IT to ST crossover cage rules

[Chip42]

That's bad rules reading - it's an IT car, with an IT cage. IT cars may run in ST. The car is legal.

counter example: if you wanted to run in Production, and ran a non compliant cage, then the tech would be correct to point out that your car did not meet minimum production safety requirements as the PCS does not state that IT cars may compete in IT trim. The fact that some IT cars meet production requirements does not mean that they must or that those which do not may run as production as-is.

the STCS specifically states that IT cars compliant to IT rules may run in ST.

If this is really a problem, write a letter to the ITAC and request that the cage rules in the GCR be referenced within the ITCS, then a car prepped to IT regs is specifically compliant in ST with a cage that does not meet ST rules.

[dickita15]

That's bad rules reading - it's an IT car, with an IT cage. IT cars may run in ST. The car is legal.

counter example: if you wanted to run in Production, and ran a non compliant cage, then the tech would be correct to point out that your car did not meet minimum production safety requirements as the PCS does not state that IT cars may compete in IT trim. The fact that some IT cars meet production requirements does not mean that they must or that those which do not may run as production as-is.

the STCS specifically states that IT cars compliant to IT rules may run in ST.

If this is really a problem, write a letter to the ITAC and request that the cage rules in the GCR be referenced within the ITCS, then a car prepped to IT regs is specifically compliant in ST with a cage that does not meet ST rules.

I agree completely with this interpretation. The problem will become the first time you make any modification that is allowed in ST and not in IT all ST requirements kick in.
As Greg states this is a philosophical question for the CRB with the input of the STAC.

[Chip42]

additional IT cars that ARE legal in ST even though they aren't compliant to the ST rules (I am not arguing against this, just pointing out that the people readng the cage rules are missing other opportunities to be wrong):

1)ANY ITR car running the maximum allowed wheel rim width for ITR (8.5") in STU or L.

2)Integra type R or S2000 (2.0L) built to ITR rules in STL

3) any 2ZZ-GE powered car (ITR Celica GTS, ITS Corolla XRS) in STL (too much valve lift)

4) Many cars which are underweight by the ST class rules when running at ITCS prescribed weight, such as the Mazda Protege ES 2.0L (ITA), Lexus IS300 (ITR), Nissan 300ZX (ITR or ITS), MAzda miata (ITS), etc...

[Dano77]

WOW

[jhooten]

We had the weight argument in tech. It cars got to run their IT weight after much ado.

[Chip42]

We had the weight argument in tech. It cars got to run their IT weight after much ado.

as it should be.

STAC - I've said it before but Tech DOESN'T GET this class. what can you do to educate them? I'm asking seriously because other than tech bulletins and whatnot, I'm not sure. I have a good relationship with Toni, she is or at least was the national chief. maybe she has ideas?

[Greg Amy]

STAC - I've said it before but Tech DOESN'T GET this class. what can you do to educate them?

One of the key goals of the mid-year re-write of the category philosophy (the whole front of "the book") was to do just that. I suggest unless there's something missing from there, all one really needs to do is read the opening sections of the Super Touring Category Specifications.

And if that doesn't work, then use the protest/appeal process to get the point across to specific individuals in the local organization.

Keep in mind that the regulatory issues at hand here are ONLY GCR main body SAFETY issues, such as roll cage, cell, etc. if someone is getting their ITx car bounced because of weight, prep, cams, etc then it's solely due to people not reading the regs. There's not much we can do about that, and the protest/appeals process is your friend.

GA

Edit: Also recall that I wrote a CRB column in SportsCar (the issue that arrived immediately after the Runoffs) bringing all this to the attention of the membership/hierarchy...

While there are legitimate (but IMO, incorrect) disagreements in regard to the safety questions, I kinda think we've done our homework, but you can't FORCE people to read the regs for the other stuff. "Horse to water" and all that...

[smbstyle]

any update to this? do we see the rule getting changed to make it an optional tube for ST?

[JS154]

additional IT cars that ARE legal in ST even though they aren't compliant to the ST rules (I am not arguing against this, just pointing out that the people readng the cage rules are missing other opportunities to be wrong):

1)ANY ITR car running the maximum allowed wheel rim width for ITR (8.5") in STU or L.

2)Integra type R or S2000 (2.0L) built to ITR rules in STL

3) any 2ZZ-GE powered car (ITR Celica GTS, ITS Corolla XRS) in STL (too much valve lift)

4) Many cars which are underweight by the ST class rules when running at ITCS prescribed weight, such as the Mazda Protege ES 2.0L (ITA), Lexus IS300 (ITR), Nissan 300ZX (ITR or ITS), MAzda miata (ITS), etc...

Engine coolant lines in the passenger compartment:

Along with *any* car from IT or Touring or Showroom Stock or Spec Miata that has lines containing engine coolant entering the passenger compartment, which is specifically disallowed in ST.

It allows disconnecting/plugging of the lines. SS, SM and T do not specifically allow removal or plugging of the lines or heater core. So any car from SS, SM or T - that want to enter in ST, MUST eliminate lines conatining engine coolant from running through the passenger compartment. IT cars can plug them, since this is allowed under their rules.