View Poll Results: I would like the IT rules to allow removal of dual purpose vestiges.

Voters
131. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    76 58.02%
  • No

    55 41.98%
Results 1 to 20 of 310

Thread: A Poll Regarding the IT Rules Set

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    long valley, NJ
    Posts
    335

    Default

    "I have no problem whatsoever removing horns and washer bottles, and no problem replacing wires"
    Funny how that statement reflects how the conservative ruleset kept me in the corral. I'll confess-I replaced the heavy OE horn in my ITB Volvo with a very light early Beetle one; and when I built my hand-controlled Golf I re-located the ignition coil to where the washer bottle had been so I could reach it, but used a latex leg-bag in it's (now cramped) place. The dual use thinking has informed IT philosophy for many years and served us well. It has been why the class was so unbelievably popular (50+ ITB cars @Glenn one time=their own race group), a stock vehicle easily turned into a capable racecar. I'm grateful to have raced in the golden age of club racing and sad to see IT dissappearing into the mists of time. You guys don't get it-maybe that's not your fault-perhaps you had to have been there circa 1985. Trying to realign the cars to equalize them by weight-that's a good thing, but everything that recently preceded (remove pass seat, gut headliner, Nascar bars/gutted doors, and the big ludicrous one: open ECUs!) I consider obscene. But why should I care? It's over, the inmates have taken over the asylum. Camelot.
    Those who forget are doomed to repeat the past. The original Cal Club IT rules (circa 82) were the 1963 production car rules.
    phil
    phil hunt

  2. #2

    Default

    I voted no, but only because there wasn't a FUCK NO option.

    Seriously: LEAVE I T ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Let's get the stuff the ITAC sent through done, and then let's not touch it for 2 years.
    Bowie Gray
    ITA Miata


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Camas, WA
    Posts
    531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RacerBowie View Post
    I voted no, but only because there wasn't a FUCK NO option.

    Seriously: LEAVE I T ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Let's get the stuff the ITAC sent through done, and then let's not touch it for 2 years.
    What he said.
    Marcus
    miller-motorsports.com - Its always an Adventure (and woefully outdated)
    1.6 ITE/SPU/ST2 Turbo Miata (in pieces... err progress)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New York, NY, USA
    Posts
    451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RacerBowie View Post
    I voted no, but only because there wasn't a FUCK NO option.

    Seriously: LEAVE I T ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Let's get the stuff the ITAC sent through done, and then let's not touch it for 2 years.
    +1,000,000

    What is the imminent need that the rule change would address? The perception that IT rules are too constrained?

    In efforts toward allowing battery relocation, at least we were arguing "safety"; but removing wipers? Does it not rain outside of the northeast? Headlights? WTF does that allow besides lovely ram-air possibilities. I wonder if we would allow battery relocation if 50 pounds of nice, safe lead had to be bolted to the original battery position. Want those wipers gone? Just bolt another 10 pounds within 1 foot of where they used to be. Want to write that rulebook? Not me.

    The 20 people playing here are not representative of the IT community. You want to ask what people want? You've got to cast a wider net than this webpage.

    What I want is an ITAC that can say no many more times than they say yes.

    DZ

    BTW I like having fluid in my washer bottle.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •