A Poll Regarding the IT Rules Set

[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

[nlevine]

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

That actually wasn't the point, per se. Removing a washer bottle is of no real competitive consequence and does not compel somebody else to do something to remain on the same competitive level. The ECU rule does. Being compelled to spend the time and effort - not so much the money - to muck with stuff that I never intended to muck with when I started out with the car is what I can ill afford.
It's hard enough to find the time just to race.

Now back to the discussion at hand rather than beating the ECU horse.

[frnkhous]

That actually wasn't the point, per se. Removing a washer bottle is of no real competitive consequence and does not compel somebody else to do something to remain on the same competitive level. The ECU rule does. Being compelled to spend the time and effort - not so much the money - to muck with stuff that I never intended to muck with when I started out with the car is what I can ill afford.
It's hard enough to find the time just to race.

Now back to the discussion at hand rather than beating the ECU horse.

But it is another item that will cost time/money to remove. No reason to remove it, The wiring issue for older cars I kind of understand, but think that for the most part if you attempted to rewire the whole car just like the original harness nobody would care nor is it really disallowed by the rules(you were simply repairing it right). Now if your asking to modify the harness to make it easier to repair/replace. Hell no. Cause now every single car can cut into the harness, remove wires, run lighter and or smaller gauge wiring. You wanna see a spending war, imagine car harnesses that cost more than the pimpy motec ecu you guys bitch about. Sorry but performance advantages can be gained from being able to move weight around. The gains may be smaller/less obvious but they are real. If a car truly won't make weight with the assumed 180lbs driver then ask for it to be reclassed. You have a legitimate argument for it to be moved down one class at a heavier weight. Understand my car is overweight right now, and it ain't all driver. If you weighed 150lbs you would make weight, otherwise i'm over. But give me all the shit you guys listed plus the things I haven't done yet and I bet I can make it A ok for a 300+ pound person. or enough to balance the car out side to side and possibly front to rear to some extent for a 150-180 lbs person.

[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....