in any shape form or description within the current rules. Does the CRB or ITAC want to address each item on a model by model basis, or begin to "think outside of the box" and permit general modifications that do not "alter performance" Kirk, sorry for the long reply, but from looking at some of the reponses, that do not deserve a civil reply, I felt I should respond to your note. Sincerely, David E-B

[Knestis]

.... in the current "Purpose" are the words..."low cost".... correct, what does that mean?.... When IT was established, the initial cars identified were low cost, econo-boxes, correct?....

In hindsight, those econoboxes of the '70s and '80s look cheap but the first person to build an ITS e30 BMW did it with a car that was thousands of dollars at the time. That said, you get no argument from me that since we can't actually control costs, there's really no logical place for it in the IT intent statement. Strike that clause - I'm with you 100%.

... I have two significant interests.... 1. a general statement that permits, allows, modifications to the stock vehicle that do not alter performance. Example-- change and add switches, replace relays for switches, change/ alter both the location & configuration of the fuse panels, remove all un-necessary wiring, permit reinforced jacking panels under the car to faciltate "enduro" pit stops, and to reduce some of the damage that is being done to the bottom of the "sheet metal" frames from floor jacks not being placed on the right spots...

Here, we are about 180* out, position-wise. Every single thing you mention is both a performance enhancement and a cost item when preparing a car. I'm not saying that none of them might make sense but they each have to be considered in isolation, on their individual merits.

2. I am recommending adding rules guidance to the ITAC,, by including a statement within the Intent, to think about rules that are being considered to consider "cost containment" as a factor in the rules change process of IT.... Before a rule is made, does it add cost, to the category, but adds little or no value.

I daresay that we already DO this, generally speaking, although I don't recall the revenue side of the equation coming up in any real conversation about policy. I sure as heck DID take full advantage of that side of the equation when I built (then rebuilt) the Golf, offloading a lot of potentially useless crap on the 'vortex particularly... The same will apply only moreso for new cars and I guess you're right that at some point we'll have to specifically allow the removal of, say, nav systems to make it OK to do so. Cruise control is already outta here.

But "remove anything not required for racing" is a WAY slippery slope - at least in my opinion, and to a great degree as demonstrated by ITAC recommendations in the past year.**

I appreciate the explanation because, as I indicated, I wasn't sure I was following. There's a core to what you propose that I actually think the ITAC is already largely on board with, but equally, I think what you propose overreaches a bit.

Thanks

K

** EDIT - those weren't your words but paraphrase a request that we did receive this year, that I think mirrors what you are proposing here.

[JoshS]

Cruise control is already outta here.

Citation, please?

[lateapex911]

Kirk.... I thought that I had command of the king's english, I must be wrong........ No where am I suggesting restricting any car from being included in IT!..... The ITAC has added, and will add new cars... great.... add whatever.... it makes no difference..... I beleive words mean something.... in the current "Purpose" are the words..."low cost".... correct, what does that mean?.... When IT was established, the initial cars identified were low cost, econo-boxes, correct?.... The term is no longer applicable to the purpose of IT, correct?.... Then why not remove it? .Period....

Ahh, now it's getting clearer.

I can see the word as being...well, meh. But, I certainly think that IT, relative to other production car categories, strives to limit modifications (and thereby costs, remembering that costs can be non financial). As an example, Touring requires (generally speaking) expensive buy ins initially, then requires balance and blueprints, and, as the suspension rules are limited, hugely expensive dampers end up being used. Prod has cars with billet cranks, custom molded bodywork, etc, etc. IT, relatively speaking is simpler and in most cases, carries less cost.

But I wouldn't lose any sleep over ditching the phrase from the ITCS..it's certainly not defensable.

Now for the intent.... I have two significant interests.... 1. a general statement that permits, allows, modifications to the stock vehicle that do not alter performance. .....

Many of your suggestions are already possible to some extent. The GPS units though might deserve mention in the ITCS. I see them as "radios", but their treatment is not discussed.

2. I am recommending adding rules guidance to the ITAC,, by including a statement within the Intent, to think about rules that are being considered to consider "cost containment" as a factor in the rules change process of IT....

In ITAC discussions cost is certainly considered. For example, in the ECU debates, one member of the ITAC was wildly against the open concept. It was explained to him that the current rule was inequitable, but he was convinced that $20K Bosch ECUs would become the standard. before the next meeting, he made some calls, approached some racers at teh track, and did some research. He reurned a changed man. He found that by allowign an open solution huge cost savings could be realized for many racers, while leveling the playing field. And I'd also submit that "cost" is considered in other forms by the ITAC. Rules changes have costs associated with them that aren't financial, and that's always a consideration. And, an allowance that can save one racer can cost others. I assure you that we are aware, and it is a directive.