Open Coolers

[betamotorsports]

You know, John, you might have a good point there: why have rules at all? Why have limitations?

Makes things a lot easier in tech... :-)

I'm not advocating elimination of the ruleset. What I am advocating is a ruleset that can be changed via member input and a willingness to review a 30 year old philosophy behind a ruleset. I don't know about your regions, but here in Cal Club IT is severely wounded. NASA's PT category for basically IT prepped cars has double and triple the turnout at events. Maybe their points mod classing philosophy has something to do with that?

[Ron Earp]

What I am advocating is a ruleset that can be changed via member input and a willingness to review a 30 year old philosophy behind a ruleset.

DING!

Game on. Race reason has officially ended and the Winter IT.com rules discussions have started.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's a very fine line we all walk here. Each of us has in our mind what the category should look and feel like. There has to be a line. My line is different from Kirk's whos is different from Vaughn's whos is different from Jeff's and so on and so on. If we changed everything based on 'member desire', we WOULD be Prod. In a thread a while back I listed all the things that had been requested last year. Kirk even put together a 'new' ITCS based on requests and it was hilarious.

It's hard to hold out to the pressure of the little things - and I am guilty of thinking motor mounts and diff coolers should really be allowed - but I am also not going to sweat it or burp "the same ole SCCA" when it gets shot down.

I think the majority of IT racers like the WAA theory (warts and all). You can call on it from washer bottles to legacy weighting issues. In anything *I* do, I look at the rules, weigh the chances and make a choice. No different here. We just have to accept it.

[Ron Earp]

It's a very fine line we all walk here. Each of us has in our mind what the category should look and feel like. There has to be a line. My line is different from Kirk's whos is different from Vaughn's whos is different from Jeff's and so on and so on. If we changed everything based on 'member desire', we WOULD be Prod.

If you changed everything, yes, it would be prod.

But I think you can come up with a short list of items that the majority of members would think ok to change. We did this some time ago with a couple of polls and I think due to my wording on the polls the results were a bit off.

One interesting thing is we don't ever put these rule change concepts up for a member vote. We've got the ITAC to recommend or control changes, which we hope reflect IT racer interests, but even so ITAC members are not elected by the IT majority. They are picked (volunteered, drafted, forced) to do the job from the IT base. So the ITAC may, or may not, reflect actual IT membership wants.

Maybe we should have some fun this off-season and pick a few topics, like diff coolers, and have an ITAC vote and a "IT.com" vote and see how they line up.

And I'm not going anywhere on this. I'm just bored in hold with the credit card company cause my card has been compromised for the second time this year.

[Andy Bettencourt]

But I think you can come up with a short list of items that the majority of members would think ok to change.

I don't. This is the vocal minority here.

And your list is different than my list. And each one wouldhave to have a benefit to the whole class. Andso on and so on.

[Ron Earp]

I don't. This is the vocal minority here.

n.

Can't if you don't try.

I bet you a Benjamin if we made a list of things that could be changed, mailed it to all active IT racers as a questionnaire, the results would show a handful common denominators.

[Andy Bettencourt]

We need to understand if the silent majoroty is silent because they like the rules the way they are, are indifferent, or don't care at all. OR, value stability more than the little pissy items we all are about every winter.

[spawpoet]

We need to understand if the silent majoroty is silent because they like the rules the way they are, are indifferent, or don't care at all. OR, value stability more than the little pissy items we all are about every winter.

I don't agree with that at all. The vast majority of people who are unhappy with a product aren't likely to put much effort into making their dissatisfaction heard. They will simply shop elsewhere. Sounds like the SCCA may be running into this in John's region.

[pfcs]

IF IT AIN"T BROKE, DON"T FIX IT!!!!!!

Everyone who has an IT car ought to have an idea of many things within the current ruleset they could do to improve their car. If they don't, then either they're unimaginative or have unlimited free time to act on what they've imagined. All the time I had one, I never had enough time to do everything I wanted to do.
I suggest putting creative energy into something that exists (your car)rather than something that doesn't (new IT rules).
AND-it's more satisfying-it produces tangible results. Trust me-it does.

[Ron Earp]

We need to understand if the silent majoroty is silent because they like the rules the way they are, are indifferent, or don't care at all. OR, value stability more than the little pissy items we all are about every winter.

How so?

They can choose to respond to the questionnaire or not respond. Participate in the process or not. Their choice. In a democracy if you choose not to vote you are choosing to not have a say in the process.

You're proposing that we find out what the people think that won't participate in the process. I don't think that is the way to do it. If you aren't interested enough to respond to a questionnaire then you don't give a damn and by not giving a damn don't have a say.

Only a small percentage of folks vote in off-year or local elections. Would you agree we need to make those results void because a majority, 50% or greater, wouldn't vote?

R

[Rabbit07]

For some reason I am always amazed at how passionate people can be about this stuff. I guess that just shows how much people care about their racing!

I only noticed this year that some cars seemed to be having issues with high temps in differentials as a result of running numerically higher gear ratios. I know that better fluid and changing it often midigates the issue. I have had issues with the Neon recarding P/S overtemp and would like to correct it. I don't believe because lines are open that I can arbitrarly add a cooler. I guess I am not willing to read that much into a rule. I think that kind of thinking is what gets the rules making body nervous about rule changes. Give them a mm and they will take a km. I agree with Andy that we all have our own lines to draw in the sand. I say if you agree that we should open up coolers or not please send your letters.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Just saying we don't know why the majority is silent and I think you may be surprsied.

[Knestis]

I've said (or typed) something like this about 1000 times in the past 6 years or so but if you think your rationale for (whatever you want) is sound, would you accept that same argument for every other new allowance proposed by every other IT racer in the US...?

If NOT - if you actually look at the specific allowance as either OK or not OK based on your beliefs, goals, expectations, etc. - then your rationale doesn't hold water in the greater scheme of things.

K

[Ron Earp]

Some of you fellows think if we poll 1000 IT racers we'll get 1000 unique items that folks want changed. I don't think that is going to happen.

But before worrying about that, let me pose this question:

What if 96% of all 2008 active IT racers were polled and 87.5% of those polled came back and said that X should be changed. Would the ITAC recommend that X be changed?

[pfcs]

This is NOT a democracy and never was meant to be!

What is required is an enlightened despot or we'll screw the pooch! Promised.

Look at NASCAR if you don't understand.
If only the squeaky wheel gets oiled, we end up with a new disaster like production.
Those who don't remember the past repeat it. IT as Cal-Club started it was 1963 production car rules!!! Get a life-leave these rules alone. Don't you have anything better to do with yourselves? If you're so smart, fix your car instead of whining.

[lateapex911]

Time marches on. 1963 rules are great for 1963 cars. Our cars start at 1968. That's freaking old, LOL. (I must admit that I LOVED seeing Blakes 914 at teh ARRCs this year, but sad he has terminal issues with the IT program)

Not many 1968 cars running around any more. I imagine typical cars are 25 or 30 years newer, with different technology, and the philosophy of the category has to to accommodate the newer cars, and fit them into the mix with the old. So, sometimes rules need to be added, or changed a bit to accommodate that. Safety gear has changed, and with it we have new allowances and new rules.

So, Phil, I see your point, but clinging absolutely to the old rules is just impossible if we want to remain current. This will surprise him, but I see, and agree with his basic point though. I think most of the recent changes he objects too were set in motion over 5 years ago, (before the 'current" ITAC), and once the genie is out of the bottle...

[betamotorsports]

They will simply shop elsewhere. Sounds like the SCCA may be running into this in John's region.

Although by no means scientific, I think the drop in IT participation in Cal Club is more a result of drivers moving to dual use cars. We see a number of SM/ITA Miatas, Spec and Pro RX7s, ITR/ITE E36s, etc. at SCCA events. This really impacts the IT classes like ITB, ITC, and ITS where participation is almost nil.

At NASA events we see a lot of folks running the same car in the Time Trial (TT) and Pro Touring (PT) groups because the rule set is the same. That setup is very appealing to families who come out and run because one spouse can do a time trial and the other car do a wheel to wheel race in the same car at the same event.

Also, most of the older iT prepped cars (BMW 2002, Datsun 240Z, Alphas, 914s, etc.) have gone to VARA and HRS West. These cars sometimes come out every now and then and run with Cal Club but just as a test day, not as a serious competitor.

IT is dying. I wish folks would realize that.

[Ron Earp]

Let me throw this out there again to the ITAC folks:

What if 96% of all 2008 active IT racers were polled and 87.5% of those polled came back and said that X should be changed. Would the ITAC recommend that X be changed?

Is it, or ain't it, a club by racers for racers?

[pfcs]

I hope the answer would be "possibly".....and if they did, I'd hope the overlords would be VERY conservative about approving it, IE, they would use the collective wisdom of their great (one hopes they have) experience. That said, I'm still very uncomfortable with the club hierarchy. Bozzoism isn't confined to the grass roots, its pervasive in this club. If I sound elitist, sorry, but I've been here a long time and I know what I know.

[lateapex911]

Let me throw this out there again to the ITAC folks:

What if 96% of all 2008 active IT racers were polled and 87.5% of those polled came back and said that X should be changed. Would the ITAC recommend that X be changed?

Is it, or ain't it, a club by racers for racers?

Ron, we're throwing ourselves on the sword over big issues because we feel the racers want certain principals. Ask Jeff. Ask Kirk.

My answer to such a blind and hypothetical question is "I'd give it a good hard look", and "Probably", but, also, "It depends".