A Poll Regarding the IT Rules Set

[seckerich]

Ouch. At least I know where I stand now.

Windshields and glass rules weren't an option for removal in this particular poll, at least as I defined it in the beginning.

You are missing the point Ron. You are relatively new to this and have not witnessed the destruction of classes with well intentioned changes. A class evolves slowly with little changes that are "for the good" of the class. Then somehow another group wants more and the changes go into overdrive. Example:

Open ECU
Going National
Another new process when most are unsure of process V1
Then just a few posts up we get no dash,lights,windows, etc.


Get the picture, everone likes IT then procedes to F it up with too much change and it is no longer IT. You guys just started ITR which was a big deal in a "no new classes" SCCA, and now you want to just drive what was built off a cliff.

The washer bottle is more symbolic than substance in that it has always been that line in the sand. You have known me long enough to know that was not personal towards you, but more of a general statement.

PS. Missed you wusses in the rain today at Barber.:026:

[dickita15]

I still have not voted on this one as it has been running around in my head now for a couple of days. As someone who races an older car and a car that does not easily make weight the idea of throwing away some parts like headlight motors sounds good but the reason we have to keep them is not because the rule book say so it is because of a basic principal of IT. If it does not say you can then you cannot.
If your thought is to have a rule that says you can remove parts that are not required in order to build and race your car then this puts that principal in jeopardy.
This leaves you with the only option of itemizing what part are superfluous and I agree that we will not agree where to draw the line.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I should post this in every forum: There is NO NEW PROCESS. When Krik refers to V.2, he just means us re-writing what was already there in a much more concrete fashion making every effort to insert definitions and eliminate subjectivity. Other than the FWD adder going from a fixed number to a percentage, there are no major changes.

[shwah]

I should post this in every forum: There is NO NEW PROCESS. When Krik refers to V.2, he just means us re-writing what was already there in a much more concrete fashion making every effort to insert definitions and eliminate subjectivity. Other than the FWD adder going from a fixed number to a percentage, there are no major changes.

I just assumed that there was a 'new process' because of the comments by ITAC about changes to fwd factors. Well that and the fact that some cars have changed classes at weights incongruent with the field, yet are 'about right to the process'.

[pfcs]

"I have no problem whatsoever removing horns and washer bottles, and no problem replacing wires"
Funny how that statement reflects how the conservative ruleset kept me in the corral. I'll confess-I replaced the heavy OE horn in my ITB Volvo with a very light early Beetle one; and when I built my hand-controlled Golf I re-located the ignition coil to where the washer bottle had been so I could reach it, but used a latex leg-bag in it's (now cramped) place. The dual use thinking has informed IT philosophy for many years and served us well. It has been why the class was so unbelievably popular (50+ ITB cars @Glenn one time=their own race group), a stock vehicle easily turned into a capable racecar. I'm grateful to have raced in the golden age of club racing and sad to see IT dissappearing into the mists of time. You guys don't get it-maybe that's not your fault-perhaps you had to have been there circa 1985. Trying to realign the cars to equalize them by weight-that's a good thing, but everything that recently preceded (remove pass seat, gut headliner, Nascar bars/gutted doors, and the big ludicrous one: open ECUs!) I consider obscene. But why should I care? It's over, the inmates have taken over the asylum. Camelot.
Those who forget are doomed to repeat the past. The original Cal Club IT rules (circa 82) were the 1963 production car rules.
phil

[RacerBowie]

I voted no, but only because there wasn't a FUCK NO option.

Seriously: LEAVE I T ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's get the stuff the ITAC sent through done, and then let's not touch it for 2 years.

[Marcus Miller]

I voted no, but only because there wasn't a FUCK NO option.

Seriously: LEAVE I T ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's get the stuff the ITAC sent through done, and then let's not touch it for 2 years.

What he said.

[Dave Zaslow]

I voted no, but only because there wasn't a FUCK NO option.

Seriously: LEAVE I T ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's get the stuff the ITAC sent through done, and then let's not touch it for 2 years.

+1,000,000

What is the imminent need that the rule change would address? The perception that IT rules are too constrained?

In efforts toward allowing battery relocation, at least we were arguing "safety"; but removing wipers? Does it not rain outside of the northeast? Headlights? WTF does that allow besides lovely ram-air possibilities. I wonder if we would allow battery relocation if 50 pounds of nice, safe lead had to be bolted to the original battery position. Want those wipers gone? Just bolt another 10 pounds within 1 foot of where they used to be. Want to write that rulebook? Not me.

The 20 people playing here are not representative of the IT community. You want to ask what people want? You've got to cast a wider net than this webpage.

What I want is an ITAC that can say no many more times than they say yes.

DZ

BTW I like having fluid in my washer bottle.

[D. Ellis-Brown]

I'm sure that this is not a surprise to most who know me, but I support in concept the proposal that Ron Earp is presenting. Please do away with "Non Value Added Stuff". Washer Bottle, Horn, Heater Core, and the like. Permit those items that do not add value to "race cars" to be removed. I presented a similar concept a while back by proposing the removal of stuff that is "Non Value added", Ron the same folks chimed in and make the same statements to my recommendations also. Ron "Thank you" for getting the ball rolling.
By the way, No, I do not think that IT is "Broken", but it is time to remove some of the dings and dents and maybe touch up the paint, or at the least give it a good wax job. While I do not agree with all that the CRB, nor the ITAC have done, I beleive that they have tried their level best to keep IT at the top of the SCCA Class ladder for regional racing, and that is where I want it to stay. Thank You, David Ellis-Brown

[Greg Amy]

Please do away with "Non Value Added Stuff"...Permit those items that do not add value to "race cars" to be removed.

Way Coolness!

I suggest that the following list - by no means all-inclusive - add zero value to a "race car":

- Stock suspension links ("real" race cars have fully -adjustable suspension).
- Stock suspension pickup points (make them MacFaggot strut cars handle!)
- Stock brakes ("real" race cars have "racing brakes", using "racing rotors" and racing calipers".)
- Stock engines (ever seen a "real" race car with only 1/2-pt compression bump and stock crankshafts...? Me neither.)
- Stock transmissions (c'mon!! "Real" race cars have "Hewland" or "Tremec" or "Xtrac" molded in the case, and all the "real" race cars I watch on TV have sequential gearboxes.)
- Stock body panels (hey, carbon fiber's where it's at, baby! Plus, they're a s**t-ton cheaper than going to the local dealer to get replacement - and it makes it TONS easier for working on the "real" race cars!)
- 8-point cages (Hah! DTM cars have that ship-in-a-bottle thing going on. Anyone want to tell them they're not driving "real race cars"?)
- Stock chassis (GT got smart on that one a looong time ago. Crap, as long as we're adding points in the cage, what in the hell do we need that stock sheet metal for?? We can pretend, though, by making sure everyone uses the stock roof.)

I'm sure they're are comparable ideas out there, just waiting for the opportunity! Can't wait for the new ruleset based on this to come out...got my arc-welder ready to go!

GA, not-so-tongue-in-cheek with this one...

[spawpoet]

It's simply ridiculous that we can run a Motec, but can't remove the washer bottle. There are items that can be removed that everybody would agree would have NO negative impact on the IT rule set. In terms of rule set verbage, and interpretation of that verbage, remove is much simpler to control than replace, or substitute. There is a huge difference between the items Ron is talking about, and things like brakes, engines, and cage or suspension mounting points. The difference is black and white. IT is just a little more threatened by the ECU situation than the triviality of the items on this list.

[Greg Amy]

The difference is black and white.

As is the removal - or non-removal - of a washer bottle.

If we are to follow your logic to its conclusion - which is to say, anything lesser-tech than MoTEC should be allowed to be removed/changed - then I suggest my list is even lesser far-fetched than I initially imagined it...



And, trust me, if we go down this road you can be assured I've got a 25-yr list of things I've wanted to change in Improved Touring that I will submit in a heartbeat...the washer bottle will be the least of your concerns.

[Ron Earp]

It's simply ridiculous that we can run a Motec, but can't remove the washer bottle. There are items that can be removed that everybody would agree would have NO negative impact on the IT rule set.

You'd think that would be true.

But each time someone has brought this topic up somebody "goes Greg Amy" and starts talking about suspension points, cages, and a lot of things that weren't mentioned.

A=removal of washer bottles and heater cores
Z=moving of suspension points, throwing the IT engine rules in the trash, etc.

Why if someone brings up A opponents assume we'll go to Z? That is to say, if we do A then Z WILL happen?

[Knestis]

... There is a huge difference between the items Ron is talking about, and things like brakes, engines, and cage or suspension mounting points. ...

Not to Greg, there isn't. Why is his longer list of allowances wrong and Ron's shorter list right?

Why is Kirk's shorter list (the current status quo) wrong and Ron's longer one right?

...Why if someone brings up A opponents assume we'll go to Z? That is to say, if we do A then Z WILL happen?

Because the rules-makers can't be consistent if they approve your wish list and (for example) David's wish list that includes a few more things. David can - quite reasonably - say, "Ron got his. I just want mine. Tell me why, if someone brings up E, opponents assume we'll go to Z?"

K

[IPRESS]

Ron, The items you mentioned for removal make SENSE.........that is why you are getting the "blowback"!
All this BS about "lines in the sand", symbolic waher bottles, rules creep.....for some folks, IT rules are a religion.
Evidently common sense has no place in IT.
The comeback "that you are a new guy" is a poor position to take. Opinions should be equal.......even if I think the majority on here are .....WRONG!

RON PUT ME DOWN FOR A YES.
I have asked 6 other IT racers I know and they voted yes too. (They think this forum is goofy so their votes are by proxy!)
Water Bottles damn who would have ever thought such a thing would be a point of principle.

[seckerich]

Washer bottle and heater core are no big deal. It has always kind of been the first thing a new driver pisses about in IT. Can't remember the last time anyone really cared if it was on the car.

As for the noob question and what you want in IT:

You are a member of SCCA and have just as much right as any active driver to request changes. Those who see things different have the same right to appose you. What you do need to look at is the big picture. There are 2 groups of drivers. The "lifers" and those passing through. Either way you have a responsibility to look past your own personal interests and not request changes that lead to less participation and enjoyment. What the masses wanted for many classes ate them. You will do the same with IT if you keep moving the bar a little farther every year. You start the list of headlights, wipers (never run in the rain?) and the list goes on and on.

Part of the draw of IT is that you can find a 10 year old racecar cheap and do minor safety updates and still be competitive.

[Knestis]

Ron, The items you mentioned for removal make SENSE.........that is why you are getting the "blowback"!
All this BS about "lines in the sand", symbolic waher bottles, rules creep.....for some folks, IT rules are a religion.
Evidently common sense has no place in IT.
The comeback "that you are a new guy" is a poor position to take. Opinions should be equal.......even if I think the majority on here are .....WRONG!

RON PUT ME DOWN FOR A YES.
I have asked 6 other IT racers I know and they voted yes too. (They think this forum is goofy so their votes are by proxy!)
Water Bottles damn who would have ever thought such a thing would be a point of principle.

Who can argue with that compelling position? You got it, Mac, Jeff, et al. This one's yours, guys. I won't vote "yes" but I'm done shouting into this vacuum.

Make a note of the date. It's the beginning of a new era for IT - when "common sense prevails."



K

[JeffYoung]

Kirk, I think we try to have a bit higher level of discourse on this board. I respect your viewpoint and Marc does too, and NO ONE (not even Ron) is advocating any change right now, at this time. I think we all recognize the need to let IT "settle" for a bit.

Let's try to continue the discussion, and let me ask you this question Kirk -- as a friend and as someone whose views on IT I respect:

Whether you agree with it or not, there is a perception among membership that (a) no one knows what the process is (and I know you are an advocate for publishing, which I applaud); (b) it at least appears to membership be in constant flux; and (c) no one is sure how the adders/subtractors are "assembled."

How is that any different -- the push and pull of people who want "X" for an adder, or want "Y" subtractor done a certain way -- from what you see as an unworkable selection of one person's preferences over another's for the removal of items from an IT car that are there solely because of the dual purpose statement of purpose that no longer means anything?

I would submit it is not. And I think if we came up with a framework for what constitutes the "core" of IT we could pretty easily stop the "march to Prod" by removing those items.

I also think that we'd have 99% agreement on what constitutes the core of IT and can't be changed: (a) stock panels and glass; (b) stock dash; (c) current motor rules; (d) current suspension rules; (e) current brake rules.

I see far, far, far more danger in us ending up "Prod like" with a constantly evolving and fluid process that seems to have no end and at least "looks like" the balancing of cars that goes on in Prod, than the removal of dual purpose items from IT cars that (conceivably) a majority of membership wants to remove.

Who can argue with that compelling position? You got it, Mac, Jeff, et al. This one's yours, guys. I won't vote "yes" but I'm done shouting into this vacuum.

Make a note of the date. It's the beginning of a new era for IT - when "common sense prevails."



K

[shwah]

I know it does not fit some of your personal opinions of 'a real race car' item, but IMO the HV system and heater core are absolutely functional components in an IT application, as are windshield wipers. It turns out they are really helpful, even a competitive advantage when racing in the rain.

In some sitiations headlights can be useful as well.

As far as other 'valid' reasons to make these changes:

"some members want to" has to be a joke right? I mean some members want ported heads, cams and alternate material body parts and glass. Apparently they have not cracked open the PCS just yet...

Yes I would like to remove the horn, replace the wires and replace the air dam, rather than graft another one over it, but none of these are big deal to comply with and continue enjoying the racing. If you seriously think these little items make the difference between you enjoying IT racing and not, then you probably should have read the rules one more time before investing in an IT car.

Trot out the ECU rules all you want. I for one would prefer that 100% stock was required. It is too bad that the powers that were at the time assumed this to be unenforceable and opened it up *unintentionally* to anything in the box. From there, I still wish we had jammed the genie back into the bottle, but at least I can see the logic of what was done instead - let anyone with electric injectors have acces to the percieved gain that the 'few' had with the anything in the box rule.

Of course now today, with modern ecus, 100% stock is A. literally unenforceable as you can change programing through factory provided communications ports without cracking anything open and B. newer cars will likely require alternate programing to even operate with IT restrictions - no ABS, speed limiters, no stability control. So, who knows, maybe we would have ended up here anyway.

[Knestis]

>> How is that any different -- the push and pull of people who want "X" for an adder, or want "Y" subtractor done a certain way -- from what you see as an unworkable selection of one person's preferences over another's for the removal of items from an IT car that are there solely because of the dual purpose statement of purpose that no longer means anything...

Easy. They are the same and my position on both is consistent and extremely conservative.

The difference between my thinking on these issues and the rest of the world, or so it seems...? I don't believe that more allowances should be added to the rule set, and I don't believe that the process has actually changed in any substantive way - beyond the fact that it can't be gamed as easily as in the past.

I don't get the contrary-at-face-value position of arguing for more allowances but being critical of changes to the system - even perceived or imagined changes. Want "stability" but don't want to lock down the practices of the ITAC intended to prevent reactionary adjustments based on who wins at the next ARRC...? Seriously?

Until a couple of weeks ago, I was very optimistic about where we were going but based on the volume of opposition from a number of quarters, most of us clearly feel differently. I'm past believing that momentum won't have its way. A week ago or so, I asked for input. I got it.

K