When do you stop giving people what they ask for?

[D. Ellis-Brown]

I agree we should be able to install jacking plates. I don't know about anyone else, but the underside of my car, no matter how careful we are, is a dented, distorted mess. Maybe some of you in other parts of the country do not have to jack up your cars in sandy paddocks like we do in the Florida, but it is always tricky getting the jack in the right location. I know several of my compatriouts tried to work the "jacking plates" issue when Enduros were initiated many years ago. And it fell on deaf ears then. To me it is absolutley ridiculous that something so functional, so necessary, so logical has been resisted in the past. But, like our Federal Government, logic and common sense will not be tolerated, David Ellis-Brown

[Knestis]

>> ...logic and common sense will not be tolerated.

That's hyperbolic and not fair.

If the ITAC were "responsive" to the wishes of everybody, IT would no longer be IT in very short order. Everyone wants a different thing and the SUM of those things takes us way beyond the category as it's currently defined.

Now, if we required a majority of IT car owners to endorse a proposed change before we considered it, that would be one thing, but we tend to view a half dozen vocal members as substantial support. That's just not a good idea.

As an ITAC member, I very much view my first obligation as being to the long term health of the category, and that outweighs what current members want. (Remember that member turnover in the club is such that several HUNDRED THOUSAND have come and gone in the time I've been a member. Yes - that means that I (and the rest of the ITAC) have to apply what we think is our best judgement toward that goal, running the risk of being accused of neglecting "what the membership wants." But that's how it is.

K

[tom_sprecher]

Now, if we required a majority of IT car owners to endorse a proposed change before we considered it, that would be one thing, but we tend to view a half dozen vocal members as substantial support. That's just not a good idea...

...K

It's funny you mentioned this. I am in the process of putting together a ballot to allow internal engine coatings (Cermet) to be applied only to the wear surfaces of side and rotor housings of 12a Mazda engines in the SEDiv IT7 class. Every IT7 driver from last year and this will be mailed a ballot and personally called if it is not returned.

In SEDiv our CRB is composed of the Planning Committee and Class Advisory Committees (which unbeknownst to me until this Jan includes yours truly for IT7). The process is write a rule, gather support (ballots from class participants is preferred), present your case to the RE's at the mid year meeting where they will vote on passage or not.

After discussing the subject with members of the Planning Committee and IT7 Class Advisory Committees as well as with multiple IT7 drivers and a few RE's it would appear the rule change is a shoe in.

The funny part I mentioned came to me last night while doing a little drinkin' and thinkin'. If I polled every IT driver that registered for a Road Atlanta race, would the ITAC take that information into consideration on this jacking plate issue? Granted, it would not be a nationwide survey and you would have to trust my results, but is that kind of information helpful in deciding "on the fence" rule issues like this?

If so, I will try and help out along those lines. It will take a bit of work and to be honest I do not need the exercise if the long term health of the category completely outweighs what current members want. I understand that logic when properly applied and that in itself is not and easy task, but as anybody who works in the public sector knows, it is usually best to give your customers what they want or they tend to go elsewhere.

Let me know.

[tnord]

I do not need the exercise if the long term health of the category completely outweighs what current members want. I understand that logic when properly applied and that in itself is not and easy task, but as anybody who works in the public sector knows, it is usually best to give your customers what they want or they tend to go elsewhere.

Let me know.

this REALLY bugs me. i think the "public sector" (read; government) is a huge catostrophic failure because of exactly this reason. they are so concerned about "giving the people what they think the want" in order to try and win the next election that they completely ignore the long term effects. well guess what, the overwhelming majority of the american public doesn't know what the fuck is going on with the economy, hasn't the slightest clue how we REALLY got to where we are, and has absolutely no grounds to be shouting from the roof tops how we should solve the problem, but that doesn't stop them.

i'm all for the ITAC considering what the members want, but i urge them to use their own brain to make the best decisions possible for the long term health of the class.

[ddewhurst]

***but as anybody who works in the public sector knows, it is usually best to give your customers what they want or they tend to go elsewhere. ***

IMHJ, there are two choices now. Stay in Improved Touring with the rules as the are now written or move to Production where the rules have been so screwed over over the last 40 years that there are basically no rules. Oh, you want to build a car to no rules, how about you build a Grand Touring car. DO YOU SEE THE PROGRESSION?

[tom_sprecher]

Jeez! Leave this place for a day to get some real work done and look what happens.

When you submit your findings, please also add the following:

A proposed rule that allows what you want but also does NOT allow any additional stucutural enhancement to the chassis other than what is already permitted in the ITCS...

"Two jacking plates are allowed, one welded under each side of the car at a balance point that must lift both front and rear tires of that side completely off the ground while having a total area of no more than 144 sqin each and shall not be less than .080" in thickness or exceeding .25" in thickness. Any other function or additional structural enhancement to the chassis is prohibited"

Now that that's done let's get on with it.

this REALLY bugs me. i think the "public sector" (read; government) is a huge catostrophic failure because...

Wow! I meant the private sector but I typed "public". My bad, and I do agree with you, but you have to admit the same does not apply to the private sector.

***but as anybody who works in the public sector knows, it is usually best to give your customers what they want or they tend to go elsewhere. ***

IMHJ, there are two choices now. Stay in Improved Touring with the rules as the are now written or move to Production where the rules have been so screwed over over the last 40 years that there are basically no rules. Oh, you want to build a car to no rules, how about you build a Grand Touring car. DO YOU SEE THE PROGRESSION?

I respectfully have to disagree with you in that there is a third choice which is what the topic of this thread has turned into.

[ddewhurst]

& I'll agree to disagree with you.

[Andy Bettencourt]

"Two jacking plates are allowed, one welded under each side of the car at a balance point that must lift both front and rear tires of that side completely off the ground while having a total area of no more than 144 sqin each and shall not be less than .080" in thickness or exceeding .25" in thickness. Any other function or additional structural enhancement to the chassis is prohibited"

Total of 144sq/in each or 72sq/in each?

How about 64sq/in on each side? How about not crossing over any seams?

I don't have any heartburn about jacking plates (although I don't understand why people get so worked up over it. Weld a plate to your freakin' jack...) but I do have an issue with people using your 144sq/in and correcting another problem with it (insert reinforcment, safety, repair, etc). What you have created is the need to judge a pieces 'intent to structurally enhance'...when that is exactly what it is for to begin with. How much enhancement is too much?

How have we been getting along for 20 years without these plates? Really?

[Matt Rowe]

"Two jacking plates are allowed, one welded under each side of the car at a balance point that must lift both front and rear tires of that side completely off the ground while having a total area of no more than 144 sqin each and shall not be less than .080" in thickness or exceeding .25" in thickness. Any other function or additional structural enhancement to the chassis is prohibited"

Perfect, the balance point of my car just happens to fall exactly where there is a gap between the front subframe and the beams that run back to the rear subframe. Of course, no one would accuse me of reinforcing the frame because that is the literally the only spot that would allow me to add jacking plates.