December 2011 Fastrack

[jjjanos]

The purpose of that allowance was to provide SOME relief, in terms of availability, ease, and cost, while constraining the parts to the "equivalent" of OEM parts - to take advantage of the aftermarket parts stream that follows cars around the marketplace.

What you're missing - or more likely don't agree with - is that while that logic could be extended to include plastic windows (etc.), the perceived risk to the stability and consistency of the category is judged to be too high relative to the benefits to individuals likely to result.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

K

Mark 2:27 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

You sound like a Baptist who wants to outlaw fornication because it might lead to dancing.


What is the philosophy of the category?

Improved Touring classes are intended to provide the membership with the opportunity to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition. To that end, cars will be models, as offered for sale in the United States. They will be prepared to manufacturer’s specifications except for modifications permitted by these rules.

When the price of replacing a fender or bumper or window glass becomes expensive, the rules no longer meet the category purpose -- competition in low cost cars. The equivalent rule made sense when such parts existed. In an increasing number of cases, and probably at an accelerating rate, the availability of such parts is becoming problematic. The purpose allows for limited modifications. The purpose calls for low cost cars.

The idea of creep went out the window long ago. Shocks, exhausts, spherical bearings, alternate final drives..... clinging to a prohibition for alternate window material is like someone claiming they are a virgin because it's only been the tip.

[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"

[Andy Bettencourt]

When the price of replacing a fender or bumper or window glass becomes expensive, the rules no longer meet the category purpose -- competition in low cost cars. The equivalent rule made sense when such parts existed. In an increasing number of cases, and probably at an accelerating rate, the availability of such parts is becoming problematic. The purpose allows for limited modifications. The purpose calls for low cost cars.

Please write a rule that will address current Hoosier pricing...thanks.

[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.

[Ron Earp]

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

that disables the lock, right?

No, the lock can be disabled without relocating the switch. I do not think the language supported relocation of the switch. Nor do the IT rule set support removal of the carbon canister and other little items.

It appears that racers take action on these issues based on the rules they "heard", but didn't read. Or, because it is "the right thing to do". I'm guilty as charged.

[Andy Bettencourt]

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.

Jeff, when you look at your ignition switch, it certainly can INDICATE if you have activated the system. I can see how some saw that.

I see no way how you don't think the ignition switch is part of the 'system', especially when the definition states that the system starts at the battery in the form of stored power. It is, in fact, an integral part of getting that power to the 'timed pulses'. Without it, nothing happens, by GCR definition.

I am all for clearing up the rules, but alternate ignition switches have certainly been legal.

To me, it's another part that can fail when you have a perfectly good solution from the OEM so I use my key but 'real racecars' don't use keys.

[gran racing]

When disabling the lock system, one of the methods (at least in Hondas) it to drill out the button. With my previous Prelude, I accidently went a tiny bit too far and it broke the ignition. So I didn't have to replace the whole ignition, I used a start button although I believe it still needed a key in the switch for some reason. The point being is sometimes people remove the switch to "be cool" while others do it somewhat by accident.

Wow, it's only December. Feb's threads are gonna be interesting! lol

[tom91ita]

No, the lock can be disabled without relocating the switch. I do not think the language supported relocation of the switch. Nor do the IT rule set support removal of the carbon canister and other little items.

It appears that racers take action on these issues based on the rules they "heard", but didn't read. Or, because it is "the right thing to do". I'm guilty as charged.

i agree it can be but the rules do not say it must be disabled without relocating.

i still have my stock switch but pulled it apart and buggered it up to get the locking pin out of it.

the charcoal canister is gone but i did find a very similar one from a parted out later Honda that will be installed. expect the ruling to allow it to be removed at install date plus 3 months.

[JeffYoung]

Everyone on the existing ITAC, including our CRB liasions disagreed with you.

So at a minimum, I'd say there is a reasonable disagreement over this.

At a maximum, I'd call you a bumbling, rules nerd lummox!

Just no reason not to make this clear.

Jeff, when you look at your ignition switch, it certainly can INDICATE if you have activated the system. I can see how some saw that.

I see no way how you don't think the ignition switch is part of the 'system', especially when the definition states that the system starts at the battery in the form of stored power. It is, in fact, an integral part of getting that power to the 'timed pulses'. Without it, nothing happens, by GCR definition.

I am all for clearing up the rules, but alternate ignition switches have certainly been legal.

To me, it's another part that can fail when you have a perfectly good solution from the OEM so I use my key but 'real racecars' don't use keys.

[gran racing]

What's the true benefit of making this clear? We know some people in the paddock already do this, I can't see an advantage of doing it, so let it go.

THIS is a wonderful example of what younger people are complaining about.

[Ron Earp]

What's the true benefit of making this clear? We know some people in the paddock already do this, I can't see an advantage of

So it'll be 100% legal and we won't waste time on frivolous protests or arguments?

Sure, people already do it, no doubt about that. I had a remote ignition, lots of toggle switches relocating factory switchgear, and no carbon canister or anything that was remotely emissions related. Everyone else I race with had exactly the same setup.

But just because most of us do it doesn't make it legal.

[gran racing]

we won't waste time on frivolous protests

Have there been multiple protests on this? Otherwise seems like we're doing the opposite of what your goal is.

But just because most of us do it doesn't make it legal.

Never said that but again, I can totally see now how the nitpicking and revising rules such as this produces the perception some have about the category.

[Flyinglizard]

When most of the class does something,It is the new rule.

What you should do is to have a note book with the rules as written and the rule as it really is. Have the racers sign the book and send a copy to the rule nerds, AB.

This whole conversation is why new guys go else where. Slippery slope yada .

[jjjanos]

What's the true benefit of making this clear? We know some people in the paddock already do this, I can't see an advantage of doing it, so let it go.

Because Fernado Gofast is going to throw paper at Michael Cobbler about his illegal cam, pistons and the removal of the key. Fernado thinks the cam and pistons are illegal, and thinks there are other things illegal but isn't sure. Just in case the cam and pistons are legal, Cobbler is going to get bounced for that starter button.

THIS is a wonderful example of what younger people are complaining about.

Wait until one of them gets DQ'ld from the ARRC or IT*Fest for the starter button.

[JeffYoung]

Something like that happened to the ITS ARRC winner a few years back.

He had the ballast in the passenger floor, when it was supposed to be in the footwell.

Pretty ticky-tacky, but it cost (was it James Clay?) them an ARRC win.

[chuck baader]

Was actually Kip VanSteinburg that got DQed from the ARRC after winning ITS. Bad part about it was that he asked a steward about the placement of the weight before the race and was told it was good. He's still pissed. Chuck

[D. Ellis-Brown]

I find I find the dialogue on this subject quite amusing. I would dare say, That prior to this rule change, less than 10% of the IT cars that show up would pass a protest. I could be wrong, but I have been a competitor in IT since 1985, and adding / relocating of switches has be done for a long time. Why, because the rules as written were interpreted to permit it. Several years ago, 2006, the IT rules would permit "non competitive" modifications to the car as long as you did not gain a performance advantage. Under B Intent, the rule read "Other than those specifically allowed by these rule, no component or part, found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered or removed for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage". Now, was the relocation of a switch, or for that matter a replacement of same, which did (or does) not have a definition in the glossary, gain a competitor a competitive advantage. In my judgement, No. The Intent statement was modified in 2007, and was published in the ITCS in 2008. Numerous rule changes have been made to offset the elimination of the aforementioned verbage. In the past I have referenced many of the parts that are now permitted to be removed as "non value added" for a purpose built race car. Windshield washer bottles, horns, undercoating, cruise control, etc. etc. can now be removed. I believe that the ITAC & CRB have better things to address.

I believe in the general philosophy of IT, limited modifications to the engines, transmissions, retaining body configuration, and the like to keep costs down, and a continuation of of that philosophy should remain. I believe that modifications should be made for the purpose of saftey, useful to keep costs down, and that would also include maintenance, in time and money.

Is it the intent of the ITAC and the CRB to review, discuss, debate and act upon each and every part that may be installed on newer IT cars for consideration for removal? Let's start with " Can security systems be eliminated? Can rain activated windshield wiper systems be disabled? Can traction control systems be disabled?,etc. etc. and the list goes on, or is it time to use some common sense and permit " a component or part, found on a stock example of a given model may be disabled, altered, or removed as long as no competitive advantage is obtained". I believe that the current ITAC participants, along with inputs from IT competitors can come with acceptable verbage and address this potential issue once and for all and potentially head off many hours of conference calls. Only my opinion.

Sincerely, David Ellis-Brown

[Z3_GoCar]

Funny, there's no allowance to change the oil. Yet find me a racer that doesn't do this?