Heater cores

[Knestis]

>> I will never remove a working heater from a race car, unless the rules require it. - GA

Ditto.

This discussion reminds me of fights I used to have with the ex-girlfriend: It's always the same, it has predictable outcomes, and could be scripted around [insertyourfavoritethingtoremovehere], too.

It does NOT however have make-up sex, so why go through it again? :026:

If you don't get the overarching rationale behind not allowing more and more pieces to be removed from IT cars, then you've probably just got a philosophical difference of opinion about "what a race car is supposed to be." Actually, someone who HAS that philosophy is probably predisposed to ask for those allowances, so it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. You are allowed to have those differences of opinion but I'm pretty confident that the current ITAC understands that it's their role to preserve what's good about the category and - regardless of individual priorities - heater cores, stock bodywork, glass windows, marker lights, stock engine mounts, and even washer bottles are part of that.



I'm doing a little experiment, as my Freshman ITAC member research project. I call it "Bizzaro World ITCS." I took the 2008 version of our rules, and am amending them to include all of the changes that the ITAC is asked to consider. I started too late to include the most recent requests for plastic windows and "alternate material body parts" but it's already well on its way to being pretty different than the IT rules we use on this planet. I'll share it here at the end of the year, to give you all some sense of where we might be if every IT racer's individual "I wanna" got approved.

K

EDIT - my current favorite is the allowance to remove "washer bottles and all the other stuff in the engine compartment that is not needed to race." No potential for unintended consequences there!

[Ron Earp]

I'm doing a little experiment, as my Freshman ITAC member research project. I call it "Bizzaro World ITCS." I took the 2008 version of our rules, and am amending them to include all of the changes that the ITAC is asked to consider. I started too late to include the most recent requests for plastic windows and "alternate material body parts" but it's already well on its way to being pretty different than the IT rules we use on this planet. I'll share it here at the end of the year, to give you all some sense of where we might be if every IT racer's individual "I wanna" got approved.

This is gonna be good, I can't wait for the outcome!!

[tom_sprecher]

Pass.

[court76wi]

I'm doing a little experiment, as my Freshman ITAC member research project. I call it "Bizzaro World ITCS." I took the 2008 version of our rules, and am amending them to include all of the changes that the ITAC is asked to consider.

While you're writing that, could you also add "allow upper adjustable arms for the purpose of camber adjustment". I love how you're allowed to cut, blast, weld, and drill the chassis (including installing "pillowball" mounts) to adjust camber, but you can't install upper adjustable arms. Eh?? That's not too Bizzaro of a rule adjustment/request.

[Knestis]

While you're writing that, could you also add "allow upper adjustable arms for the purpose of camber adjustment". I love how you're allowed to cut, blast, weld, and drill the chassis (including installing "pillowball" mounts) to adjust camber, but you can't install upper adjustable arms. Eh?? That's not too Bizzaro of a rule adjustment/request.

So, you actually believe that opening up the IT rules to allow people to replace control arms is a good idea? I have a suspicion that you're picturing buying affordable off-the-shelf replacement pieces (a la Honda aftermarket) but you do understand that the same rule would give everyone the opportunity to do any darned thing they want, right?

K

[tom_sprecher]

I have a suspicion that you're picturing buying affordable off-the-shelf replacement pieces (a la Honda aftermarket) but you do understand that the same rule would give everyone the opportunity to do basically the same thing, right?

K

Fixed that for ya and it seems like a wash, but hey, that's just my honest observasion.

[Knestis]

So you're OK with me building uber-light suspension arms to whatever dimensions I want...?

Here we go...!

K

[joeracerx95]

I keep seeing references to 3-5lbs not being important. I disagree. A couple years ago the 1st gen RX7 was given a 100lb weight reduction. That's great. Except as far as I know, no one can get that much weight out of the car to make minimum so the rule makers didn't REALLY give the car a 100lb break.

I weight 185lbs which isn't a huge number. I've taken everything legal out of the car and I'm still 50lbs above minimum. 50 lbs DOES matter. And if I had 5lbs here and 5lbs there and another 5lbs over there that I could take out I could eventually get my weight down to minimum. So in that context 5lbs does matter. Just like 2HP matters. If I gain 2hp from a timing adjustment and another 2hp by using slicker gear oil and another 2hp etc. etc. pretty soon I have 10HP more than you do. Think 10HP matters in an ITA car?

None of the above should be taken to say we should or should not be allowed to remove the heater core, I'm just saying.