A Poll Regarding the IT Rules Set

[Ron Earp]

Really curious -- how much do your empty washer bottle and empty heater core weigh?

I don't know, can't remove and weigh them.

Seriously, on the original poll list we're talking about washer bottle, HVAC, heater core, windshield wipers, and headlights. Probably a considerable amount for all of that.

 

[IPRESS]

Ron, The items you mentioned for removal make SENSE.........that is why you are getting the "blowback"!
All this BS about "lines in the sand", symbolic waher bottles, rules creep.....for some folks, IT rules are a religion.
Evidently common sense has no place in IT.
The comeback "that you are a new guy" is a poor position to take. Opinions should be equal.......even if I think the majority on here are .....WRONG!

RON PUT ME DOWN FOR A YES.
I have asked 6 other IT racers I know and they voted yes too. (They think this forum is goofy so their votes are by proxy!)
Water Bottles damn who would have ever thought such a thing would be a point of principle.

 

[seckerich]

Washer bottle and heater core are no big deal. It has always kind of been the first thing a new driver pisses about in IT. Can't remember the last time anyone really cared if it was on the car.

As for the noob question and what you want in IT:

You are a member of SCCA and have just as much right as any active driver to request changes. Those who see things different have the same right to appose you. What you do need to look at is the big picture. There are 2 groups of drivers. The "lifers" and those passing through. Either way you have a responsibility to look past your own personal interests and not request changes that lead to less participation and enjoyment. What the masses wanted for many classes ate them. You will do the same with IT if you keep moving the bar a little farther every year. You start the list of headlights, wipers (never run in the rain?) and the list goes on and on.

Part of the draw of IT is that you can find a 10 year old racecar cheap and do minor safety updates and still be competitive.

 

[trhoppe]

For the purposes of the poll assume we're talking about the following "dual purpose vestiges": washer bottle, heater core and HVAC system, wipers/wiper motors, headlights, and wiper bottle reservoir.

Allow for removal of all of those except headlights. Lets keep the outsides of the cars looking the same, and removal of all of those items except headlights allows for just "removal" rather then replacement.

Me personally, only thing I would remove is the washer bottle reservoir. I'll keep my windshield vents/HVAC/heater core in case it rains, so my window doesn't fog up.

-Tom

 

[Knestis]

Ron, The items you mentioned for removal make SENSE.........that is why you are getting the "blowback"!
All this BS about "lines in the sand", symbolic waher bottles, rules creep.....for some folks, IT rules are a religion.
Evidently common sense has no place in IT.
The comeback "that you are a new guy" is a poor position to take. Opinions should be equal.......even if I think the majority on here are .....WRONG!

RON PUT ME DOWN FOR A YES.
I have asked 6 other IT racers I know and they voted yes too. (They think this forum is goofy so their votes are by proxy!)
Water Bottles damn who would have ever thought such a thing would be a point of principle.

Who can argue with that compelling position? You got it, Mac, Jeff, et al. This one's yours, guys. I won't vote "yes" but I'm done shouting into this vacuum.

Make a note of the date. It's the beginning of a new era for IT - when "common sense prevails."



K

 

[Marcus Miller]

I voted no, but only because there wasn't a FUCK NO option.

Seriously: LEAVE I T ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's get the stuff the ITAC sent through done, and then let's not touch it for 2 years.

What he said.

 

[JeffYoung]

Kirk, I think we try to have a bit higher level of discourse on this board. I respect your viewpoint and Marc does too, and NO ONE (not even Ron) is advocating any change right now, at this time. I think we all recognize the need to let IT "settle" for a bit.

Let's try to continue the discussion, and let me ask you this question Kirk -- as a friend and as someone whose views on IT I respect:

Whether you agree with it or not, there is a perception among membership that (a) no one knows what the process is (and I know you are an advocate for publishing, which I applaud); (b) it at least appears to membership be in constant flux; and (c) no one is sure how the adders/subtractors are "assembled."

How is that any different -- the push and pull of people who want "X" for an adder, or want "Y" subtractor done a certain way -- from what you see as an unworkable selection of one person's preferences over another's for the removal of items from an IT car that are there solely because of the dual purpose statement of purpose that no longer means anything?

I would submit it is not. And I think if we came up with a framework for what constitutes the "core" of IT we could pretty easily stop the "march to Prod" by removing those items.

I also think that we'd have 99% agreement on what constitutes the core of IT and can't be changed: (a) stock panels and glass; (b) stock dash; (c) current motor rules; (d) current suspension rules; (e) current brake rules.

I see far, far, far more danger in us ending up "Prod like" with a constantly evolving and fluid process that seems to have no end and at least "looks like" the balancing of cars that goes on in Prod, than the removal of dual purpose items from IT cars that (conceivably) a majority of membership wants to remove.

Who can argue with that compelling position? You got it, Mac, Jeff, et al. This one's yours, guys. I won't vote "yes" but I'm done shouting into this vacuum.

Make a note of the date. It's the beginning of a new era for IT - when "common sense prevails."



K

 

[shwah]

I know it does not fit some of your personal opinions of 'a real race car' item, but IMO the HV system and heater core are absolutely functional components in an IT application, as are windshield wipers. It turns out they are really helpful, even a competitive advantage when racing in the rain.

In some sitiations headlights can be useful as well.

As far as other 'valid' reasons to make these changes:

"some members want to" has to be a joke right? I mean some members want ported heads, cams and alternate material body parts and glass. Apparently they have not cracked open the PCS just yet...

Yes I would like to remove the horn, replace the wires and replace the air dam, rather than graft another one over it, but none of these are big deal to comply with and continue enjoying the racing. If you seriously think these little items make the difference between you enjoying IT racing and not, then you probably should have read the rules one more time before investing in an IT car.

Trot out the ECU rules all you want. I for one would prefer that 100% stock was required. It is too bad that the powers that were at the time assumed this to be unenforceable and opened it up *unintentionally* to anything in the box. From there, I still wish we had jammed the genie back into the bottle, but at least I can see the logic of what was done instead - let anyone with electric injectors have acces to the percieved gain that the 'few' had with the anything in the box rule.

Of course now today, with modern ecus, 100% stock is A. literally unenforceable as you can change programing through factory provided communications ports without cracking anything open and B. newer cars will likely require alternate programing to even operate with IT restrictions - no ABS, speed limiters, no stability control. So, who knows, maybe we would have ended up here anyway.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Thank you Chris. You have articulated something I haven't been able to.

Shocks is the other example? Does any remember the history on how we got where we are? Really?

Again, I understand why somebody would ask 'why can't I remove X'. What I don't understand is why it is such a big deal to leave this stuff alone. If you can't find a washer reservior in a junk yard someplace for your car, you are running something so rare I bet you can't get a lot of other more citical stuff.

The ITAC hears the issue - but only a few seem to hear ours. YOUR line is not far enough for someone else. That line is still not far enough for another guy. The line that we have now creates no issues, perpetuates no inequities and is really not hard to follow. So why not resist it's movement allthogether? When I review a request, I look for reasons to DO something, not for a 'why not'?

 

[Ron Earp]

When I review a request, I look for reasons to DO something, not for a 'why not'?

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.

But, like I stated and Jeff mentioned I personally feel IT needs to settle a bit.

 

[spawpoet]

The line that we have now creates no issues, perpetuates no inequities and is really not hard to follow.

Those are good parameters to follow, but I would argue the line we are talking about would also create no issues, perpetuate no inequities, and be ever so slightly easier to follow.

 

[Knestis]

>> How is that any different -- the push and pull of people who want "X" for an adder, or want "Y" subtractor done a certain way -- from what you see as an unworkable selection of one person's preferences over another's for the removal of items from an IT car that are there solely because of the dual purpose statement of purpose that no longer means anything...

Easy. They are the same and my position on both is consistent and extremely conservative.

The difference between my thinking on these issues and the rest of the world, or so it seems...? I don't believe that more allowances should be added to the rule set, and I don't believe that the process has actually changed in any substantive way - beyond the fact that it can't be gamed as easily as in the past.

I don't get the contrary-at-face-value position of arguing for more allowances but being critical of changes to the system - even perceived or imagined changes. Want "stability" but don't want to lock down the practices of the ITAC intended to prevent reactionary adjustments based on who wins at the next ARRC...? Seriously?

Until a couple of weeks ago, I was very optimistic about where we were going but based on the volume of opposition from a number of quarters, most of us clearly feel differently. I'm past believing that momentum won't have its way. A week ago or so, I asked for input. I got it.

K

 

[pfcs]

Now be a benign dictator-ignore it. What distinguished IT from other classes was that it embraced stability. Early on, rules makers understood that and ignored the background noise of the multitudes of bozzos that all had their own better idea. Everyone wants to be a rulesmaker, but this is not a democracy and shouldn't be! And you ITAC guys-to a lessor extent- this applies to you too-like when you had this great idea about opening the rules and making intake pipes free, WTF was that supposed to accomplish-did you just need to do something because it showed you were important?
All of this talk to me seems pretty hopeless-I think it's probably too late to pull IT back from the brink. Nevertheless, I appreciate guys like Kirk carrying on the fight to preserve (save) IT. Newer converts may think of my position as being religious-trust me its not. I know what I know. If any these voices clamoring for this little change and that are acted on, more and more will follow and IT will evolve into another piece of shit class like production-one that most people in the club wish had died years ago.

 

[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.