December 2011 Fastrack

[almskidd]

Ok, I'll give you motor oil, and coolant, but there's no where that allows substituting brake fluid, transmission oil, differential oil, or even powersteering fluid. Not a word about any of those in my 2011 gcr.

I found brake fluid... 6 Brakes a. Pads linings and fluid

9.3.37. OIL AND OIL ADDITIVES
Any oil or oil additive may be used. Oil additives are defined as: Any liquid or particulate compound(s) delivered into the engine via the engine oil for the purpose of friction/temperature reduction, and/or metal surface conditioning(i.e. PTFE resins (Teflon, “Slick-50”), Molybdenum Disulfide, etc.).

[D. Ellis-Brown]

Andy, Jake, Ron, Jeff, Dave, Mitch, I think you understand what I am saying and I believe to some extent you might actually agree. Having worked in the Aerospace & Commerical Production environment for most of my business career, I saw first hand the cost effects of "over-engineering" the product, not only in production but also to life cycle costs. Had some design engineers who actually bragged about "non-obtainium" specifications and tolerances, which many times added cost but very little value. Fortunately, the production engineers were able to prove them wrong and come with alternate, effective designs. The KISS method kept us successful and profitable. Our IT rules should be simple, non-ambigious, and stable. As Smokey Yunick said " the rule book should be kept to one page" (paraphrasing). I know that is not possible in IT, but it should be a goal to keep the rules simple.

Dr. K. You and I will have to agree to disagree.

Respectfully, David Ellis-Brown

[red986s]

Jeebus we can be some pedantic to a fault hobbyists.

Build your car. Make sure your engine is legal. Suspension, chassis, and body too. Race above minimum weight. Have fun.

Does it have to be more difficult or involved than that?

The KISS method kept us successful and profitable. Our IT rules should be simple, non-ambigious, and stable. As Smokey Yunick said " the rule book should be kept to one page" (paraphrasing). I know that is not possible in IT, but it should be a goal to keep the rules simple.

Respectfully, David Ellis-Brown

I concur! If we want to attract the next generation of IT racers we need to stick to these words of wisdom. Change is good but we also need to "stay on target".

[lateapex911]

Kirk, as with the ignition switch sometimes people may choose to add a push button start because they made a mistake in their attemts to eliminate the locking device (raises hand). In other cases, people do it simply because they think it's cool. I can not see a competitive advantage to be gained by modifying how the car starts.

Maybe we, including the ITAC, should just make this rule so it gives room for people to add the freakin' push button start if they want to. Yeah, yeah, slippery slope and all of that about how this and the washer bottle is going to totally change IT. LOL If we're able to identify some items that has no performance advantage and the rules as writen currently are unclear, open it up a bit.

You're missing, I think, what Kirks point is. He's saying that using a blanket statement to accomplish the allowance of mods like that, such as DEB is suggesting, relies way too much on the competitor to decide what is, and is not 'performance enhancing'. In the end, the competitor will most assuredly use a very fine knife to slice that statement, and we will see it result in things like spherical bearings in the suspension, etc etc.

I *think*, after having spent time with Dr K on committees, etc, that if the ITAC and the general IT population want to make a specific allowance to the rules for things like ignition switch removal/substitution, he's actually OK with that.

It's open ended statements that rely on subjective definitions that get him worried.....I think.
Common sense isn't common, and all that, especially when we have competitors trying to compete and make their own world better than those around them.

[Hoof Hearted]

Hmmm.

"Any ignition system which uses the original distributor for spark timing and distribution is permitted". I use a key, but I think it's legit that the 'switch' that activated the whole she-bang is part of the system.

If this is your logic, then since windshield wipers and motor are part of the windshield washer system, they (they being the wipers, arms and motor) can be removed as well? (just stirring the black kettle...)

BTW, I am a key user cuz it works and is cheaper and probably is more reliable then an alternative toggle/button set-up.

[Knestis]

... Dr. K. You and I will have to agree to disagree.

No we don't - because as of today, I choose to agree with you. Y'all won.

You'll have added a couple thousand $$ to the retail price of building a truly pointy-end IT car, once the dust settles, and the only real outcome will be that the curve has shifted. Nobody who was uncompetitive before will be magically competitive as a result. Entry numbers will not go up for IT. Creep will not stop.

I'm going to spend the winter finding the last few tenths I need in order to improve my ARRC qualifying position by one for 2012. Every addition allowance you codify helps me make incremental progress toward that end. If my competition does the same thing, we all get faster but I can be sure of gaining time on those unwilling to spend the extra $$ you've freed up.

As I said in the other related thread, rock on!

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

If this is your logic, then since windshield wipers and motor are part of the windshield washer system, they (they being the wipers, arms and motor) can be removed as well? (just stirring the black kettle...)

Except the wording specifically calls out a difference between 'washer systems' and 'wiper systems' just by stating the wording. Keep in mind 'ignition system' is defined in the GCR and the switch that activates it part-in-parcel to the system. Have the ITAC add a definition of washer system if it's now grey.