Proposed Change to IT Purpose and Intent

[lateapex911]

Hey Ben! (Benspeed) stop the 968 build!!!!

If you build it (308) we'll class it!

AND provide a glue on official Magnum PI upper lip cover unit!

[Ron Earp]

Hey Ben! (Benspeed) stop the 968 build!!!!

If you build it (308) we'll class it!

AND provide a glue on official Magnum PI upper lip cover unit!

Hey Jake!

How about you class those Pony cars instead and I'll build you a Knight Rider clone.

Just imagine, a late model MX5 beating up on 80s Pony cars. Perfect AND it could actually happen.....

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hey Jake!

How about you class those Pony cars instead and I'll build you a Knight Rider clone.

Just imagine, a late model MX5 beating up on 80s Pony cars. Perfect AND it could actually happen.....

'Cept that MX-5 is gonna be an ITS car me thinks.

[tnord]

'Cept that MX-5 is gonna be an ITS car me thinks.

nnnnnooooooooo!!!!!!!

[lateapex911]

David Ellis Brown can't be happy about the direction of his thread, methinks!


(He comes in wanting consensus on excessive costs, gets rebuffed, and is now looking at a total backfire with Corvettes and Ferraris getting classed! )

Ron, your man is in da house, throw some heat under his ass and lets see him get it done!

[D. Ellis-Brown]

XIAN--My prior request to add gears to the Jetta, and the allowance to change injectors has nothing to do with my current Proposal. They are not related.

[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 The term is no longer applicable to the purpose of IT, correct?....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

[Xian]

XIAN--My prior request to add gears to the Jetta, and the allowance to change injectors has nothing to do with my current Proposal. They are not related.

Exactly. They seem to be at odds with each other. I guess I was just thinking that there would be more internal cost consistency from someone looking to change the intent and purpose of IT and try to "contain costs".

Christian

[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.

[Greg Amy]

'Cept that MX-5 is gonna be an ITS car me thinks.

Ugh. Here we go again.

nnnnnooooooooo!!!!!!!

Indeed. Can't wait to see the "recommended weight" on the car...

GA, wondering what's in store for ITB...

[RexRacer19]

GA, wondering what's in store for ITB...

World domination?

[Ron Earp]

'Cept that MX-5 is gonna be an ITS car me thinks.

Wait, you mean the new MX5 car? 2L 170 stock hp? At what weight? Gonna have to be a good bit heavier than the current crop of top performers in ITS to account for it's suspension and brake advantages over the old school stuff currently in the class.

R

[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.

[JoshS]

Cruise control is already outta here.

Citation, please?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ugh. Here we go again.


Indeed. Can't wait to see the "recommended weight" on the car...

GA, wondering what's in store for ITB...

Greg,

Seriously, what could you possible have to bitch about on this? Run the process. Understand what they weigh. Tell me where it best fits. To me, it's gonna be a porky ITS car. Like 2790lbs porkey. It would be about 2440 in ITR...and I can tell you that it won't get to 2260lbs without driver.

On edit: It's not even eligible until 2011. Curb weight is 2500ish, you are going to have to run the hardtop...not a ton of weight to take out. Our GAC car is not light...

[lateapex911]

Citation, please?

pg 332
"External throttle linkage is open"

I swear there used to be a cruise control comment, but I can't find it now. However, the allowance to modify or change seems to cover it.

[JoshS]

pg 332
"External throttle linkage is open"

I swear there used to be a cruise control comment, but I can't find it now. However, the allowance to modify or change seems to cover it.

Well, it's hardly the same thing. I agree that maybe if a car had an external cruise control servo connected to the throttle body, then the linkage between that servo and the throttle body could be disconnected.

But I don't think that the "throttle linkage is open" statement allows the removal of servos, control units (electronic or otherwise), column-mounted control stalks, and the like, yet a lot of people on this forum seem to feel that "cruise control may be removed" and therefore, all of those other components may also be removed. I just see no such allowance.

[Knestis]

Citation, please?

Damn. You'd think I'd learn.

I'm used to models for which some come NOT equipped with cruise control. There is NO specific allowance to remove it.

Maybe my wife is right about me getting senile.

K

[lateapex911]

Well, it's hardly the same thing. I agree that maybe if a car had an external cruise control servo connected to the throttle body, then the linkage between that servo and the throttle body could be disconnected.

But I don't think that the "throttle linkage is open" statement allows the removal of servos, control units (electronic or otherwise), column-mounted control stalks, and the like, yet a lot of people on this forum seem to feel that "cruise control may be removed" and therefore, all of those other components may also be removed. I just see no such allowance.

I'd never considered removing the column mounted lever...unless it was an option. I'd think that a servo attached to the throttle linkage would be fair game though. Control units...I never considered removing that either.

I'm really not terribly familiar with anything but old school CC systems though, I'll admit.

[JoshS]

I'd never considered removing the column mounted lever...unless it was an option. I'd think that a servo attached to the throttle linkage would be fair game though. Control units...I never considered removing that either.

I'm really not terribly familiar with anything but old school CC systems though, I'll admit.

Just to give an indication of how things work nowadays ... as an example, my car, a '99 BMW:

The only physical item dedicated to the non-optional cruise control is a column-mounted control lever. The actual cruise function is controlled by the main engine ECU, and it does its magic by electrically actuating the throttle body.

The throttle body has a cable connected to the gas pedal like any more traditional unit, but it also has, all in the same unit, a motor. The motor can open the throttle (cruise control), or close it (traction control), overriding the throttle cable.

Even more modern cars (like any BMW 2001 or newer) have fully electric throttle bodies with no cable at all.