Ok, since so many wanna allow these things to be removed how do you suggest doing it? One item at a time with people constantly asking for new allowances, or open the flood gates by writing some vague rule that allows "street" items be removed? This is only the second time I've asked this. If nobody has a suggestion about how you'd actually allow this, then I gotta think that while you may think the items are silly, or wanna bitch if you gotta replace them, that the rules don't need rewritten if those that want the allowances, but haven't even thought out how it should be done. You will make the class less stable by doing this, look at the last few posts before mine, you guys are concerning people.
A Poll Regarding the IT Rules Set
- Thread starter Ron Earp
- Start date
erlrich
Super Moderator
Seems to me this would be an easy one to write, but then I'm not devious (experienced) enough to think of ways to twist the rules to get an unintended advantage. How about something like:
"The following items may be removed:
- Windshield washer bottle and attached hoses
- Windshield wiper motor, wiper actuating arms, wiper arm and blade
- Horn
- Heater core, its housing, and heating & a/c controls & their operating mechanisms
- Headlights may be removed; any opening in the body created by the removal of the headlights must be completely covered by a permanently attached metal or plastic cover
No wiring, bracketry, or body work may be removed or modified to facilitate removal of allowed items."
This could all be dealt with in a single, one-time only allowance. I think with the talent we currently have on the ITAC writing the rule would be the easy part; agreeing on what to allow would seem to me to be the tough part.
For the record, I did vote yes on this one - the items in question seem to me to be much less prod-like than the allowances for interior/door gutting, open ECUs, adjustable coil-overs, or about a dozen other things we're already allowed to do. I do also understand the resistance to these changes, the whole slippery slope argument, unintended consequences, etc. I also understand the "leave it alone" attitude, I just am one of those who tends to think there's almost always room for improvement. What I think a lot of you, including a few ITAC members, are failing to take into account though, are the changes that have occurred over the past few years w/r/t attitudes about the class and the rules making process. Knowing what I do about who makes up the ITAC, their attitudes, experience, and dedication gives me pretty high confidence that they aren't going to let things get out of hand.
This isn't a really big deal; I doubt very seriously anyone will not build or race an IT car because these things are required. At the same time I don't see how these items could be the beginning of the end for IT. It seems to me we've already passed these things on the way down the slope...
RacerBill
New member
I second Earl's post. I am for these allowances, not for the purpose of being able to remove the items, but for the purpose of not having to replace them, if they become unavailable.
Conover
New member
Come on guys, let them take off their wipers, their heater cores and their washer bottles, it'll be fun to watch them trying to figure out how to see when it rains. Let there be rain, rain, rain, rain!
The reason that the ECU rule keeps getting "trotted up". Is that it's still screwed up, it's an incomplete solution that needs to be reconsidered. Just like my letter said two years ago, if your gonna open it up open it up. In my view that should be numero uno, top priority for the ITAC/BOD.
This balogna about washer bottles and wiper blades is just a bunch of hoowey, let's keep the debates targeted on things that actually matter.
I vote no, you gotta keep that stuff, you don't like it, you go prod. You wanted to be in a national class anyway, just go prod already. It's freakin IT, understand? It's IT, you have washer bottles, you have wipers, you have haeter cores, get the hell over it! Your gonna need that shit one day, and your gonna be pissed when an itb golf walks your its junk in a rainy ecr one day.
The reason that the ECU rule keeps getting "trotted up". Is that it's still screwed up, it's an incomplete solution that needs to be reconsidered. Just like my letter said two years ago, if your gonna open it up open it up. In my view that should be numero uno, top priority for the ITAC/BOD.
This balogna about washer bottles and wiper blades is just a bunch of hoowey, let's keep the debates targeted on things that actually matter.
I vote no, you gotta keep that stuff, you don't like it, you go prod. You wanted to be in a national class anyway, just go prod already. It's freakin IT, understand? It's IT, you have washer bottles, you have wipers, you have haeter cores, get the hell over it! Your gonna need that shit one day, and your gonna be pissed when an itb golf walks your its junk in a rainy ecr one day.
matt batson
New member
To all those that listed line items, as cameron pointed out, why do you wanna remove hvac systems, and windshield wiper components? I can kinda go with the washerbottle, again I don't understand the fascination with being allowed to remove it for the sake of it. and I can see somebody actually using it, but I can understand allowing removal of the washer bottle and the horn. But then I get to headlight replacement and start seeing $$$. Only reason I see for allowing removal of those is weight, once you start that you got carbon fiber covers, why not allow the fenders and hood as well? I'm really shocked that almost 60% of people wanna allow the removal of more stuff. I could make my own headlight covers, remove everything on the list from my car myself if I wanted too, but I just simply don't get it. For sure I wouldn't be removing the wipers or the heatercore/blowermotor and i'm kinda baffled at the suggestion of the rest. I'm curious how many of the people asking for this have been around a racecar that didn't have one of those things in the rain. I have and you don't wanna remove them.
matt batson
New member
I may be mistaken, but there wouldnt be anything in the rules that says you HAVE to remove those items...right?
If you have a hard time making weight, I guarantee removing some of these items would be cheaper than super lightweight wheels.
And this is supposed to be a class we can run cheaply in and still be competitive.
I have non-functioning wipers. I run rain ex if it rains. My heater doesnt work either.
It rained for much of my drivers school back in 04 at moroso and I pretty much dominated without either.
If you allow it, then the front-runners will need to do it to maintain position. It's an arms race. Someone builds a dreadnaught and everyone needs to build one just to maintain parity.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Lightweight wheels will return 8X the performance advantage of a 3 pound windshield wiper motor in the dry.
And when you are racing on a slimy, drying, oiled down track in the rain, the 3 pound wiper motor will reduce you lap times bey a measurable amount, maybe a second or more.
I speak from experience...of two days ago, when my wiper motor failed. I was pissed that no store had one until Monday.
Again, it's an arms race.
matt batson
New member
sorry, but I dont see the big deal. If the front runners want to remove the stuff they can. If they want to keep their windshield washer bottles or motors, they can.
And I dont see how this will cost anybody any money or frustration.
Now, you wanna talk arms race, then we can talk about the ECU and final drive allowances that never should have made it into the rulebook. Talk about costing the front runners money...
And I dont see how this will cost anybody any money or frustration.
Now, you wanna talk arms race, then we can talk about the ECU and final drive allowances that never should have made it into the rulebook. Talk about costing the front runners money...
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Well, we could just not allow ECU cars in.....
seckerich
New member
You have only been around IT for a short period Matt. All those rules were in place when you started. You read the rules and made a decision to play. There is a balancing act between letting drivers change enough to be excited about a class and allowing so much it gets out of hand. Washer bottle is no big deal unless it covers a big hole in front of the air intake.
Then it is not such a small deal. Every seemingly simple rule change has unintended consequences. Now you have to go fix what WAS NOT BROKEN.No, in the case of the hvac and wiper parts I would not remove them unless i'd exhausted every other means of getting the car within 50lbs of weight. The problem I see is it will become accpetable to class cars a weights based on achieving a weight with these items removed. A fully prepped car is still fully prepped. You guys simply want to add farther to what that includes when it comes to removing things. I get the washer bottle(not sure why it is so hotly desired for removal even the argument that it is hard to get for a few seems weak when you figure how few people it really affects in a year) but I undertand removing it. The other items i'll argue you simply haven't been around road racing long enough if you don't see the serious downsides to the removal. No you won't have to remove them but how long before people cry because they scca doesn't black flag all so that people can come in and get wipers etc. No thankyou, these are production based vehicles and if it doesn't make it safer to remove it leave it alone.
The Ecu rule is a silly argument, If you don't like it then I think you should be ok with the idea of a completely stock carb with needles as delivered on your datsun, as well as completely stock ignition controls. NO changing weights, pickups points etc. Otherwise your already getting many of the benefits of the ecu rule.
The Ecu rule is a silly argument, If you don't like it then I think you should be ok with the idea of a completely stock carb with needles as delivered on your datsun, as well as completely stock ignition controls. NO changing weights, pickups points etc. Otherwise your already getting many of the benefits of the ecu rule.
The ECU rule is a red-herring. My understanding is that the rule was changed in two phases.
Second, and most liberal change, free ECUs. The motivation for this was equity and to lessen the cost of the arms race. There was a set of cars that could cram an after-market ECU into the stock housing a/o custom chip installed in the stock housing. The cost was prohibitive for most, but for the big buck guy, within budget. Given the relaxation of the original standard, it made sense.
First, and least liberal change, was the stock housing rule. As I recall, this was not done to allow allowances a/o performance improvement. It was done because the stock ECU rule was becoming/had become unenforceable. Consequently, dropping the stock ECU rule made sense.
Now alternate final drives... there you have something.
Second, and most liberal change, free ECUs. The motivation for this was equity and to lessen the cost of the arms race. There was a set of cars that could cram an after-market ECU into the stock housing a/o custom chip installed in the stock housing. The cost was prohibitive for most, but for the big buck guy, within budget. Given the relaxation of the original standard, it made sense.
First, and least liberal change, was the stock housing rule. As I recall, this was not done to allow allowances a/o performance improvement. It was done because the stock ECU rule was becoming/had become unenforceable. Consequently, dropping the stock ECU rule made sense.
Now alternate final drives... there you have something.
spawpoet
New member
The argument I was making had nothing to do with parity between carb'd cars and FI cars. Simply that if we think we can safely open up ECU rules (you HAVE to admit that is very complex), then a washer bottle should be simple to approach. Nothing more, nothing less.
As for the parity argument, why weren't the carb'd cars running away with all the IT wins when other FI cars were "stuck" with a stock ECU? Honest question. Was there parity, before the ECU rules were opened up, between FI cars and carb'd cars? Maybe the answer is no, but there is an inherent advantage in having an ECU over carbs. Just because changing needles etc can overcome some of the disadvantage of having carbs, doesn't mean carb'd cars were at a major advantage before the ECU rules were changed. And from what I understand that was NOT the reasons the ECU rules were changed. I believe they were changed because it was considered difficult to police.
Conover
New member
The Problem With the ECU rule is that it wasn't truly opened up. The current Sensor rule heavily favors some cars and punishes others. Something along the lines of :
"ECU input devices may be replaced or substituted, stock air metering device must remain in place, but does not have to be utilized."
That would be the way to go, otherwise you have cars that you can put a nice new programmable ecu in the car and then have to spend literally thousands of dollars to design a one off trigger to run the thing from.
Intentions were good, I just think the rule needs to be more thoroughly considered if cost issues, and "fairness" for lack of a better word, are actual goals.
Ron Earp
Administrator
Said it on the other thread, say it here. As the others have pointed out the rule is unfair now. If your car comes from the factory with a crank fired system plus other modern engine management sensors/ECU you're good to go. Add any ECU you want and you'll have the sensors to make it sing.
If your car doesn't come from the factory with all the "goodies" you can't add them and you'll be not enjoying the benefits your competitors might have.
Ron
If your car doesn't come from the factory with all the "goodies" you can't add them and you'll be not enjoying the benefits your competitors might have.
Ron