June Fastrack

[pfcs]

Did you know fascetious has all the vowels in order?

That equilateral is: "having all sides equal <an equilateral triangle> <an equilateral polygon> — see triangle" (Webster's)?

"Blame me in part for the current ECU situation, I thought the previous version (anything that fits in the box) wasn't equilateral." (Gulick)

Technically I guess that answer isn't un-true; maybe it was parallel thinking in another dimension??

I do blame you for the atrocious rule we now have.
You've earned your spurs

[Ron Earp]

I would go and shop for chains and stuff, but I have to finish CNCing spherical sleeves for the bushing they do allow us to change, writing assembly code for the ECUs they allow us to change, wind tunnel test the splitter they allow us to use, etc .....

Yep, IT has moved beyond the "stock seats in the car" sort of racing it was 25 years ago. And thankfully it isn't going back there.

Ummm, like 1985 called and wants its IT car back.....nope, none of those around anymore, at least none around that run in the upper part of the grid.

[lateapex911]

Well, Phil, I guess you're one of the guys who's happy my votes don't get counted anymore.

[pfcs]

"Yep, IT has moved beyond the "stock seats in the car" sort of racing it was 25 years ago. And thankfully it isn't going back there.
Ummm, like 1985 called and wants its IT car back.....nope, none of those around anymore, at least none around that run in the upper part of the grid."

I was there. The 85 part is right. Those cars weren't developed enough until 89-90. THOSE cars I promise you would have (given current tires) run near the front. Do you newbies think the older cars were unsophisticated jalopies? My Volvo looked like a jalopy and that was fine-but it incorporated about every technical asset and loophole in the ruleset to it's fullest potential.
My concern is that you've begun a process that, if it hasn't ruined the class yet, will over time.
I'm ALL about thinking outside the box in IT. Let's just keep the box small! Those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Those who quote cliche's and don't offer suggestions or constructive critisism aren't part of a solution.

[Ron Earp]

The 85 part is right. Those cars weren't developed enough until 89-90. THOSE cars I promise you would have (given current tires) run near the front. Do you newbies think the older cars were unsophisticated jalopies? My Volvo looked like a jalopy and that was fine-but it incorporated about every technical asset and loophole in the ruleset to it's fullest potential.

Phil, I do not think you ran a jalopy (well, said tongue in cheek, I race a 1974 Datsun, a POS these days). I'm sure you, and many other racers, exploited every rule to the maximum.

All I'm stating is that we don't require these rules to be in stasis in relation to the year 1985 (or 1990, 1995, you pick). The fundamentals of IT are still intact and protected - stock cam, 0.5 compression hike, stock valves/valve train, minor port matching, stock induction system, coilovers, modified shocks, etc. IT is stable with these core points intact.

There should be updates to the rules over time. Life moves on.

[lateapex911]

"n a process that, if it hasn't ruined the class yet, will over time.
I'm ALL about thinking outside the box in IT. Let's just keep the box small! Those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

OK, Phil. if YOU were on the ITAC, were charged with coming up with a solution to the ECU situation a few years ago (inheriting the inside the box rule) what would your solution have been?

[GKR_17]

The ECU changes were unfortunate, but the logic is solid. Stock would have been ideal, but that is not enforceable. If you think no one had chips when they were illegal you are naive. There were quite a few advertised that way in Sportscar. After having a protest disallowed because the ECU could not be checked it was crystal clear the rule was pointless.

[SPiFF]

The ECU change has been about the only sane and forward thinking rule change I have seen in IT since I came over from the N.Group. 10-15 years from now when practically every car will need to have all the ECUs changed or reprogrammed to be race-able, people will thank heaven the rules allow them to do so easily and sanely.

[lateapex911]

Did you know fascetious has all the vowels in order?

That equilateral is: "having all sides equal <an equilateral triangle> <an equilateral polygon> — see triangle" (Webster's)?

"Blame me in part for the current ECU situation, I thought the previous version (anything that fits in the box) wasn't equilateral." (Gulick)

Technically I guess that answer isn't un-true; maybe it was parallel thinking in another dimension??

I do blame you for the atrocious rule we now have.
You've earned your spurs

The ECU change has been about the only sane and forward thinking rule change I have seen in IT since I came over from the N.Group. 10-15 years from now when practically every car will need to have all the ECUs changed or reprogrammed to be race-able, people will thank heaven the rules allow them to do so easily and sanely.

Well, there you have it. 180 degrees, defined.