A Poll Regarding the IT Rules Set

[Knestis]

... We like IT fine right now. Do what Bowie suggests for the whole thing. Leave it Be and lets just Race!

And what do you say to the member with the '92-95 Honda Civic DX that's trapped hopelessly in ITA at an unachievable weight and 102 stock HP...? Or to the guy/gal who owns one of the other several dozen common cars that weigh substantially more than they should because of when they were listed in the ITCS...?

We all love a system when it's working for US.

K

[seckerich]

And what do you say to the member with the '92-95 Honda Civic DX that's trapped hopelessly in ITA at an unachievable weight and 102 stock HP...? Or to the guy/gal who owns one of the other several dozen common cars that weigh substantially more than they should because of when they were listed in the ITCS...?

We all love a system when it's working for US.

K

Is it there because it was not run through the process, or does the process fail it? Either way fix it, stop all the other BS that just dilutes the important issues, and then move on. I sent a letter to the CRB backing you guys to run every car requested through the process. Now it looks like a floodgate of other agenda items. Stick to the basics and leave IT alone.

[tnord]

And what do you say to the member with the '92-95 Honda Civic DX that's trapped hopelessly in ITA at an unachievable weight and 102 stock HP...? Or to the guy/gal who owns one of the other several dozen common cars that weigh substantially more than they should because of when they were listed in the ITCS...?

We all love a system when it's working for US.

K

1) no garauntee of competitiveness
2) choose your weapon wisely

risk > benefit of continual monkey fucking with the class.

[spawpoet]

And what do you say to the member with the '92-95 Honda Civic DX that's trapped hopelessly in ITA at an unachievable weight and 102 stock HP...? Or to the guy/gal who owns one of the other several dozen common cars that weigh substantially more than they should because of when they were listed in the ITCS...?

We all love a system when it's working for US.

K

You apply the same logic many are applying here. If IT is getting by just fine without those changes, don't make the changes. I don't REALLY agree with that logic, cause it ignores common sense at times. You are correct that the system should work for everybody. If Jeff had to pay $100 for a part that isn't needed for his car, and doesn't affect the outcome of a race in any way whatsoever (is there anybody who disagrees with this point?), I don't think the system worked for him in this case.

[JeffYoung]

No, the CRB issue with the process is entirely separate from Ron's very informal poll on removing dual vestiges. There's no formal push, whatsoever, to do that, although I would support it down the road if I felt a majority of membership wanted it.

The whole IT National thing scares me a bit though. I'm new enough to the scene to not really understand how Club politics play out above the ITAC, and I admit to some fear to a "solution" to the issue being forced on us (either in regards to the Process, or to the perceived problem with the Regional/National distinction).

Is it there because it was not run through the process, or does the process fail it? Either way fix it, stop all the other BS that just dilutes the important issues, and then move on. I sent a letter to the CRB backing you guys to run every car requested through the process. Now it looks like a floodgate of other agenda items. Stick to the basics and leave IT alone.

[Bill Miller]

1) no garauntee of competitiveness
2) choose your weapon wisely

risk > benefit of continual monkey fucking with the class.

Just so I understand you Travis, you believe that no cars should have been adjusted, and the ITAC shouldn't have spent all that time trying to develop an objective process for classifying cars?

[Spinnetti]

I find this really interesting that the membership will argue ad-nauseam about removing (or not going out and buying) things like washer bottles, but apparently nobody raises an eyebrow for open ecu's coilovers etc... is this supposed to be low cost racing or not? I'm not sure it's been articulated very well, but you can have a faster (and thus for some of us) more fun race car by adding lightness, not buying expensive go-fast parts. What's wrong with that? For those using the "if you allow washer bottles to go, the next thing is free hewland transaxles with free mounting"! This is simply scare mongering and doesn't contribute to the discussion. What is the purpose here? If we share the ideals, surely we should be able to rationally see how the current ruleset could be better.

1. Cheap racing?
2. Race a modified street car of your choice?
3. Dual purpose?

Certainly, IT has gone beyond Dual purpose don't you think? Shouldn't the ruleset align with reality a bit more? I think some rules have gone too far (ECU, suspension) due to adding unnecessary cost to be competitive, but why not remove some of the other stuff? Is it a threat to the dying/or undersubscribed production classes? I don't want to go production, I just want my IT car to be lighter. If it doesn't cost money or undermine the structure, Why not?

[Knestis]

1) no garauntee of competitiveness
2) choose your weapon wisely

risk > benefit of continual monkey fucking with the class.

And you clearly include efforts to establish and use a repeatable, transparent process to specify cars in that category.

Okay, then.

Seriously. I may join you on the links, Travis, if this idea is as popular more broadly, as it seems to be in this community.

K

[tnord]

And you clearly include efforts to establish and use a repeatable, transparent process to specify cars in that category.

Okay, then.

i've never opposed that effort.

PS - the internet is a terrible place; specifically forums. nothing good has ever come from them.

[Knestis]

i've never opposed that effort. ...

But THAT'S pretty damned much the ENTIRE substance of what the ITAC has done, in terms of making changes - at least in the 20 months I've been on it...!!

What "monkey" activity is it, precisely, that you want them to stop doing...??

** Standardizing how individual car spec line make/model examples with more than one stock power values are handled?

** Categorizing cars based on realistic estimates of whether resulting weights are achievable?

** Adhering to a set of default protocols to estimate IT-prep power potential, absent any compelling evidence to do otherwise; rather than guessing picking numbers based on unknown biases?

** Requiring ITAC members to go on record individually, regarding their confidence in any evidence considered within those protocols?

** Requiring a supermajority of ITAC members expressing high levels of confidence in a non-standard power factor, before subsequent steps can even proceed?

** Using a percentage subtractor for FWD rather than blocks of weight, with percentages tailored to each class based on objective computer modeling rather than members' hopes and fears?

** Limiting and specifying the number and size of adders/subtractors based on physical attributes of cars (e.g., brake size) relative to other cars in the same class, rather than allowing open-ended adjustments of any amount, based on expectations of competitiveness (e.g., "I heard they stop real good")...?

** Eliminating all other opportunities to apply subjective judgments to influence classification and specification?

** Requiring a second final up or down vote, with abstentions discouraged; and documenting that final vote?

** Eliminating the codified practice of subjectively reviewing - and allowing ITAC members to change ITCS weights - if the spec resulting from the process "is not acceptable."

** Reporting recommendations to the CRB to the closest 5 pounds, rather than "leaving it alone" if a particular car isn't found to be more than 100# off...??

Seriously - which of these existential practices is it that needs to end...?

K

EDIT - Sorry, I forgot "use all of the above in the same way in every case without question, in response to any member's request to do so." I'll bet that's the one that has everyone upset.

[lateapex911]

i've never opposed that effort.

PS - the internet is a terrible place; specifically forums. nothing good has ever come from them.

I SO disagree with that.

This board has educated lots of people, and IT is better SOLEY because of THIS board. If it wasn't for conversations and discussions, (some might even call them fights!) that happened here 5 or so years ago, much of what the ITAC has done to create a consistent and repeatable system to classify cars would NOT exist. Nor would the ability to balance the classes from their previous dorked up state. I rarely see the owner of this board, but when I do, I always thank him for his generosity.

My thoughts.....I've stayed out for a bit as requested, but..

I find it humerous how people love to compare washer bottles with ECUs.
The simple truth is, allowing ECU mods is the consitent play. Carbed cars were always allowed jetting, air bleed and other such changes. When they were assigned weights, it was assumed that the builders would take advantage of that allowance. Allowing ECU cars to do the same -alter the fuel curve- is no different than what was done in 84. The basic premise didn't change, the technology did. yes, they are not exactly the same, the carb and ECU, but you get the point. In an ideal word, yea, stock ECUs would be neat, but, that would mean that perhaps 30 percent of the cars classed today would be essentially un raceable due to rev limits speed limiters and other constrictions in the stock software. And that's only going to get worse.

So, being "anti creep" in that area was really being rather backwards. For those that feel ECU cars have been getting a break, remember, the Process assumes a full tilt ECu will be used. The good news there is that yu can get great performance from ECUs that are very reasonable.

Regarding Ron's list:

Washer bottles. sigh, who cares. If you can't find the stock one, don't lose sleep over it. or put a non stock one in. Move on.
Windsheild Wipers: The country has places where the water from the sky is common. They need wipers. So we all have them. Fair is fair, and even prep is a good thing.
Heater core: See above. Why should geography decide who gets a better car?
Headlight removal. Gran pulls his, gets a lot of cold air. Stevens pulls his, and his battery is right there. Oh well, no extra hp for him!
And so on

[lateapex911]

from my own story.

I have a car that I am having a hard time making weight legally.

Here is where we currently sit.
Take the car COMPLETELY apart to bare shell, bead blast to remove ALL sound deadening,

I didn't bead blast mine...a scraper did the trick. My car had over 30 pounds of the stuff, and I left 25% of it. I tend to doubt that a horn is 30 pounds. or a washer bottle. More like 1.5.

Or we could remove horns, hvac, all bottles, etc. Window regulators...which BTW I never understood why we HAVE to run glass.

You don't. In exchange for you deciding to invest a few pound and little time in your won safety, you are allowed to remove all the door crap you list. Just add a horizontal bar that protrudes in the door cavity. See "NASCAR bars" in the GCR. That's a win win.

As for wipers and HVAC, see my previous post. Some folks need them...why should they be at a disadvantage? It doesn't cost anyone anything to leave the stuff in the car.

Sure weight is an issue and the cost of going to plexi...but the idea of getting hit with lots of crackling glass is a little frightening.

No offense, but you frighten easily. It's safety glass....when was the last time you heard about a guy in a full suit and gloves, with a helmet and probably some form of glasses and/or shield getting hurt by broken safety glass? That is SO not on my list of things I worry about.

Based on what has been discussed in the V2.0 process thread, someone stated that the point of IT was the have purpose built race cars, but from cars you would buy on the showroom floor. It was also said by an ITAC member that these cars are SUPPOSED to be trailers to each event.

Who said that?? We might suggest that yea, driving a race car to the track is increasing your odds of walking home, but I drove mine to the track for many events. Walked home twice. I had coilovers, and cranked 'em up when I was going too the event. And I had taller rear springs that I swapped in and out. PIA? Sure! But, I did it, and I'm proud to say that I was one of the fastest, if not the fastest of my class/type. We CAN do lots of things, but we CHOOSE to do things that meet our needs and wants.

Sorry if the above comes of frustrated...I just have a regular competitor in ITB that is making the jump to H-Production because he didnt read the rules [when he built his car to IT specs] and now he has to ADD all those items back into his car....so now he's out recruiting people to stop running in IT and run in Production...

So, he builds a car and doesn't read the rules...then poaches your buddies to leave the class and join him....THAT'S a reason we're supposed to change the rule book!? Priceless....

[tnord]

there was a repeatable process in play long ago.

what i want to stop is EVERYTHING. like bowie and others said, just leave it all alone. be it by fate, dumb luck, or sheer brilliance the first run of "the process" got it all pretty dang close. yes, i look through the listings and see weights i think are wrong, but i'd rather have a couple cars out there i feel are at significant advantage a few select tracks than run the risk of fucking up a good thing by getting way too granular.

when you list cars within 5lbs, change weight breaks and penalties to a specified percent, use 15% and 18% driveline loss assumptions when reviewing power figures, and continually change the weights of a number of other vehicles it sends the message and sets the expectation of the general IT population to a level of precision the process isn't anywhere near capable of. the process is just a big fancy guess. it's like the black-scholes model in finance, it's a big formula with a lot of factors that look well thought out (and they usually are) and impressive to the casual observer, but when you get right down to it it's still a big fat guess.

and as you're starting to sense kirk, once the population gets an idea in their head, and that idea starts to gain some momentum, watch out (btw...it's the same feeling i got with the whole miata weight thing).

i think the entire ITAC should take some time off to play golf, that way nothing can be messed with.

PS - that whole forum comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

[lawtonglenn]

.


I think we should be able to run whatever fairway woods we want,
and since the process has yet to be run on the gas-powered
club car, the electric club car should be assessed a provisional
weight penalty equal to one case of Titleist Pro V1x, bolted
securely to the bag stand at the rear....

And as to those soft spikes........

.

[IPRESS]

And what do you say to the member with the '92-95 Honda Civic DX that's trapped hopelessly in ITA at an unachievable weight and 102 stock HP...? Or to the guy/gal who owns one of the other several dozen common cars that weigh substantially more than they should because of when they were listed in the ITCS...?

We all love a system when it's working for US.

K

I am sure your US meaning was not specific as in US being ME. That would not make sense as at this point I don't have a car, for the system nor the system's fathers to work for or against! Might be a smart move until the dust clears and the BOD speaks. You guys have done a great deal of work and have come up with what I am told is a nice tool to "help" classify. I am not really sure it should be the only consideration. But then again I am not sure of a lot of things..... but I did like Bowie's presentation even though my original vote was yes and his no.....his had more style.

[Knestis]

>> there was a repeatable process in play long ago. ...

No, there wasn't. Even among the cars to which it was supposed to be applied, it wasn't. And it only got applied to a small portion of the cars in the rulebook.

That laundry list I posted is NEW PRACTICES. If I mentioned it, it's because SOP on that point was the opposite of what I typed, or wasn't even in consideration.

Ultimately (Jeff mentioned this here or elsewhere) the culture of the Club's rulesmakers, who are inclined to keep their activities secret, allows - even encourages - the black helicopters. We are so worried that we'll have to explain things or be accountable, that we default to saying nothing. That's a crappy system. 90% of the concerns I've seen here recently are grounded in factual error but allowed to fester because real information doesn't come out.

K

[nlevine]

Having built an early-70s IT car, I see the logic of allowing the absence of washer botles and 100% stock wiring. I'd be happy to vote yes if I can also vote to go back to stock ECU hardware. I think that some of Ron's suggested list helps "level the playing field" in terms of reliability and eligibility for older cars without additional cost. The ECU rule may have created a level playing field somewhere, but it's at a level I can't afford for my current OBD-II car (and I always felt that the software mods achievable for a stock ECU are roughly equivalent to rejetting the Weber on my old 2002). Can I vote "maybe" now?

[Jeremy Billiel]

Having built an early-70s IT car, I see the logic of allowing the absence of washer botles and 100% stock wiring. I'd be happy to vote yes if I can also vote to go back to stock ECU hardware. I think that some of Ron's suggested list helps "level the playing field" in terms of reliability and eligibility for older cars without additional cost. The ECU rule may have created a level playing field somewhere, but it's at a level I can't afford for my current OBD-II car (and I always felt that the software mods achievable for a stock ECU are roughly equivalent to rejetting the Weber on my old 2002). Can I vote "maybe" now?

Noam - Just because you can't afford to buy an upgraded ECU is not a reason to restrict ECU's

[lateapex911]

. I'd be happy to vote yes if I can also vote to go back to stock ECU hardware. I think that some of Ron's suggested list helps "level the playing field" in terms of reliability and eligibility for older cars without additional cost. The ECU rule may have created a level playing field somewhere, but it's at a level I can't afford for my current OBD-II car (and I always felt that the software mods achievable for a stock ECU are roughly equivalent to rejetting the Weber on my old 2002). Can I vote "maybe" now?

But how do you put the genie back in the bottle Noam?

And I think your comparison fails a bit....you are having issues affording an ECU, but there are plenty of cheap ECus available. Perhaps nobody has written the code for your car though. It's the same with carbs. You cite Webers, but guess what...most cars didn't come with Webers...and the allowance to swap to them is a step backwards for most. So they are forced to source or custom make their own jets, air bleeds and other intricate and delicate carb parts....which is exactly the same situation it sounds like you are in.

Warts and all, warts and all....

[GTIspirit]

I didn't bead blast mine...a scraper did the trick. My car had over 30 pounds of the stuff, and I left 25% of it. I tend to doubt that a horn is 30 pounds. or a washer bottle. More like 1.5.

You don't. In exchange for you deciding to invest a few pound and little time in your won safety, you are allowed to remove all the door crap you list. Just add a horizontal bar that protrudes in the door cavity. See "NASCAR bars" in the GCR. That's a win win.

As for wipers and HVAC, see my previous post. Some folks need them...why should they be at a disadvantage? It doesn't cost anyone anything to leave the stuff in the car.

No offense, but you frighten easily. It's safety glass....when was the last time you heard about a guy in a full suit and gloves, with a helmet and probably some form of glasses and/or shield getting hurt by broken safety glass? That is SO not on my list of things I worry about.

Who said that?? We might suggest that yea, driving a race car to the track is increasing your odds of walking home, but I drove mine to the track for many events. Walked home twice. I had coilovers, and cranked 'em up when I was going too the event. And I had taller rear springs that I swapped in and out. PIA? Sure! But, I did it, and I'm proud to say that I was one of the fastest, if not the fastest of my class/type. We CAN do lots of things, but we CHOOSE to do things that meet our needs and wants.

So, he builds a car and doesn't read the rules...then poaches your buddies to leave the class and join him....THAT'S a reason we're supposed to change the rule book!? Priceless....

Can I change my vote? I originally voted yes, but had doubts afterwards, doubts for similar reasons that Jake cited. IT is affordable Club Racing for streetable cars with minimal mods, that's the spirit, right? So on second thought I'm for maintaining the dual vestiges.

So, being "anti creep" in that area was really being rather backwards. For those that feel ECU cars have been getting a break, remember, the Process assumes a full tilt ECu will be used. The good news there is that yu can get great performance from ECUs that are very reasonable.

Maybe I'm flogging a dead horse, but as discussed elsewhere, there are some cars caught in the middle that can't take advantage of the open ECU rule because of the limitations imposed by the sensor rules. While yes, it is possible to get a useable ignition signal from the camshaft sensor, that signal is crap compared with that from a 36 tooth or 60 tooth crank trigger wheel. And that crappy signal will be a big handicap to finding any gains with a full tilt ECU. I'm mildly optimistic that this inequality will be resolved by the ITAC.