A Poll Regarding the IT Rules Set

[Knestis]

Never mind.

This comes up about twice a year and - I think because the tenure in IT of those involved in the conversation gets shorter each time - we slide a little closer to these things happening.

If I'm the only voice in the wilderness, don't let me stop you. But time WILL prove that the fear is well founded - I am absolutely positive. You'll just have to stay in the category 25+ years to see it happen, like I've seen it happen.

K

[spawpoet]

Never mind.

This comes up about twice a year and - I think because the tenure in IT of those involved in the conversation gets shorter each time - we slide a little closer to these things happening.

If I'm the only voice in the wilderness, don't let me stop you. But time WILL prove that the fear is well founded - I am absolutely positive. You'll just have to stay in the category 25+ years to see it happen, like I've seen it happen.

K

Kurt, the well founded fear is happening WITH the washer bottles etc. still in the cars! Open ECU's, coilovers, splitters etc. The guy's that are getting their way with their lists are the one's with lists like Greg. The problem arises when allowances are made to the systems that add to the performance of the car. I really ain't going to be upset if the washer bottle rule doesn't change. It's just a little silly that while we are holding this rule as so precious the fox is in the hen-house. That's all I'm saying.

[tom_sprecher]

Look, I'm not saying my car does or does not have all the stock components apparently 2/3rds of us that have read this thread would like to see removed because having bought a used race car, all I know about is what is on the car now. If it is missing something that it should not, I really don't care. Currently, I can not race as often as I would like and when I do, if someone protests me for some chicken shit vestigial street car part, I really don't care. I don't have the time, money or motivation to find out what is missing, then source and purchase it.

When asked, most of the guys I race with stated they felt the same way. We all agree that if you break a rule regarding the drive train, suspension or tires that's a different subject. Hell, some have the jacking plates I have wanted, but have not installed. I could not care less, even if I am 60# over weight.

[Knestis]

Kurt, the well founded fear is happening WITH the washer bottles etc. still in the cars! Open ECU's, coilovers, splitters etc. The guy's that are getting their way with their lists are the one's with lists like Greg. The problem arises when allowances are made to the systems that add to the performance of the car. I really ain't going to be upset if the washer bottle rule doesn't change. It's just a little silly that while we are holding this rule as so precious the fox is in the hen-house. That's all I'm saying.

You've got mixed examples here...

Splitters didn't result from a rule change. Coilovers are a completely sensible allowance - for anyone like myself who dealt with custom-wound springs to fit stock struts back in the "good ol' days," and they do not in and of themselves result in a substantial increase in cost or complexity - quite the opposite, in fact. (I've paid as little as $15 shipped for a pair of used 2.25" springs in useful ratings.) We've been around and around with the open ECU allowance and I'm of the opinion that this particular horse was out of the barn the minute we let anyone do ANYTHING to their stock ECUs.

Remember that YOU are the defense against "interpretation creep," whereby racers push the limits on the rules-as-written with their cleverness (a la splitters). If racers don't protest incremental changes that sneak out beyond the wording of the rules, they have only themselves to blame. The ITAC has steadfastly resisted the allowance of additional technology in struts/shocks. We can't get substantially cheaper there unless we mandated stock parts, and even then... Similarly, short of requiring unmodified ECUs, there's no satisfactory solution on that front.

I run no airdam at all, off-the-shelf KONI sports revalved for the big rates we use, and a retail chip poked into the socket in my otherwise stock ECU. We get by, have a good time, and don't feel compelled to spend thousands more on other options. None of those things are killing IT...

...and neither would the allowance to remove washer bottles. But I ask again: Explain to me how we rationally tell one driver he can have his favorite allowance but not another? I'll do a little test if Ron will participate:

Ron - "We've made all the allowance we are going to. You can remove all of the stuff described in the ITCS, but too bad on the washer bottles and heater cores."

Is that rationale enough to convince you that we've done the right thing? You'll happily stop lobbying for those two additional allowance? No - of course not. So WHY would YOUR two things be special but someone else's NOT...? Because - not to put too fine a point on it - you care about what makes sense to you and your interests. The ITAC is charged with looking out for the whole category, rather than any one member's - or even a group of members' - interests. And given conflicting interests and different desires re: new allowances to throw stuff away, it's been standard practice to leave things the way they are.

BTW, for those of you who might have missed it, here's what the ITCS would look like if we'd recommended favorably (and the board had voted to pass) every member requeset for a new allowance during 2008. This is one year of change.

http://it2.evaluand.com/downloads/Bi...TCS%202008.pdf

Some of course thought this looked totally AOK. Do all of us...?

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

BTW, for those of you who might have missed it, here's what the ITCS would look like if we'd recommended favorably (and the board had voted to pass) every member requeset for a new allowance during 2008. This is one year of change.

http://it2.evaluand.com/downloads/Bi...TCS%202008.pdf

Some of course thought this looked totally AOK. Do all of us...?

K

Add these for 2009:

Allow 6.5" wheels for Beetle in ITC
Allow 7" wheels in ITB
Open up all ECU sensors
Allow non-stock front fender on ITC Civic
Classify a year of car that only came with an auto to allow higher hp in UD/BD
Allow an updated transmission from a year of car that is not IT eligible yet (2009)
Alternate rear brake allowance due to lack of availability
Allow remote reservoir shocks

[spawpoet]

How can allowing coilovers be a sensible allowance, where the removal of washer bottles is not? I'm not saying allowing coilovers isn't the better way, but it sure seems more threatening than a washer bottle. At the end of the day it's up to the rules makers judgment as to what is threatening or not. If we are scared of washer bottles, why don't we just cap the rules exactly as they are right now and not ever change another rule. That is completely congruent with the argument against the removal of these petty items.

[Knestis]

... why don't we just cap the rules exactly as they are right now and not ever change another rule. That is completely congruent with the argument against the removal of these petty items.

That's pretty much the ITAC's general position, absent any *really* compelling reason for a change.

K

[spawpoet]

That's pretty much the ITAC's general position, absent any *really* compelling reason for a change.

K

That I can buy. Trust me. My preference is to keep IT as cheap and easy as possible to compete in, and I'd rather have an ITAC resistant to change, than one that embraces it.

[JeffYoung]

I've tried to stay out of this to let membership weigh in, but I have to speak on this one.

Yes, we have an ITAC that is resistant to some form of rule change, but in my view, not others.

We've added a FWD modifier based on a simulation, we've added a live rear axle deduct without any real understanding if there is a penalty and we spent a lot of time arguing about torque.

In my view, we should have as much simplicity and resistance to change in the process as we do with washer bottles, because, frankly, the process has a whole lot more to do with how things play out on track that "dual purpose vestiges."

That said, my basic position on Ron's proposed changes is that (a) if membership wants them and they don't violate IT core principles, we should consider them and (b) Bowie is right, we've had a lot of change in the last few years and we should probably let everything settle for a few years and see how things play out (including any push to remove dual purpose vestiges).

[billf]

Ron, I'm in agreement with your thoughts on this subject. However, I'd include one other change: Fredom with steering wheel Quick Disconnect devices...to be fastened by other than "bolt-on".

After all, we are beyond the "duel purpose' concept, and should consider these cars "race cars".

As with race cars, they can be built to different rules structures. Ergo, Production, GT, IT, etc.

Thanks for getting this on the board.

Bill Frieder
ITR under construction
WNNY SCCA

[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?

[DavidM]

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?

There was quite extensive debate about the ECU rule. Ironically, lowering cost was one of the reasons cited *for* the new rule. But that's

I think the ITAC is on the right road. The fact that there is a big push to document everything is something I personally am very pleased to see. The process will never be perfect, but if everything is documented then at least we'll know how something was determined.

I'm all for putting every car through the process. In fact, I think a cycle should be created where every so many years the process gets run again. That way if something changes for a car then it can be adjusted when the next cycle comes around.

Leave everything else alone for the time being, though.

David

[Andy Bettencourt]

What does the IT community feel about THIS concept:

Run car A through the process. No 'additional' information is known about power output so 25% is used. A process number is spit out and recommended. It is 200lbs lower than it is now.

The CRB rejects the recommendation based on 'historical on-track perfromance'. Meaning the car is competitive now, lowering its weight would result in a problem given what we have seen so far on track.

To what level is the IT comminuty acceptant of on-track performance being used in the process. I won't comment. If you feel stringly either way - WRITE THE CRB NOW.

[JeffYoung]

I feel very stringly...lol...

I think Jake said it best. We can never cut ontrack performance out completely even if we tried -- human nature and all. But we can limit it to being a trigger for a closer look to see if something is wrong with the process. But that's all.

In the case I above, I say use the 25% and have at it.

[GKR_17]

I'd love to know how you lose a washer bottle in a car wash... or is that a British car issue?

I've complained for quite a while that the process was applied inconsistently, and I'm all for fixing that. Though I won't sign on to V2.0 without all the details, it seems clear there is more not on the table. The rest is claimed to be very minor, but if that's true why not spell it out?

Otherwise, count me in for no. Enough change. Leave IT alone.

[JeffYoung]

I pointed the high pressure gun at the engine bay to clean it and it destroyed my already deteriorating bottle...literally blew it to pieces. It was kind of cool to watch.

[seckerich]

I pointed the high pressure gun at the engine bay to clean it and it destroyed my already deteriorating bottle...literally blew it to pieces. It was kind of cool to watch.

And you and what two other people living today know what the stock one looked like? AutoZone is calling.

[seckerich]

What does the IT community feel about THIS concept:

Run car A through the process. No 'additional' information is known about power output so 25% is used. A process number is spit out and recommended. It is 200lbs lower than it is now.

The CRB rejects the recommendation based on 'historical on-track perfromance'. Meaning the car is competitive now, lowering its weight would result in a problem given what we have seen so far on track.

To what level is the IT comminuty acceptant of on-track performance being used in the process. I won't comment. If you feel stringly either way - WRITE THE CRB NOW.

I would say you just found a pretty good trigger to believe it is outside the 25% power gain and more research is needed. If the car is as fast as you say you are missing something.

[shwah]

I would say you just found a pretty good trigger to believe it is outside the 25% power gain and more research is needed. If the car is as fast as you say you are missing something.

Sounds like it is outside the 25% power gain. Is it similar in engine architecture to other cars that are awarded a higher than 25% power gain?

[shwah]

Putting 2 and 2 together on Andy's post.

Competitive 'historical on track performance' means one thing to the CRB/ITAC in my opinion -> ARRC

I mostly know the VW / Audi stuff, so thinking about the engines/cars I know...There is a car that has the same combustion chamber as mine, less compression and one more cylinder that is rated at 110hp stock, vs 105 for the 4 cylinder. It was also a front row qualifying ARRC car a few years ago.

You guys trying to take 200# out of the Audi Coupe GT? No wonder they put the brakes on.

If I have that right - you do realize that the car should make larger gains that the '30% gain' Golf right? They are the same basic architecture engines. Displacement gain with 5 oversized pistons is 25% more, compression gain from 8.5:1 is 6% vs 2.5% from 10:1, easily tuned CIS-E. Basically less optimized from the factory than the 1780cc 4 was. Now don't be surprised if all the Audi racers fail to send you dyno sheets showing the gains, they may not be that dumb.

Get that one through and you will have created an overdog IMO.