December 2011 Fastrack

[Russ Myers]

Further rules creep,you can now ditch your stock lights, wipers, and other electrical switches.

Russ

[JeffYoung]

How do you figure?

Further rules creep,you can now ditch your stock lights, wipers, and other electrical switches.

Russ

[Knestis]

So after all the arguing, haranging, harassment and ridicule
for the damages of rules creep, we can now legally remove our windshield washer bottle and defunct horns and use custom, non rigid driveline mounts?

Ya know, we're all starting to look a lot like congress.

We get the IT we (collectively) want.

The problem - or benefit, depending on where you come down on the issue - is that the most orthodox anti-creepers are off the ITAC.

Watch for the next round of requested allowances from the guy who asked for these. He'd already done most of them on his car, even absent these additions to the rulebook, but I don't think all of his wish-list has been addressed.

K

[Harvey]

Kirk

They will never see what you are speaking of, its not the individual items but the cummilitive effect.

[tom91ita]

.........I would rather see the charcoal canister get addressed over all of these...

submitted that request 2/19/11.

status changed to "Tabled" on 5/23/11

last response was:

This automated response has been sent to let you know that your letter has been reviewed by the IT committee, and tabled for further review. After additional research, the committee will send a recommendation to the CRB. Your letter details are below:

Letter #4220
Title: Evaporative Emissions Rules for Improved Touring
Request: The evaporative emissions equipment can apparently be removed if a fuel cell is installed as I interpret the current rules. In the past, it had been my understanding that devices associated with the evaporative emissions systems (e.g., charcoal canisters, etc.) could be removed. I have in fact removed them as apparently many others have per various discussions at improvedtouring.com I believe that the rules should allow for their removal regardless of if a fuel cell has been installed. A simple rule similar to that in Super Touring could be implemented." All emission control devices may be removed and the resulting holes plugged." Thank you for your consideration.
Attachment:

Thank you,

Club Racing Board

website tracking yields this:

Letter number #4220 is currently waiting to be reviewed by the IT committee. After the IT committee reviews your letter, the CRB will review it, and it will proceed to Fastrack.

my estimation is that this will take a year to cycle through which would mean a response (up or down vote) before racing in 2012. at least for those of us facing winter in Michigan and not Florida.....

[Knestis]

Kirk

They will never see what you are speaking of, its not the individual items but the cummilitive effect.

Oh, I understand that, for sure. Note here that in the SCCA membership survey, the longest-duration response option for "How long have you been a member?" was "7 years or more." A vast majority of drivers don't last more than 3, so historical perspective isn't our strong suit. Some of 2012's new IT driver-members will have their own new ideas about how the cars should be so will contribute to the next wave of new allowances.

K

[JeffYoung]

I don't think this ITAC is any "less creep" than others. We all evaluate rules changes our own way. I would have never been in favor of the ECU change, or sphericals, and was absolutely not in favor of using things like a simulation to "model" deducts and adders to the cars. I find all of that to be far more dangerous -- in my opinion -- than removing the washer bottle, etc.

I've said it before but I will continue to repeat it. I think that we can agree about 95% on what IT's core values are. Stock motors, body panels, suspension pickup points, trannies, brakes. Limited mods to each. Nothing that has been done by this ITAC has infringed on any of those.

We do get the IT we want. Not beating on you Kirk, but I can tell you what I am very sure the largest -- and more importantly the youngest -- portion of the IT community wants, and that is NOT to have a dual purpose race car that is driven on the street and has a headliner, a passenger seat, a washer bottle, etc.

IT would not have the popularity it has now, particularly in attracting younger racers, if we had some of the things that existed in the ruleset in 1985. I remain firmly convinced of that.

I could really care less about the water bottle. As you (Kirk) have accurately stated, it's more perceptional than anything. You perceive it as creep. I perceive ditching it as a statement that we aren't going to hang on to rules that appear to the 20/30 year old crowd we are trying to attract as being completely silly so long as those rules are not part of the IT core.

We get the IT we (collectively) want.

The problem - or benefit, depending on where you come down on the issue - is that the most orthodox anti-creepers are off the ITAC.

Watch for the next round of requested allowances from the guy who asked for these. He'd already done most of them on his car, even absent these additions to the rulebook, but I don't think all of his wish-list has been addressed.

K

[Knestis]

As I said, some - maybe most - will see this as a good thing. And so it goes.

If it's a strategic position of the ITAC that this is our future, maybe we should (seriously) just jump in and rewrite the entire ITCS from scratch and get to the point you describe, rather than letting the rulebook get nibbled to death by ducks...? At least that way, someone building a new car won't have to iterate changes as they go.

I'm past caring so as they say, "In for a penny..."

K

[Ron Earp]

I've said it before but I will continue to repeat it. I think that we can agree about 95% on what IT's core values are. Stock motors, body panels, suspension pickup points, trannies, brakes. Limited mods to each.

I perceive ditching it (*washer bottle rule*) as a statement that we aren't going to hang on to rules that appear to the 20/30 year old crowd we are trying to attract as being completely silly so long as those rules are not part of the IT core.

Right said Fred.

Time moves on, rules hopefully adapt and change. That new washer bottle rule won't be the death of IT.

And wouldn't you know it, I'm going to keep my washer bottle now. After years of being illegal I'm going to keep the bottle in the Rustang to wash my windshield.

[JeffYoung]

I find my self using that Vonnetgutism (so it goes) a lot myself these days.....

I think you may be on to something with the last point.

As I said, some - maybe most - will see this as a good thing. And so it goes.

If it's a strategic position of the ITAC that this is our future, maybe we should (seriously) just jump in and rewrite the entire ITCS from scratch and get to the point you describe, rather than letting the rulebook get nibbled to death by ducks...? At least that way, someone building a new car won't have to iterate changes as they go.

I'm past caring so as they say, "In for a penny..."

K

[Harvey]

2

[tom91ita]

.....A vast majority of drivers don't last more than 3, so historical perspective isn't our strong suit. Some of 2012's new IT driver-members will have their own new ideas about how the cars should be so will contribute to the next wave of new allowances.

K

i actually think there is a chance for an influx of 'new' drivers much like Street Touring took off with Solo.

also, i am curious how they categorize those that go in and out of SCCA? sort of reminds of the difference between being on a diet for 12 months vs. being on a diet for a month 12 times.

if i rejoin or buy a weekend membership, where would i fit in any surveys?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I don't think this ITAC is any "less creep" than others. We all evaluate rules changes our own way. I would have never been in favor of the ECU change, or sphericals, and was absolutely not in favor of using things like a simulation to "model" deducts and adders to the cars. I find all of that to be far more dangerous -- in my opinion -- than removing the washer bottle, etc.

So understand your history a little is you want to trot this out as fact. NOBODY wanted open ECU's, but since they were already defacto 'open' to those with big money to afford a hig-end MoTec, and were somewhat case-dependent, it was a problem. Add in the fact that a 'flash' to an OBD2 car was virtually undetectable, something had to be done. to keep the field as level as possible. Trust me, if there was an equitable way to have everyone 100% stock, it would have gone that way.

Sphericals: Most of the ITAC didn't believe that interpretation was legal and we asked the CRB for their intent of the rule so we could either tighten it up are specifically allow. They wanted to specifically allow. Whether or not they didn't have the nuts to make something a VERY small group pf people were doing specifically illegal is unknown, but it was a CRB decision.

The simulation model was run as an exercise and fully supported the thought process that there were no FWD cars in any of the faster classes that were competitive. The data tweaked our SWAG of -100/-50 just a touch and gave it actual merit. Would do it again in a heartbeat. And that really has nothing to do with allowances and creep...

[JohnW8]

How do you figure?

#3749 - In 9.1.3.D.9.c, add the following at the end: “Switches to activate the ignition, the lights, the windshield wipers, the starter and other accessories located within the passenger compartment may be replaced and their location changed.”

[JeffYoung]

I wrote it, so I know. I thought Russ was saying lights and wipers could be removed. They cannot.

When we looked at the rules we determined that, for example, aftermarket ignition switches -- which we all use -- are not legal.

This makes it clear that if you want to make a switch panel, you can, and you don't have to leave the stock switch in.

#3749 - In 9.1.3.D.9.c, add the following at the end: “Switches to activate the ignition, the lights, the windshield wipers, the starter and other accessories located within the passenger compartment may be replaced and their location changed.”

[JeffYoung]

The simulation absolutely is rules creep. It added a completely unknown, undefined, and not understood computer model to what was a very simple weighting process. And, to base it on the idea that there were no cars competitive in S and R is just flat out wrong Andy. Seck, Ira and Zsolt had competitive Integras in S, Ruck a competitive Prelude in S, the Bildon guys a competitive Corrado in S, etc.

I am actually ok with a FWD break. I was astounded we did it the way we did. We trusted a program to generate percentages by checking a box on the program that said "FWD" without any understanding of what that actually did to the program. Bizarre to say the least.

ECUs? I get your thinking but still creep to allow it. We could have simply said no and let the process police itself. Sphericals? Could have recommended to the CRB not to approve.

But I'm fine with the above. ITACs do their work and make the best call they can at the time. However I will brings this stuff back up when the claim is made that "this" ITAC is engaging in more creep than others. That's nonsense.

So understand your history a little is you want to trot this out as fact. NOBODY wanted open ECU's, but since they were already defacto 'open' to those with big money to afford a hig-end MoTec, and were somewhat case-dependent, it was a problem. Add in the fact that a 'flash' to an OBD2 car was virtually undetectable, something had to be done. to keep the field as level as possible. Trust me, if there was an equitable way to have everyone 100% stock, it would have gone that way.

Sphericals: Most of the ITAC didn't believe that interpretation was legal and we asked the CRB for their intent of the rule so we could either tighten it up are specifically allow. They wanted to specifically allow. Whether or not they didn't have the nuts to make something a VERY small group pf people were doing specifically illegal is unknown, but it was a CRB decision.

The simulation model was run as an exercise and fully supported the thought process that there were no FWD cars in any of the faster classes that were competitive. The data tweaked our SWAG of -100/-50 just a touch and gave it actual merit. Would do it again in a heartbeat. And that really has nothing to do with allowances and creep...

[Knestis]

I wrote it, so I know. I thought Russ was saying lights and wipers could be removed. They cannot.

When we looked at the rules we determined that, for example, aftermarket ignition switches -- which we all use -- are not legal.

This makes it clear that if you want to make a switch panel, you can, and you don't have to leave the stock switch in.

Countdown to "Since we are allowed to disable the lights, please change the rules to allow their removal, on both cost and safety grounds" in 5, 4, 3...

I think I'm on my sixth(?) left headlight assembly.

Whee! :026:

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

The simulation absolutely is rules creep. It added a completely unknown, undefined, and not understood computer model to what was a very simple weighting process. And, to base it on the idea that there were no cars competitive in S and R is just flat out wrong Andy. Seck, Ira and Zsolt had competitive Integras in S, Ruck a competitive Prelude in S, the Bildon guys a competitive Corrado in S, etc.

I am actually ok with a FWD break. I was astounded we did it the way we did. We trusted a program to generate percentages by checking a box on the program that said "FWD" without any understanding of what that actually did to the program. Bizarre to say the least.

Disagree. One car here and there is not competitive. The figures in place were simply a wild-ass-guess with ZERO data to back them up. The simulation validated lower powered cars and supported the theory that higher powered cars needed more delta. It was niceto actually put some data behind an 'adder'. Creep? Hardly!!! The allowance was already there, this was simply a tweak to it that didn't take the rule any 'further'.

ECUs? I get your thinking but still creep to allow it. We could have simply said no and let the process police itself.

Are you forgetting it was already allowed prior to the 'Process Gen ITAC'? It was already a rule so you either had to put it back in the box, which created un-policable inequity, or you rewrote it so that EVERYONE could take advantage. Not creep from what was handed to us. A true lose-lose.

Sphericals? Could have recommended to the CRB not to approve.

Not sure it works like that. We told them how we thought the rule read and asked for their clarification on intent. They told US what the rule should allow and we rewrote it as such.

But I'm fine with the above. ITACs do their work and make the best call they can at the time. However I will brings this stuff back up when the claim is made that "this" ITAC is engaging in more creep than others. That's nonsense.

Each one of your examples is not valid IMHO. HOWEVER, there were plenty that you could use I bet. The first revision on the 'up to 15' wheel sizes was done. Creep? You bet. Justified by the wheel market. Intake rules? Creep. Vent window removal? Creep. Etc.

My point is that it will never stop. Each group will determine what suits their needs and the classes needs and push through agendas. There is 'good creep' and 'bad creep' (all determined in the eye of the beholder) but it's ALL creep.

[Bill Miller]

I find my self using that Vonnetgutism (so it goes) a lot myself these days.....

I have to chuckle Jeff, because I bet 90% of that 20-30 y/o crowd won't get that reference.

And just for the record, I liked Billy Pilgrim too!


Andy,

The CRB has had no problem stuffing the genie back in the bottle in the past. Engine coatings and 3x adjustable RR shocks are the two big ones that immediately jump to mind. Those cost some people some serious coin.

Dave (Gomberg),

That may very well be the case, but they also state that the CRB will now manage the classes going forward (w/ approval from the BoD).

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

[Greg Amy]

I was astounded we did it the way we did.

Ancient ITACs decided that interiors were sacred. Not-so-ancient ITACs did not.

Old ITACs decided that rubber bushings were sacred. Prior ITACs did not.

Prior ITACs decided that washer bottles were sacred. Current ITAC does not.

Current ITAC decides that lights are sacred, as are a whole host of pennies being lined up for consideration. Without that black line, who's to say what future ITAC's will decide is sacred?

Sacrilege is what you make of it. Line's been philosophically crossed.

Game on.

GA