A Poll Regarding the IT Rules Set

[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).

[StephenB]

I have voted NO.

I joined a class and built a car to the rules that are listed in the GCR. If I really didn't like the rules I would NOT have spent the money to build a car, join the class, and then try to change the rules. Why would anyone do that? Why bother joining something you don't like?

The rules are the rules no matter how petty you think they are. The more rules you add the longer and thinker the book and the more misses/interpretations you get.

You will get ZERO benifit from removing these items so why even bother removing them. Removing them creates NO benifit to the class. Or am I missing something?

Stephen

IT is was great from 1985 when my dad started. Today it is just as great and maybe even improved with a more stable classification process. The ECU rules are terrible and a mistake from the first time we said "we can't police it so lets allow it" (IMHO) I personally think the PTB learned from that so lets not mess with our rules anymore!

[tnord]

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).

Jeff Young is my ITAC champion.

[seckerich]

Steve,

I'm going to throw the BS flag on that one. You know, as well as pretty much everyone else here, that the 'no new classes' thing refers to National classes (unless of course, the PtB want one). Topeka could pretty much care less what's done at the Regional level. Trotting that out, is a TOTAL red herring, and is really pretty weak.

I haven't voted in this poll, but if the ECU situation is any indication how things will go, I'm REALLY not comfortable w/ throwing all that other stuff out. To me, the ECU rule is a textbook example of how to dork it up.

Not really Bill. They let regions add region only classes but not additions to regional classes in the GCR nation wide. Big difference. My view is that we have changed a lot in the past few years for the better. The CRB has been more open to IT changes than I ever remember. I see this particular wish list as wasted clout and the kind of silly crap that will get everything else the ITAC does shot down. Now stuff that actually matters to the catagory as a whole does not get done. I think Bowie summed it up with his response--Just Stop screwing with a good thing.

[Andy Bettencourt]

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.

Let me clarify. We adjusted the FWD modifier, we didn't ADD one. We had the opportunity to use a sim instead of numbers pulled TOTALLY out of our ass. The change is small but makes total sense IMHO.

We don't KNOW if a solid axle is a penalty? How many real road race cars have them by choice? Ummmm, none. Come on. The lack of camber adjustment is a factor.

Again, there is a line in the sand on the items Ron has brought up. He wants to move the line. His A is someone elses Z. His Z will be someone elses A. There is no REASON to do it...at least ECU and shocks etc had REASONS.

[Knestis]

>> ...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. ...

...and did not change how it is considered in the process. Deductions for "suspension" have been applied since the GR - inconsistently. And simulation software informed the change from "block" weight breaks for FWD (-100, -50, or nuthin') to a percentage, in an effort to better accommodate the variable influence of weight/power on the price paid by front drivers.

I have to say that I'm worried about your post, Jeff, because it reinforces the misconception that we've changed the process in substantial ways over the past year or so. We have NOT.

Members: The single largest change we've made to the process, relative to its form when I came to the ITAC in January 2008, is in terms of the set of practices and procedures that wrap around the math so we are constrained to FOLLOW IT CONSISTENTLY.

Prior to this, it was entirely possible for ITAC members to impose their own biases on spec weights of cars, based on what they thought, feared, believed, or didn't believe, with no system of checks-and-balances or accountability. Given that there tend to be pockets of expertise among the members, it was absolutely possible that one member could have individually influenced the race weight of a particular car.

You can have what you want.

K

[JeffYoung]

Andy, again, because membership wants it -- so long as it doesn't violate at core IT principle -- should be a reason for. Plus, the line drawing argument is applicable to ALL of the changes IT has seen over the years right? Some would have drawn the line on stock ECUs, or no coil overs, etc. That's what IT rule making is all about isn't it? One group pushing the line one way or the other.

And my point on the live rear is not that it is a penatly, believe me I agree it is. The question was whether we could ever quantify that change with any accuracy within the constrains of the process.

Kirk, I understand and respect your perspective on Version 2.0, and it is a valid one. But I think it just as valid to say that we have had "rules instability" -- and line drawing -- in the process over the last year or so as well. So I tend to discount some of the counterargument to rules changes request based on line drawing since we do PRECISELY THAT in defining the process.

Not trying to pick a fight or be difficult, but I see far more risk to IT in the thinking that we could come up with a (subjective -- even the FWD adder is subjective although I don't want to reopen that one) formula and an adder for all detriments/advantages a particularhas than in a line drawing exercise on dual purpose vestiges.

I will say that after a lot of hard work and thought, to me anyway, most of that danger has passed.

[RacerBill]

I have read all of this thread and, understand fully just about every point of view on the subject of allowing the removal of 'dual purpose - street' parts such as water bottles. Yes, they serve no usefull purpose in a race car and no their removal is not a performance enhancing modification. However, in the case of older cars, finding replacements if a required part is damaged in an incident can be and is an issue. Non-availability of replacement parts can and will be an issue. For example, I needed to replace the shift linkage on my Shelby Dodge Charger a couple of years ago. Certain parts of the linkage were not available from Chrysler. I was able to find the needed pieces after months of searching, and finish my build.

I do agree with the ITAC and their position on limiting the number of changes. They are doing a great job of safeguarding IT - keep it up.

So, my opinion is to allow the removal of some trivial street-only pieces, but in a very limited and controlled way, and at a time that will not not put IT in a bad light. I agree that our cars should look as much like street cars as possible. (That said, should we allow wings and skirts a la the rice rockets that are in style with the youngsters of today to attract new members? Please, my tongue is firmly in my cheek!).

I love IT, and probably not be racing if it were not for our class. Love the dialogue, and the opportunity to hear everyone's opinions and voice my own.!!!!!

BTW, Andy, I have a solid rear axle and can adjust camber and toe very easily with shims behind the spindle plate.

[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

[tom91ita]

i voted no because i am basically lazy and don't want to feel obligated to take out the washer bottle.

[Ron Earp]

Again, there is a line in the sand on the items Ron has brought up. He wants to move the line. His A is someone elses Z. His Z will be someone elses A. There is no REASON to do it...at least ECU and shocks etc had REASONS.

As others stated, all rule changes at some point were lines in the sand. For many IT racers there was absolutely no reason to change the ECU or shock rules. Both of which have far more impact on IT than removing a washer bottle and a heater core. There are other examples.

There certainly are valid reasons for removing washer bottles, heater cores, and HVAC systems from IT cars:

1. Some members wish to do so and the SCCA/IT is a club for club members.
2. The items serve no practical purpose on a race car (debatable of course, if I get my fan working I'd keep my heater core if given the option but that is my choice).
3. Removing the items is an inexpensive way to remove weight.

Despite my post and feelings on the matter I do not intend to write a letter to the ITAC asking for these allowances. Like others on this thread I feel IT is a damn good place to race. And I feel that other than adding new cars into the classes as members request them that IT needs to ferment for a bit before undergoing additional rule changes.

[spawpoet]

As others stated, all rule changes at some point were lines in the sand. For many IT racers there was absolutely no reason to change the ECU or shock rules. Both of which have far more impact on IT than removing a washer bottle and a heater core. There are other examples.

There certainly are valid reasons for removing washer bottles, heater cores, and HVAC systems from IT cars:

1. Some members wish to do so and the SCCA/IT is a club for club members.
2. The items serve no practical purpose on a race car (debatable of course, if I get my fan working I'd keep my heater core but that is my choice).
3. Removing the items is an inexpensive way to remove weight.

Despite my post and feelings on the matter I do not intend to write a letter to the ITAC asking for these allowances. Like others on this thread I feel IT is a damn good place to race. And I feel that other than adding new cars into the classes as members request them that IT needs to ferment for a bit before undergoing additional rule changes.

I'll add a fourth reason. There are a number of other clubs that race with similar rule sets to IT (NASA is the obvious one) where there cars can remove all these items. By changing the rules it is easier for someone who has run in these clubs primarily to also legally run in IT. Additionally, if an SCCA racer was to purchase a car that was run elsewhere to a different, but similar rule set it would be simpler for them to covert their purchase to IT legal specs. Like Tom Sprecher said above, when you purchase an already built car, it's not always easy to know what is and isn't supposed to be there.

[JoshS]

Removing the items is an inexpensive way to remove weight.

Really curious -- how much do your empty washer bottle and empty heater core weigh?