A Poll Regarding the IT Rules Set

[JoshS]

And when I read rules or other similar material I always ask myself "why is that rule there?". In the case of retaining washer bottles, heater cores, and a couple of other items I can't find a logical reason to keep them, especially in light of what we ARE allowed to change in IT.

This might sound like I'm just arguing semantics, but ... there are no rules that talks about washer bottles or heater cores. So there is nothing to read to ask, "Why is that rule there?"

What you would need to ask is why ISN'T that rule there? And I submit that it's probably not there because no one thought it was necessary, and they wanted to keep the ruleset simple and small.

[AjG]

The good news is that no one cares anyway.
Every time I go off track some extraneous piece of ancient plastic gets forever lost in the Nelson tirewall. This year the passenger side glass fell victim to the armco at Beaver Run. Unfortunately, the impact didn’t dislodge the heater core or it would be gone as well. The first two times I took the motor out I diligently replaced the heater hoses, the third time…not so much.
In an effort to equalize these indiscretions I’ve purposely kept my car under-prepped in all areas of performance: an $800 motor (saved money by reusing the rings), nonadjustable sway bars, 20 year old shocks, 150 lbs. overweight, and a stock ECU(carburetor).
The point is (in case any new people are reading this), that the IT represented on this board is not necessarily the reality at the track. The track is waaaaay more fun.
And since no one checks anything in IT ever, like never ever, the idea is to run an honest drivetrain and suspension, make sure the exterior looks pretty much stock, and have fun.
By the way, I voted no… because if you let’em take the mudflaps off, they’re gonna show up with turbos.
Just kidding, I voted yes.

[JoshS]

And since no one checks anything in IT ever, like never ever, the idea is to run an honest drivetrain and suspension, make sure the exterior looks pretty much stock, and have fun.

"Never ever?" We had a competitor-filed protest in ITS this past weekend.

[AjG]

We had a competitor-filed protest in ITS this past weekend.

washer bottle?

[spawpoet]

The good news is that no one cares anyway.
Every time I go off track some extraneous piece of ancient plastic gets forever lost in the Nelson tirewall. This year the passenger side glass fell victim to the armco at Beaver Run. Unfortunately, the impact didn’t dislodge the heater core or it would be gone as well. The first two times I took the motor out I diligently replaced the heater hoses, the third time…not so much.
In an effort to equalize these indiscretions I’ve purposely kept my car under-prepped in all areas of performance: an $800 motor (saved money by reusing the rings), nonadjustable sway bars, 20 year old shocks, 150 lbs. overweight, and a stock ECU(carburetor).
The point is (in case any new people are reading this), that the IT represented on this board is not necessarily the reality at the track. The track is waaaaay more fun.
And since no one checks anything in IT ever, like never ever, the idea is to run an honest drivetrain and suspension, make sure the exterior looks pretty much stock, and have fun.
By the way, I voted no… because if you let’em take the mudflaps off, they’re gonna show up with turbos.
Just kidding, I voted yes.

Now see I like your approach. You're right. The reality is this whole discussion is noise more than anything else. Can anybody out there come up with an example of a protest over an item as insignificant as a washer bottle??

[Z3_GoCar]

Let me get this straight... There's a rule that says I can remove the kick panels from my dash, but the glove box isn't mentioned at all. My glove box connects to the kick panels, so if I remove what I'm allowed to then the glove box sort of just hangs below the dash. Since I'm not allowed to remove the glove box, the kick panels which I'm allowed to remove have to stay. Does this make sense?

As for the washer bottle, I've go one and it'll be in the car along with the heater core.

[Z3_GoCar]

Now see I like your approach. You're right. The reality is this whole discussion is noise more than anything else. Can anybody out there come up with an example of a protest over an item as insignificant as a washer bottle??

Last one we had that I remember was a dealer installed rear spoiler, that was mentioned in the factory brochure. I think he'd been running it for over 6 months by the time of protest.

[Ron Earp]

This might sound like I'm just arguing semantics, but ... there are no rules that talks about washer bottles or heater cores. So there is nothing to read to ask, "Why is that rule there?"

What you would need to ask is why ISN'T that rule there? And I submit that it's probably not there because no one thought it was necessary, and they wanted to keep the ruleset simple and small.

Yes Josh, you're arguing semantics here.

Apparently I'm not the only one who reads at the rule set and says "So, I can use any ECU I want, any shocks I wish, and I CAN'T remove my heater core, washer bottle, and HVAC system?"

So yes, I ask "Why isn't there a rule that allows me to remove those non-racable bits in my race car?"

We covered this a couple of pages ago.

Ron

[shwah]

Yes Ron we covered this a couple pages ago.

The answer is "because there is not a compelling reason TO allow removing these items."

The current ITAC cannot be responsible for the decisions in years or decades past, but they do have a responsibility to 'protect' the rule set from creep in the present. This merry go round is getting old. You guys that think you need to take stuff off to make a 'real race car' don't want to hear what others are saying. The horse is dead and I'm out of this one.

[JeffYoung]

Chris, we here you. And our side, you joke about the compelling reason we assert -- this is a club, and if the club's membership wants X and it doesn't affect the core values of the class, that is reason enough.

This is no different than the FWD modifier, the allowance of 15" wheels for all cars in S and A, or the process as a whole, etc. etc. etc.. It's change that the membership wanted.

[Andy Bettencourt]

This is no different than the FWD modifier, the allowance of 15" wheels for all cars in S and A, or the process as a whole, etc. etc. etc.. It's change that the membership wanted.

...that was predicated on a NEED.

[JeffYoung]

In your view, yes, it was. In others it might not have been. Again, back to subjective line drawing right?

On Edit. Let's use the wheel allowance as an example. 14" performance wheels were getting hard to find. Membership expressed a preference -- a preference, because if you spent the dollars you could still use 14s -- to allow S and A cars to use 15" wheels even if they didn't come with them stock. Cost people money -- cost me several thousand dollars to move from my 13s to 15s. And that's fine, I was ok with it.

Let's look at the wiring harness, or even the windshield washer......plenty of 30 year old IT cars have rotted out harnesses. You can spend a lot of time and money messing with them to comply with the rule, or you could change the rule to allow a simple replacement harness that has no performance benefit other than reliability. Windshield washer bottle and motor -- I LOST mine in a car wash and had to buy another one, for my car the bottle was $100 and the motor for the washer is NLA. So yes, I can say, for me, to a certain extent there is a need, albeit a small one, that in my view outweighs any potential harm that could come from making these allowances.

That's where the real difference is I think. And there certainly was no need for the FWD modifier, or the live rear axle modifier. There was the perception that making those allowances would better balance the classes......

[Andy Bettencourt]

In your view, yes, it was. In others it might not have been. Again, back to subjective line drawing right?

On Edit. Let's use the wheel allowance as an example. 14" performance wheels were getting hard to find. Membership expressed a preference -- a preference, because if you spent the dollars you could still use 14s -- to allow S and A cars to use 15" wheels even if they didn't come with them stock. Cost people money -- cost me several thousand dollars to move from my 13s to 15s. And that's fine, I was ok with it.

Jeff, you didn't HAVE to get 15's. Really. The preference was driven by a need. A need to not have to spend a years racing budget on wheels because availablity was an issue. The issue had been requested many times before - and was resisted until the ITAC felt that the issue was a need and not a 'want'.

That's where the real difference is I think. And there certainly was no need for the FWD modifier, or the live rear axle modifier. There was the perception that making those allowances would better balance the classes......

If you don't see the issue of better balance in the classes as a 'need' and not a want, we are chasing our tails. But I agree your line is your line. Everyone has their own.