December 2011 Fastrack

[shwah]

I don't like the motor mount rule.
I don't like the wheel rule.
I am ambivalent to the horns/washers/etc rule.
I would rather see the charcoal canister get addressed over all of these...

[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

[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.”

[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

[JohnW8]

I wrote it, so I know.

Sorry, I didn't know you wrote it.

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

My car still has a key.

[Andy Bettencourt]

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.

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. Especially when you read the definition of Ignition System in the Glossary. It rolls from battery all the way through.

You could also make an argument that an ignition switch is an 'instrument', which is also free.

I like my key.

[Knestis]

Kirk 9:52

"I like fornication. I don't like dancing"

[tom91ita]

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. Especially when you read the definition of Ignition System in the Glossary. It rolls from battery all the way through.

You could also make an argument that an ignition switch is an 'instrument', which is also free.

I like my key.

i always thought the part about disabling the steering wheel lock/switch meant you could redo the ignition switch.

that disables the lock, right?

[JeffYoung]

A starter button and ignition switch is not an "instrument."

MAYBE an ignition switch is party of the ignition system, defined as:

Ignition System –

A system which converts on-board storage battery
supply voltage into a timed sequence of high voltage pulses suitable for

igniting engine combustion mixtures in a controlled manner.

But I would say it is not since the switch has zero to do with converting voltage into a timed sequence of pulses.

In no way is a starter button part of the "ignition system."

Nor is there presently any allowance for switch panels with switches for lights, wipers, etc.

Why intorturate? Instead, write the rule clearly like we did.

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. Especially when you read the definition of Ignition System in the Glossary. It rolls from battery all the way through.

You could also make an argument that an ignition switch is an 'instrument', which is also free.

I like my key.

[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.

[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.....

[Flyinglizard]

Nice job. I have been hoarding the 13x6 wheels (JW) and scared about not having my rear window wiper on. I am pretty sure that my charcoae thing is in there someplace.
It is about time that SCCA has let the racers decide what is the best way.

[Knestis]

Bookmark this post, as I'll stand by it 5 years from now: Additional allowances will not decrease the mean age of IT entrants in a statistically significant way between now and 2016.

The only thing it will do is shift what some minority of people will complain about, from washer bottles to stock bodywork, boring old stamped steel control arms, glass windows, and stock brakes. Will the ITAC accept requests for those changes when they are the "only thing keeping young racers from racing in IT?"

NASA's advantage in the market has one primary cause: Their integrated HPDE and racing programs, that make it very easy for someone to learn and make the transition to W2W racing if they want. That new NASA racers trend younger than SCCA is largely because it's a newer organization, they are better at attracting new racers of all ages, and new racers tend to be younger than those who have done it for a long time. (That should be largely self-evident.)

And with respect to history, the B Spec rule set looks VERY much like IT c.1990 or thereabouts (post seat and headliner allowances; big whoop). It will be a success despite those "primitive rules."

K

[JeffYoung]

Will we ever be able to proved statisically that eliminating the washer bottle rule caused x number of younger races to race SCCA? No, we won't -- I agree with you on that.

Is there a perception that the SCCA is an unfriendly, hard to deal with, anachronistic organization that is not racer friendly? Yep. Is the washer bottle rule in IT one small part of that? Yep.

We all have a different vision of the fringes of what IT prep should look like, but we aren't talking about the things that continually get listed as the "next step" in IT allowances and when they are brought up -- cams, wings, fiberglass body panels -- they are almost unamiously shouted down.

The B-Spec ruleset may appeal to some, or even a lot of folks. Will be interesting. I have no interest because I have no desire to race that type of car, but I'm not sure why it has anything to do with IT. It looks like it is going to be a close-ish to showroom stock series with manufacturer support for econoboxes. Again, that doesn't interest me, although I wish it well, but I see little if any parallel to IT.

[RacerBill]

Just my opinion here, since someone brought up the difference between NASA and SCCA. What I see as the big difference is that NASA allows racers to make the changes that they feel will make their cars faster with a structure that provides for a driver to determine what class he wants to run in, where SCCA provides a class structure that defines what you can do to a car to make it faster and you build within that framework. Two philosophical positions. Not saying if one is better than another. I prefer the SCCA framework. Others will like NASA. I do agree that we need to do a better job getting drivers to move up from autocross, to PDX, to W2W.

[Knestis]

Will we ever be able to proved statisically that eliminating the washer bottle rule caused x number of younger races to race SCCA? No, we won't -- I agree with you on that.

Is there a perception that the SCCA is an unfriendly, hard to deal with, anachronistic organization that is not racer friendly? Yep. Is the washer bottle rule in IT one small part of that? Yep.

We all have a different vision of the fringes of what IT prep should look like, but we aren't talking about the things that continually get listed as the "next step" in IT allowances and when they are brought up -- cams, wings, fiberglass body panels -- they are almost unamiously shouted down.

The B-Spec ruleset may appeal to some, or even a lot of folks. Will be interesting. I have no interest because I have no desire to race that type of car, but I'm not sure why it has anything to do with IT. It looks like it is going to be a close-ish to showroom stock series with manufacturer support for econoboxes. Again, that doesn't interest me, although I wish it well, but I see little if any parallel to IT.

I won't even as for attribution - or even correlation with "age" as a single factor. I'll bet you a nice dinner that IT entrants won't be any younger in 5 years. Period. I'll kind of win either way because we'll get to have dinner but I'll buy the drinks and be designated driver, too.

The problem here is that if "attracting youth" is the rationale for "updating" the rule set, we're setting ourselves up for an ongoing game of Whack-a-Mole. New racers will bring incremental desires to continue that process and will simply - I guarantee it - ask for whatever is next. If the rationale for the policy holds today, it will hold in 2 years. You haven't removed the line in the sand; you've just moved it to a new arbitrary location. And most new drivers won't last more than 3 years anyway, so you're writing rules that will barely have a chance to be read before your target audience has moved on to mountain biking or some such.

Spec B doesn't appeal to you (Jeff) because of the type of car that's involved. Point, Kirk. It's not the rule set that makes the final determination of popularity. It's the sum of a complex pile of factors. I absolutely do not believe that, had this most recent set of new allowances been in place 3 years ago, that IT fields would be any larger than they are now. Viewed differently, the rules, while someone can ALWAYS find something to whine about, have not in and of themselves chased off anyone who wouldn't have gone to do something else anyway. And new classes simply further dilute the existing pool of willing racers.

But again, it's all academic at this point. We haven't done ANYTHING to change the root causes of the big issue - unfriendly, hard to deal with, anachronistic - so we're chasing shadows.

K

[JeffYoung]

This has been a good discussion.

Let me try to sum up one thing though. I'm not in favor of just granting allowances whenever asked. But I'm also not in favor of a completely static result that is not in some way responsive to member input.

There is a tension there and a needed balance between a 'whack a mole" situation where we are updating the rules every 2-3 years on the one hand, and a situation where we make no changes over a 20 year period and drive members off in frustration.

I'll be honest -- I think I show respect for the reasons why we don't want the former, but soemtimes I think there is a willing to die by principle in favor of the latter.

Let me expound a bit on B Spec. The car set doesn't appeal to me, and neither does the ruleset. That's not a knock on B Spec, it is just a personal preference.

Maybe there is an interest in a showroom stockish type situation like that. I don't see it. At least on the regional level, showroom stock is not doing well and racers appear to prefer a different level of prep.

I do think this. I think a reasonably updated ruleset that does address some member's concerns is a pretty key part of addressing the "anachronistic, unfriendly, ...." issue.

I am not one of the NASA Haters, but I do find their rulesets goofy, too fluid and too willing to create-a-class on a whim. That said, there is SOMETHING going on over there that we could learn from without destroying our culture, and to me the key thing is doing what we can to keep rulesets reasonably "fresh."

Josh was absoluitely right that one of the things we must do is work to ensure that IT does not become a vintage class. Sometimes I think it is in danger of that, and then I see things like what has happened in B, and is happening in S, with newer cars coming in and being very competitive.

Dinner and beers on me. I owe you and Andy and Jake -- with the process in place we now actually finish our ITAC calls early, get cars classed quickly, and the CRB loves us!

I won't even as for attribution - or even correlation with "age" as a single factor. I'll bet you a nice dinner that IT entrants won't be any younger in 5 years. Period. I'll kind of win either way because we'll get to have dinner but I'll buy the drinks and be designated driver, too.

The problem here is that if "attracting youth" is the rationale for "updating" the rule set, we're setting ourselves up for an ongoing game of Whack-a-Mole. New racers will bring incremental desires to continue that process and will simply - I guarantee it - ask for whatever is next. If the rationale for the policy holds today, it will hold in 2 years. You haven't removed the line in the sand; you've just moved it to a new arbitrary location. And most new drivers won't last more than 3 years anyway, so you're writing rules that will barely have a chance to be read before your target audience has moved on to mountain biking or some such.

Spec B doesn't appeal to you (Jeff) because of the type of car that's involved. Point, Kirk. It's not the rule set that makes the final determination of popularity. It's the sum of a complex pile of factors. I absolutely do not believe that, had this most recent set of new allowances been in place 3 years ago, that IT fields would be any larger than they are now. Viewed differently, the rules, while someone can ALWAYS find something to whine about, have not in and of themselves chased off anyone who wouldn't have gone to do something else anyway. And new classes simply further dilute the existing pool of willing racers.

But again, it's all academic at this point. We haven't done ANYTHING to change the root causes of the big issue - unfriendly, hard to deal with, anachronistic - so we're chasing shadows.

K

[Knestis]

The primary influence on ANYTHING participation-wise right now is the economy. It would take "new cars" - not young drivers - to keep IT from vintification but there's zero motivation to build "new cars" at the moment, with the combination of tight discretionary-money situations and a glut of useful cars on the used market.

I was a little surprised to learn this week that a perfectly reasonable, early MINI can be had now off the street for less than $3000. It's essentially the same beast as is in the dealers today but nobody is going to build one.

...but y'all have what we call in my business a "lack of consensus regarding your theory-of-action." You're using the rules as a policy lever to result in SOMETHING - you all just aren't in agreement what it is, and how removing the washer bottle gets us there. Put differently, it's called "strategic ambiguity." It allows deflection of one closed argument of logic to be deflected to another. The less clear we are about how the action is supposed to influence the outcome - with more factors and logical paths to results in play - the less we can be sure we know what we are trying to do. It's easier to defend but less likely to be efficacious.

K