Removal of Charcoal Canisters (fuel tank vents) okay?

[Knestis]

Yeah, you morons.

K

[EV]

Not being able to remove your EVAP canister isn't keeping anyone out of IT.

Oh yes it has... <raises hand>

Not specifically the EVAP, but the big picture of how SCCA and IT work. I decided to not race IT when the whole motor mount cluster F went down. It was my last straw.

I stay around, lurking, in hopes a change in management will occur and intelligent decisions will be made based on merit instead of fear that allowing the removal of a washer bottle is paramount to opening Pandora's box.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Oh yes it has... <raises hand>

Not specifically the EVAP, but the big picture of how SCCA and IT work. I decided to not race IT when the whole motor mount cluster F went down. It was my last straw.

I stay around, lurking, in hopes a change in management will occur and intelligent decisions will be made based on merit instead of fear that allowing the removal of a washer bottle is paramount to opening Pandora's box.

So who do you race with currently and why?

[Ron Earp]

My 'kingdom' doesn't look like like your kingdom Tom. You want to remove EVAP, washer bottles and have open motor mounts (all of which I would like too in real life), but *I* was to remove my dash, inner bumpers, etc.

You're right there Andy. But none of our "Kingdoms" look much like what a modern young racer wants. Or racers from other clubs. The SCCA needs to attract these folks so that it can grow and prosper.

Three weeks ago I took my Mustang for a quick dyno session at a local speed shop, Carolina Automasters in Durham. In the course of strapping the car down I was talking with three of the young guys who do driver's education days in their cars and discussing SCCA racing. The topic of minimum weight came up.

Young guy: You won't have any problem meeting weight. Once the dash is out and you strip all of that mess, plus the crap up under the hood you don't need and get lightweight body parts I bet you'll be ok.

Me: I can't do any of that. I've got keep a lot of those parts, with the stock bumpers, fenders, heater core, wiring, and so on. Improved Touring is a very limited modification class.

Young guy: Yeah, but you've got a minimum weight, right? As long as you aren't below that and you've got all the important parts stock like suspension, engine and stuff it seems like you'd be good to go.

Me: Yes, the class has a minimum weight but there are a lot of aspects of Improved Touring that go back to yesteryear with the use and retention of dashboards, horns, washer bottles, and so on. That's just the way it is.

Young guy: Shit, see, now that right there is why we don't fuck around with the SCCA. You guys are too old school.

True tale and the guys in the shop do indeed race and work with NASA racers in the region. And I'm sure you've heard the same from some local racers and car enthusiasts.

I'm with TomL. We can open the class up to modifications to the cars and still keep the core principles of IT - stock suspension, stock brakes, stock engine - which keeps costs low and maintains the accessibility of the class.

[Greg Amy]

You're right there Andy. But none of our "Kingdoms" look much like what a modern young racer wants.

I think it would be SUPER if we included the following modifications to Improved TOURING:

- Allow washer bottle removal
- Allow power steering removal/disable
- Allow alternate engine mounts
- Allow evap removal
- Allow horn removal
- Allow heater core removal
- Allow battery relocation
- Allow shift kits
- Lightweight body parts
- "And so on."

Each of these items (and more!) are in some IT guy's "kingdom"...

It's quite a bit disingenuous to say "I really like Improved Touring" and then in the next breath say "but I'd really like to be able to do this, and this, and that". Hypocritical, really. I especially like the ones that state "well, I don't race SCCA/IT because the rules restrict 'that'" but then don't put their money where their mouth is when 'that' is exactly what is offered elsewhere ("oh no, that's TOO much modification, it'll get really expensive to race THAT!")

Guess what? "That" is exactly what you're asking for; you just can't see it because of the trees...

I need a beer.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

But the way you explained it wasn't unbiased. AND, it also exemplfies the lack of knowledge on the kids part. "As long as it meets min, it doesn't matter" It WOULD matter, to the cars that could get well below min weight with those allowances.

Like I said, if you would rather spend $$$ on alternate body panels than keep your EVAP canister in, then you aren't a racer.

Look, a lot of us are just playing devils advocate here. My line isn't your line. The line has moved consistantly since the original rules were written (and those people were PLENTY happy with it). Until someone says no, the line will keep moving, FACT. All it takes is a quick read of the IT rules about every 4 years to see that is a certainty.

This year, I am king. I allow gutting of the engine bay and motor mounts. 10 years from now, that kid is king. He allows alternate panels, 100% gutted interior, etc...

Why is IT one of the most popular categories in all of amature Road Racing?

[Ron Earp]

But the way you explained it wasn't unbiased. AND, it also exemplfies the lack of knowledge on the kids part. "As long as it meets min, it doesn't matter" It WOULD matter, to the cars that could get well below min weight with those allowances.

Look, you guys know my opinion and I'm still an IT racer. I'm not passing judgement on the guy nor the perception in that shop of the SCCA. I've tried to educate those guys about the finer points of SCCA racing but they see the negatives with rules they consider illogical. I encounter folks like this from time to time and do my best to get them to come out and have look at what we do.

As mentioned already, the kingdoms are surely going to differ from person to person. What we want to do is use the kingdom rules set that captures the largest group of racers. I'm not convinced the current IT rules set is that kingdom. Yes, it has worked for a long time and for the SCCA is the healthiest group, but how large could it become?

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

Look, you guys know my opinion and I'm still an IT racer. I'm not passing judgement on the guy nor the perception in that shop of the SCCA. I've tried to educate those guys about the finer points of SCCA racing but they see the negatives with rules they consider illogical. I encounter folks like this from time to time and do my best to get them to come out and have look at what we do.

And this could be posted on the NASA board in the PT forum by a NASA guy expalining to somebody who 'raises his hand'....

[JeffYoung]

We've had this discussion many, many times. I certainly see the risk of creep, but I think the answer to most of this is as follows.

On a pretty basic level, we all agree on what are IT "core values." Stock motors. Stock suspension mounting points. Stock body panels. Stock tranny ratios. Stock brakes. With limited mods inside each of those categories.

I really do think 99% of us would not have an issue with what everyone else would do if king for a day. Would there be some conflict? Sure. But on items like washer bottles and evap cannisters, no.

[JLawton]

Oh yes it has... <raises hand>

Not specifically the EVAP, but the big picture of how SCCA and IT work. I decided to not race IT when the whole motor mount cluster F went down. It was my last straw.

.

Really?? Really?? You're willing to walk away from some of the best racing in the country, hang with some awesome people at a very limited cost (relatively speaking) because you can't remove all the "crap" from your car??



I was asked by a circle track guy why we didn't have jacking plates. (something we've discussed here as a "harmless" change). He then went on to explain how they use that rule to add extra reinforcement and get the weight lower on the car.........

If I was King for a day I'd go to a spec (i.e. cheap) tire.......... It gives me chest pains to shell out that kind of money for Hoosiers because that's what we have to do to run up front............. In my opinion that makes all the other little shit items silly to even worry about.........

Me? I love racing IT. I couldn't give a crap if we were allowed to remove everything or if we moved back to stock passenger seats, stock ECUs and full interiors......... either way, everyone follows the same rulles and we still have as much fun......... You'll remember it's for fun, right??

[Andy Bettencourt]

We've had this discussion many, many times. I certainly see the risk of creep, but I think the answer to most of this is as follows.

On a pretty basic level, we all agree on what are IT "core values." Stock motors. Stock suspension mounting points. Stock body panels. Stock tranny ratios. Stock brakes. With limited mods inside each of those categories.

I really do think 99% of us would not have an issue with what everyone else would do if king for a day. Would there be some conflict? Sure. But on items like washer bottles and evap cannisters, no.

Let me ask you this:

If the creators of IT were to look at the rules now, what do you think they would say? I think it would be a resounding "How the HELL did THAT happen???"

If you agree, try and rationalize how we got from there to here. And then try and make an arguement on why you think it would STOP.

[callard]

- stock suspension,

Hmm... If I'm allowed to call a threaded body double adjustable coil over strut with relocated spindle and adjustable spring perches a stock suspension then why can't I call:
THE ATMOSPHERE = my evaporative emission system
RAIN CLOUDS = my washer bottle
???????

[JeffYoung]

I don't think it will stop. I just think it will, if we stick to the core principles, morph in a positive way. Which we have for the most part -- I certainly agree a picture of an IT car circa 85 v. 2011 is pretty shocking. But the basics are the same. The engine rules, other than the ECU rule, really have not changed. The suspension rules haven't changed. Stock body panels still. Brake rules essentially the same. Tranny rules essentially the same.

Most of what has changed has been appearance/reliability/safety stuff. Cage v. roll bar. Race seats. Interior gutting.

So on the surface you see a lot of difference. But at the core, not much change.

Which is my point -- because at the core we all tend to agree, quite a bit more than I think we give ourselves credit for.

[RacerBill]

I just thought I would inject this thought into the discussion, concerning costs of racing. Four years ago, I broke a front hub at the IT Spectacular. I was able to get a replacement at NAPA for $35. I replaced them both this year, just as a precaution, and now bearings cost $84, more than double the price! So, I guess that you can put me in the 'keep the costs down' corner.

[JeffYoung]

Just as a follow up, I think the answer on rationalizing how we got here from there is this:

No one would be racing an IT car if the rules were as they were in 1985.

I know a few hold outs who would like to go back to that version of the rules, but they are in a very, very small minority.

Let me ask you this:

If the creators of IT were to look at the rules now, what do you think they would say? I think it would be a resounding "How the HELL did THAT happen???"

If you agree, try and rationalize how we got from there to here. And then try and make an arguement on why you think it would STOP.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Who has a copy of the first set of IT rules?

[RacerBill]

... The suspension rules haven't changed...

My Shelby is probably the only IT car in the country that is running a STOCK suspension (vs threaded body coil-overs). Hopefully, that will be fixed soon. But it is going to cost me $1500 - $2500 just to get my car up to the same level as all the other cars on the track.

If anyone knows any other ITB cars that are running stock suspensions, please let me know so that we can race together.

[RacerBill]

Who has a copy of the first set of IT rules?

Weren't they just printed in the last issue of Sports Car?

[StephenB]

This was my conversation with someone a few weeks ago...
I went to an RX8 meet to meet some people and pick up some parts. I was talking with a few of the young guys who do driver's education days in their cars and discussing SCCA racing. The topic of "mods" came up.

Young guy: You won't have any problem meeting weight. Once the dash is out and you strip all of that mess, plus the crap up under the hood you don't need and get lightweight body parts I bet you'll be ok.

Me: I can't do any of that, and to be honest I don't want to! I've got keep a lot of those parts, with the stock bumpers, fenders, heater core, wiring, and so on. Improved Touring is a very limited modification class which is what makes it affordable and so attractive!

Young guy: Yeah, but you've got a minimum weight, right? As long as you aren't below that and you've got all the important parts stock like suspension, engine and stuff it seems like you'd be good to go.

Me: Yes, the class has a minimum weight but there are a lot of aspects of Improved Touring that use and retaint stock parts like dashboards, horns, washer bottles, and so on. That's just one way to keep the modifications simple and easy to understand for anyone.

Young guy: Shit, see, now that right there seems like an exciting class to get into. I would love to keep my "mods" especially my 2 piece brakes but I can see how that adds up and can get expensive!

Me: Don't worry SCCA DOES have a class for your car with all those "mods" the class is just starting to pick up steam, its called ST (U,O,L). The class isn't really for me since I don't have the money to do all those "mods" and to be honest I don't really understand which mods are the best bang for the buck. So I am sticking to IT but you should check it out if you want to keep your "mods"!

Youg Guy: Thanks, Sounds like I have more options than I thought

Me: If you want to go even crazier check out Production... and if you are into tube frame purpose built cars you can check out GT! SCCA really is does have a class for anyone and its REAL racing wheel to wheel! If you need a copy of the rules visit SCCA.com or feel free to e-mail me and I can help you along the way. I would love to see more RX8 drivers at our events!

I know I used half of what you wrote since the conversation wasn't exactly the same but I DID have this same basic conversation at the Grand-AM race last weekend at LRP. (They had a mazda meet on the top of the hill, actually pretty cool, they even had a portable dyno with them!)

I am a BIG believer in personal accountability and I really think WE as IT racers need to embrace what we do have and talk it up, WE need to sell it to others to grow the class, WE need to educate others on why IT is the best class in all of amateur racing. It is up to US to help IT grow and to attract new SCCA members. It is NOT up to the name "SCCA" and or a rulebook to attract racers to OUR club and OUR group of competitors.

My .02
Stephen

[JeffYoung]

But wasn't that technically always "allowed" under the shocks/struts are free rule?

Yes, Bill is correct -- an early version (I don't think it was the one adotped nationally though, it had some odd stuff in it like limits on rear gear ratios, etc.) was in Sports Car last month.

Kirk has what is, I think, the actual set of national rules adopted.

What was most interesting to me about that first rule set was the car classifications. There were cars that are now in ITB and ITC in ITS......Tr7, Fiat X1/9, etc.

In some ways, I'd say the most fundamental change to the rules over the years has nothing to do with prep levels, and everything to do with car classification.

My Shelby is probably the only IT car in the country that is running a STOCK suspension (vs threaded body coil-overs). Hopefully, that will be fixed soon. But it is going to cost me $1500 - $2500 just to get my car up to the same level as all the other cars on the track.

If anyone knows any other ITB cars that are running stock suspensions, please let me know so that we can race together.