I decided to send in a request to remove/replace wires in IT cars

[JeffYoung]

I do agree that is a fact.

Ron made a good point this morning, either here or in an e-mail discussion, that it's probably true that 90% of ITers would agree with the "basics" -- what core IT values are, what shouldn't be touched/modified, what are inconsequential.

For the remaining 10%, we then spend 110% of our energy discussing them.

I'm not saying that is a bad thing, it just is.

I do think there is far more agreement than disagreement on the overall ruleset than it appears.

It's far better, to me, that we are discussing washer bottles and wiring harnesses rather than reward weights or the appropriate sizes of SIRs for example.

[Tristan Smith]

Not that it matters, but from what I remember, the sphericals were being widely used at the time of the rule change because the rule stated that bushing material was open. That "open" part was then hotly debated as to whether a spherical bearing was a material or a mechanism. We 240sx guys (and I am sure others) had to have them to make our rear suspension work without binding. So obviously we were for them. I even remember Kirk getting rather ?short/snide? with me about the debate (ahh the good ol days).

I think in the end, they were already part of the "build mentality" at that point and the CRB said, let them keep them.

The ecu rule was changed for one simple reason. You could not enforce/police it. So the rules were opened up to give every one the same ability. That "opening up" grew to allowing any internal components when certain ECUs couldn't be "re-chipped".

You could make the argument that that was all rule creep, but in fact it was all happening regardless of the rules. One could have been changed and policed. The other would have been darn hard to.

The core principles of IT were never really being a dual purpose car (well ok when IT first started ,it was). The core purpose was essentially to provide lower cost (and might say entry level) access to racing. By keeping what you can do to the cars limited, you in theory keep costs down.

So perhaps one standard to hold up againt any rule change may be:

Does it cost anything MORE to have it or do it, than it does to remove it or not do it?

AND

Does it change the racing?

Washer bottle removal - no cost to remove it, or to have it.
Doesn't change the outcome of the racing.

Alternate cams?

Definately costs to do it (assumming that it costs you nothing to use stock cams), and it can have an effect on the racing.

meh......... just throwing it out there.

[Knestis]

Are you sure I didn't just tell you to piss off, Tristan?

I am NOT angry, guys. I'm just pulled back into being concerned about first principles and creep, having been cursed with being involved in this deal since before Day One of the National category specs.

If I press hard on points, it's because y'all need to make damned sure you're thinking through some complicated issues. And I worry about decisions that attempt to sort the fly shit from the pepper - getting mired in the minutiae of something like a dome light wire - without first getting REAL clear about the bigger issues, including philosophies that drive rules-making decisions...

Make the big decisions and frankly, decisions in response to specific requests almost make themselves. Leave those larger issues unattended and the little decisions are inconsistent, people get confused, and things slip out of control.

K

[JeffYoung]

And that I fully appreciate.

I 100% agree with you it is easy to miss unintended consequences with this stuff, and you asking the hard questions and making us think about these things is a good thing.

[lateapex911]

Kirks point regarding big decisions is super valid. That's why I wanted the process to get solidified sooo badly, because once that was done, things would be smooth sailing. Except for ITB where, evidently, an alternate universe exists and unique laws still apply.

[JeffYoung]

All I can tell you guys is, that (second sentence) is true so far. We have the tool in place to deal with weight issues quickly, and we did that on the last call.

ITB continues to be an issue for reasons I just don't understand, especially given that at least a cursory look at "on track" suggests we got stuff right. Racing is close with 4-5 chassis running up front.

Kirks point regarding big decisions is super valid. That's why I wanted the process to get solidified sooo badly, because once that was done, things would be smooth sailing. Except for ITB where, evidently, an alternate universe exists and unique laws still apply.

[Knestis]

Sorry if I'm supposed to know this but who's the ITAC liaison from the CRB now...?

K

[JeffYoung]

Jim Wheeler I think?

Josh?

[D. Ellis-Brown]

I beleive that the current rules change denial excuse of “Rules Creep” or outside of the Intent of Improved Touring, is no longer valid… The ECU change, final drive ratio change, adjustable spring perches, etc are significant examples of the evolution of IT and I agree that these changes are good and the ITAC were doing exactly the job for which they volunteered. So please no more “Rules Creep Excuses” for denying a common sense change, “ That ship has already sailed ! “ Any change should be considered if it makes sense and /or the majority of interested parties and stakeholders request the change. Period….

Now lets move on to reality. I come from an Engineering / Manufacturing background…. Changes in Engineering Design and Product Configuration were a way of life. I would like to follow a similar approach from that environment to that of the rule making process for the ITAC. Please follow my line of thinking.

Some change requests where critical and need to be implemented immediately due to product reliability, safety, etc… Critical changes similar to a vehicle recall…. We will call these Class “A” changes. Similar in our racing world too. I believe the CRB and ITAC already addresses these type of changes with a notification such as a tire, that can not be used due to some safety issue, or a seat belt that is suspect, and the like. The CRB and ITAC already have these under control.

Then there are what we will call “Class “B” changes”. These type of changes had a significant impact on the product form, fit or function. In IT rules world these types of changes have an impact on the performance of a vehicle, or group or over the entire IT Classification and will have a cost associated with it’s implementation. These types of changes deserve some serious dialogue and debate between the membership and the ITAC. The ultimate approval and/or rejection of the change should be made with significant input with the membership. If the majority of the membership are requesting the change and it’s implementation impact is clearly understood by all stake holders, then the change should be approved. An example of this type of change would be permitting the relocation of the battery. Costs for implementation should be reviewed and discussed, if the change is cost prohibitive, and would only favor a small number of stakeholders, then maybe the change should be rejected. Let the “stakeholders” participate in the decision making process.

And last but not least is what I will call “Class C changes”. These types of changes really do not change the form, fit or function (in a very liberal sense) of the function of the configuration and the change would be made across the board, to all models, class, groups, etc, have minimal impact on anyone, there are little to no costs associated with their implementation, and favor no particular vehicle. As the wording of the change would be "May" etc, thereby providing and/or permitting the change to be acted upon by a stakeholder. An example of these types of changes would be like the removal of a component, such as the windshield washer bottle, or the Horn, Heater core, and the like. These type of changes could also permit the movement of a component, such as switches, or a fuse panel, and the removal of wiring to a component that is already permitted to removed, like the dome light wiring, or the wiring to the sunroof motor, or the radio and speaker wiring, or the wiring for the power window motors that were in the front doors, and the like… These types of changes are available to everyone, cost little or nothing to implement, and are a convenience to the competitor. Basically removing non-value added items, and / or moving a component that would permit an ease of maintenance of the vehicle, but not provide an unfair or competitive advantage to anyone competitor.

I believe that if the ITAC would adapt an approach like this, It should make their lives a lot easier, permit the stakeholders of IT to feel some ownership in the rules making process, and may even eliminate some of the useless dialogue.

These are some ideas that I would like to recommend. What are your thoughts?


David Ellis-Brown


Lastly, Let me respond to Kirk's question---- Of course not, my approach was to get my car down to the allowed weight. The current rules, in my interpretation, make getting the car down to it's minimal weight, more difficult. Thereby making the constructor go thru extra, and unnecessary efforts to remove the weight. To take full advantage of the rules, we used a "rotisserie" to remove all of the undercoating, hotmelt, and the like from the underside and inside of the fender, wells. Now, does everyone building an IT car have a rotisserie available to them ? I don't beleive they do. Therefore giving a "unfair" advantage to those with such resources. Looks like an unintended consequence of having to retain "non value added" items that keep weight on the car. I have seen photos of your car, and have talked to several folks who have seen your car. Beautiful job, looks professionally built. Most of the IT competitors, don't have the resources that we do. Getting the car down to the minimum weight is the cheapest "horsepower advantage" you will ever get. Less weight helps in the braking area also. If in my interpretation of the rules, a "bracket" can be removed, I will remove it, all of it, whether it is bolted in or welded, since the current wording makes no differentiation, and any debate regarding the removal of welded or bolted bracket is non productive . I build my own cars. I have built 4 IT cars, and one of the first things I learned was to get the weight down to the minimum.

[GTIspirit]

I beleive that the current rules change denial excuse of “Rules Creep” or outside of the Intent of Improved Touring, is no longer valid… The ECU change, final drive ratio change, adjustable spring perches, etc are significant examples of the evolution of IT and I agree that these changes are good and the ITAC were doing exactly the job for which they volunteered. So please no more “Rules Creep Excuses” for denying a common sense change, “ That ship has already sailed ! “ Any change should be considered if it makes sense and /or the majority of interested parties and stakeholders request the change. Period….

Now lets move on to reality. I come from an Engineering / Manufacturing background…. Changes in Engineering Design and Product Configuration were a way of life. I would like to follow a similar approach from that environment to that of the rule making process for the ITAC. Please follow my line of thinking.

Some change requests where critical and need to be implemented immediately due to product reliability, safety, etc… Critical changes similar to a vehicle recall…. We will call these Class “A” changes. Similar in our racing world too. I believe the CRB and ITAC already addresses these type of changes with a notification such as a tire, that can not be used due to some safety issue, or a seat belt that is suspect, and the like. The CRB and ITAC already have these under control.

Then there are what we will call “Class “B” changes”. These type of changes had a significant impact on the product form, fit or function. In IT rules world these types of changes have an impact on the performance of a vehicle, or group or over the entire IT Classification and will have a cost associated with it’s implementation. These types of changes deserve some serious dialogue and debate between the membership and the ITAC. The ultimate approval and/or rejection of the change should be made with significant input with the membership. If the majority of the membership are requesting the change and it’s implementation impact is clearly understood by all stake holders, then the change should be approved. An example of this type of change would be permitting the relocation of the battery. Costs for implementation should be reviewed and discussed, if the change is cost prohibitive, and would only favor a small number of stakeholders, then maybe the change should be rejected. Let the “stakeholders” participate in the decision making process.

And last but not least is what I will call “Class C changes”. These types of changes really do not change the form, fit or function (in a very liberal sense) of the function of the configuration and the change would be made across the board, to all models, class, groups, etc, have minimal impact on anyone, there are little to no costs associated with their implementation, and favor no particular vehicle. As the wording of the change would be "May" etc, thereby providing and/or permitting the change to be acted upon by a stakeholder. An example of these types of changes would be like the removal of a component, such as the windshield washer bottle, or the Horn, Heater core, and the like. These type of changes could also permit the movement of a component, such as switches, or a fuse panel, and the removal of wiring to a component that is already permitted to removed, like the dome light wiring, or the wiring to the sunroof motor, or the radio and speaker wiring, or the wiring for the power window motors that were in the front doors, and the like… These types of changes are available to everyone, cost little or nothing to implement, and are a convenience to the competitor. Basically removing non-value added items, and / or moving a component that would permit an ease of maintenance of the vehicle, but not provide an unfair or competitive advantage to anyone competitor.

I believe that if the ITAC would adapt an approach like this, It should make their lives a lot easier, permit the stakeholders of IT to feel some ownership in the rules making process, and may even eliminate some of the useless dialogue.

These are some ideas that I would like to recommend. What are your thoughts?


David Ellis-Brown


Lastly, Let me respond to Kirk's question---- Of course not, my approach was to get my car down to the allowed weight. The current rules, in my interpretation, make getting the car down to it's minimal weight, more difficult. Thereby making the constructor go thru extra, and unnecessary efforts to remove the weight. To take full advantage of the rules, we used a "rotisserie" to remove all of the undercoating, hotmelt, and the like from the underside and inside of the fender, wells. Now, does everyone building an IT car have a rotisserie available to them ? I don't beleive they do. Therefore giving a "unfair" advantage to those with such resources. Looks like an unintended consequence of having to retain "non value added" items that keep weight on the car. I have seen photos of your car, and have talked to several folks who have seen your car. Beautiful job, looks professionally built. Most of the IT competitors, don't have the resources that we do. Getting the car down to the minimum weight is the cheapest "horsepower advantage" you will ever get. Less weight helps in the braking area also. If in my interpretation of the rules, a "bracket" can be removed, I will remove it, all of it, whether it is bolted in or welded, since the current wording makes no differentiation, and any debate regarding the removal of welded or bolted bracket is non productive . I build my own cars. I have built 4 IT cars, and one of the first things I learned was to get the weight down to the minimum.

D. Ellis-Brown for president! Well said and I totally agree with the suggestions.

[mossaidis]

^^ amen

[lateapex911]

What was the origin of the "anything in a stock box" rule? Not that it matters since it is so much water under the bridge, but I'm interested.

It was written before me but my understanding was it was a failed attempt at a 'chip it' rule that went kablooey when MoTec stareted making units small enough to fit into some stock ECU cases. The units plus the labor to hook them up through the factory wiring harness was HUGE money and created a large 'have' and 'have-not' disparity on the grids.

It's THE poster child for how rules MUST change to adapt to changing technology.

In the beginning, there WERE no ECUs. When they came out, they were ignored. Then the PTB thought that chipping was the equivilent to the "jetting" that carb guys were being allowed. So that became the standard.
(Ignore that SOME cars were classified BEFORE that rule so their weight, which if you assume was set assuming no ECU mods, was now light...a post classification comp adjustment to many people)
Then there were issues/complaints that not all ECUs COULD be chipped and that 'piggy back' boards were needed.
Soooo. ..the next iteration of the rule was "fine, whatever fits in the stock box".
The rest is history, and certain cars benefited hugely form shoving Motecs in there (at, as Andy points out, HUGE money) Other cars could do squat.

Couple this with the fact that the GR was taking place. I always knew the ECu would have to come out of the closet, because how do you class cars when only some can alter their ECUs? All post GR classifications were done based on the assumption that ECUs could be tuned. It's a pretty big 'wart' for some cars if you can't though. And of course limp modes and other invasive modes were becoming the norm. So it really had to be done.

But thankfully the same technology that started the mess gave us a reasonable out: The dropping price of processing power made cheap ECUs much more widespread.

[JeffYoung]

I agree. And any real "problem" with ECUs will be solved as carb'ed cars fade into uncompetitiveness, as the must.

It is a good sign that there are no carb'ed cars (I think) in ITR (maybe the 5.0 Mustang?).

That's how IT needs to go in my view. We won't do anything to cripple the carb'ed cars, but we won't do anything (in my view) to go out of the way to give them an "adjustment."

It's THE poster child for how rules MUST change to adapt to changing technology.

In the beginning, there WERE no ECUs. When they came out, they were ignored. Then the PTB thought that chipping was the equivilent to the "jetting" that carb guys were being allowed. So that became the standard.
(Ignore that SOME cars were classified BEFORE that rule so their weight, which if you assume was set assuming no ECU mods, was now light...a post classification comp adjustment to many people)
Then there were issues/complaints that not all ECUs COULD be chipped and that 'piggy back' boards were needed.
Soooo. ..the next iteration of the rule was "fine, whatever fits in the stock box".
The rest is history, and certain cars benefited hugely form shoving Motecs in there (at, as Andy points out, HUGE money) Other cars could do squat.

Couple this with the fact that the GR was taking place. I always knew the ECu would have to come out of the closet, because how do you class cars when only some can alter their ECUs? All post GR classifications were done based on the assumption that ECUs could be tuned. It's a pretty big 'wart' for some cars if you can't though. And of course limp modes and other invasive modes were becoming the norm. So it really had to be done.

But thankfully the same technology that started the mess gave us a reasonable out: The dropping price of processing power made cheap ECUs much more widespread.

[Knestis]

[Lots of well-considered and -articulated input]

Go ahead and advocate that you want those "Class C changes" fast-tracked and loosened up, David, but please don't perpetuate the falsehoods that...

** They "cost little or nothing to implement"

** They favor no particular vehicle; are available [equally] to everyone

** "Ease of maintenance" is not an advantage

** They do not provide an unfair or competitive advantage to any particular make/model

Each is variously not true by definition, an exaggeration, or not a safe assumption given what we know about unintended consequences.

K

PS - Pablo is still 40# heavy of our minimum race weight but it should be noted that we would still have stripped off the undercoating (etc.) even if we anticipated being UNDERWEIGHT. The freedom to put weight back in where one wants it is a great example of how what you propose would further bias the benefit to cars that require ballast to meet their minimum weights.

[Eagle7]

If the majority of the membership are requesting the change...

Could someone please explain to me what this means? Majority of SCCA members? That would be thousands. Majority of IT drivers? Might still be thousands. Majority of those responding to a poll on IT.com, or majority of those that write in to offer feedback? Not necessarily representative at all.

[JeffYoung]

And that is one of the key issues with my position and that of David's -- how do you know what drivers in IT actually want?

I do boil it down to those that want to be heard on an issue will be, and it is their opinion that matters since they are the ones who actually cared to voice it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Could someone please explain to me what this means? Majority of SCCA members? That would be thousands. Majority of IT drivers? Might still be thousands. Majority of those responding to a poll on IT.com, or majority of those that write in to offer feedback? Not necessarily representative at all.

Well, we have a mechhanism to determine this. It gets published in our official rules-making-asking vehicle - Fast Track. You get asked for your opinion and you DON'T weight in, you are simply not counted - or more appropriately, your vote IS counted - as one who doesn't care either way. Just like a vote for an elected official.

[lateapex911]

And that is one of the key issues with my position and that of David's -- how do you know what drivers in IT actually want?

I do boil it down to those that want to be heard on an issue will be, and it is their opinion that matters since they are the ones who actually cared to voice it.

Further, and beyond the actual polling and feedback from Fastrack, it is why there IS an ITAC. The ITAC members job is to be in touch with, and understand the wants and pulse of the racer. (Among other aspects of the position).
It was one of the reasons I traveled quite a bit, instead of hanging close to home to race. During my tenure on the ITAC, I talked to racers about all things IT in the paddocks of Sears Point, Mid Ohio, Pocono, Watkins Glen, New jersey Motorsports Park, Lime Rock, New Hampshire, Summit Point, VIR, and Road Atlanta. Things are pretty varied geographically. I learned a lot and it helped me understand why people say the things they do.

I was rather annoyed that certain fellow ITAC=ers did not actually race in IT, nor make an effort to communicate with IT racers, either at the track or via boards like this one, yet their vote, however uninformed it was, counted. I think the engine mount debacle, for example, can be blamed on an inability to understand the actual racing scene on the part of certain individuals.

Conversely, it's the ITAC members job, as well, to protect the members from things they think they want, but fail to understand completely, which can result in a reality quite different than what they envisioned. Again, being at the track and racing helps with those judgments.

[AjG]

The freedom to put weight back in where one wants it is a great example of how what you propose would further bias the benefit to cars that require ballast to meet their minimum weights.

But isn’t that bias irrelevant in the “eyes” of the Process?
Weight distribution is an unaccounted-for variable. Minimum weight is much more important because it is part of the classing equation. Any increase in the number of cars that can attain min weight will increase the accuracy of classing cars. There might be a shift in advantage but a total net gain in parity.

[Knestis]

... There might be a shift in advantage but a total net gain in parity.

That's a fair statement. More cars would be able to make their minimum weight, but at the cost of those who already CAN do so gaining even more flexibility re: where they put it back in.

How about that 1.5" OD x .75" wall tubing for the upward cage elements connecting the main hoop feet with the rear strut towers...?



Point being, no change is ever completely "competition-neutral," and likely has both upsides and downsides.

K