A Poll Regarding the IT Rules Set

[Dave Zaslow]

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.

+1,000,000

What is the imminent need that the rule change would address? The perception that IT rules are too constrained?

In efforts toward allowing battery relocation, at least we were arguing "safety"; but removing wipers? Does it not rain outside of the northeast? Headlights? WTF does that allow besides lovely ram-air possibilities. I wonder if we would allow battery relocation if 50 pounds of nice, safe lead had to be bolted to the original battery position. Want those wipers gone? Just bolt another 10 pounds within 1 foot of where they used to be. Want to write that rulebook? Not me.

The 20 people playing here are not representative of the IT community. You want to ask what people want? You've got to cast a wider net than this webpage.

What I want is an ITAC that can say no many more times than they say yes.

DZ

BTW I like having fluid in my washer bottle.

 

[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.

 

[JeffYoung]

On the wheel issue, you're overstating how hard it was to get 13 and 14 wheels. The problem was getting ones at low weight -- again a preference.

But it's okay, I think we are at the agree to disagree point and that is fine.

On the last point though, of course I do see a need to help keep classes competitive. But the difference, and the line drawing we do differently, is in HOW. I am perfectly fine with the ITAC's decision to allow the FWD modifier and live rear deduct, etc. -- we are committee and we operate by majority vote. But my line for balancing the class without hurting it would have (personally) been drawn in a different spot.

Good discussion though.

 

[gran racing]

The key point I think some are missing is that removing stock junk you don't need DOESN'T COST ANYTHING.

Actually You’ve got that opposite – keeping items on a car doesn’t cost anything. At some point, I’d be okay with removing (again, going with the original poll “rules”) washer bottles, wiring harness and horns but that’s it. Right now, I fully agree with what Bowie said.

If you want to build a car that has more allowances for removal of items, there’s already one that exists. RSI – if you have friends who want to run in these classes because IT doesn’t appeal to them, good for them. It’s nice to know SCCA can still offer them a place that meets their wants.

Remove headlights? What is the “headlight”? The headlight assembly, right? Or are you merely talking about the replacement bulb? I’ve got those flip-up headlights which would be nice to remove to push cold air right into the engine.

It’s simply ridiculous that we can run a Motec, but can’t remove the washer bottle.

I agree. I would love to see only stock ECUs allowed if feasible when looking at newer cars as well.

Heater core no big deal or have NO negative impact on the IT ruleset.

Says the southern boys. J Removing it has an impact otherwise you wouldn’t want it. In this case is could be as simple as add one more thing that a newbie or anyone else feels compelled to do. When I first started racing, someone told me I needed to / should do that (they were obviously wrong and it isn’t allowed but) and I shook my head with a “I need to do what?” Then said newbie who removes the heater core races in the rain and realizes it was a silly thing to have done.

In some situations headlights can be useful as well. Chris

Absolutely. It’s another good form of on-track communication.

why bother joining something you don’t like? Stephen

On the flip side, there’s nothing wrong with trying to improve upon things otherwise this could have been said with the changes years ago. Or when submitting a request to have an Audi (or Prelude) run through the process so that it gets reviewed using the same process as other cars. We both joined the game well before then.

 

[JeffYoung]

In reading Dave's post where he makes the very good point that removing items costs nothing, I was struck by something.

Some of this is, I think, old car v. new car driven.

On older cars, yes, it can cost time and money to comply with these rules. Headlight pieces, wiper stuff, windshield washer bottles and pump motors, wiring harnesses -- all can be expensive to fix and/or replace if lost or damaged.

That's probably where a lot of my frustration comes from. I probably spent 2-3 hours and $100 locating a washer bottle, for example.

For a guy with a newer car, all of that stuff is probabyl there, probably easy to get and you don't even have to think about it. For us, it can be a hassle, an expensive one, and when it comes to old and crappy wiring harnesses it can cost us race weekends.

 

[shwah]

Chiming in to Jeff's wheel situation. We just bought some sub 9# custom 13x7 wheels for the prod car for about $200 each. If you are legally alowed to run them, I am surprised you choose 15" wheels instead. Less unsprung mass, lighter tires, lower cg without changing geometry, lower rotational interia, improved brake 'leverage' (this one especially catches my eye in your case) on the track surface. Is a 225 tire too narrow for your needs?

Look in to Spin Werks - formerly Circle Racing Wheels.

 

[JeffYoung]

I'm an odd case on wheels. I really needed the extra clearance of the 15"s for brake ducting and cooling. 13" wheels aren't too hard to find in reasonable weights, it's the 14"s that I think people have trouble with the most. And the Volk 15s I bought were actually ligther than my original set of 13" Panasports at 10 lbs.

Chiming in to Jeff's wheel situation. We just bought some sub 9# custom 13x7 wheels for the prod car for about $200 each. If you are legally alowed to run them, I am surprised you choose 15" wheels instead. Less unsprung mass, lighter tires, lower cg without changing geometry, lower rotational interia, improved brake 'leverage' (this one especially catches my eye in your case) on the track surface. Is a 225 tire too narrow for your needs?

Look in to Spin Werks - formerly Circle Racing Wheels.

 

[Racerlinn]

No. Leave it alone for goodness sakes.

 

[StephenB]

[/FONT]
On the flip side, there’s nothing wrong with trying to improve upon things otherwise this could have been said with the changes years ago. Or when submitting a request to have an Audi (or Prelude) run through the process so that it gets reviewed using the same process as other cars. We both joined the game well before then.

Dave,

I have NEVER requested any rule changes since I joined IT in 1999 and my family has not requested any rules changes since joining IT in 1985. I liked the rules for IT better than other classes, I thought it was the most affordable way for me to get into the racing I wanted to do, and I chose a car make that I was personally interested in with no idea on it's performance potential.

I do approve of the changed classification process but I don't think that is necasarily a "rules change" in relation to this discussion, instead I would consider it a Classification proces to find a stable way to classify cars into the future. I DID request my car to go through this process because with my math I realized that a potential issue may exist. I wanted to make sure that this type of error didn't happen in the future and bad or good I thaught I was doing the right thing by bringing it to the ITAC's attention. I really wouldn't care what happens with my car as long as it was consistant with all cars. If the process only applies to new cars classified then so be it, I am fine with that. Again I don't think what I requested was or is a "Rules change" but rather a classification change. Totally different than allowances and non-allowances for IT car prep.

I would not have changed anything from 1999 when I started to now with my current SCCA ITB car other than a stable consistant classification process to ensure consistant competition levels into the future. This is why I currently fully support our current ITAC and voted no on this rules change.

Stephen

PS: I think the only rules change since '99 that I think I have taken advantage of was the changed allowance of wheel spacers.

 

[Knestis]

Have all the new allowances to remove parts you want but conflating rules and the enforcement of rules (the protest and appeals process) is recipe for disappointment regardless of where you draw the line in the sand. Someone's always going to be stepping past it and it's not the rules that get them - it's enforcement.

K

 

[JeffYoung]

I will say this. I thought this would poll would be far more in favor of the change than 60/40. Interesting to me and why Ron did it.

 

[seckerich]

I will say this. I thought this would poll would be far more in favor of the change than 60/40. Interesting to me and why Ron did it.

My opinion and worth what you pay for it:

Most drivers I speak with want the cars all run through to get as close as possible. You will never get them all right and there will be some special cases, but do the best you can. After that please stop. Really----just stop and let us race with a stable rule set.

 

[DavidM]

I would like to see washer bottles, heater cores, wiper stalks, and other extraneous crap removable just because it's less crap to get in the way. I personally am using the washer bottle as the radiator overflow so it would stay anyways.

but

You have people that, right or wrong, would use the allowance to remove said items as reasoning that other items should be allowed to be removed.

so

I vote no. Yeah, it's retarded that we have open ECUs and have to keep the washer bottle. In fact I, as well as many others, have said as much to point out the dichotomy/irony in the ruleset. But keeping the washer bottle, heater core, whatever isn't really that big a deal so let it be. There are other things to be concerned about.

David

 

[IPRESS]

OK,
You talked me in to it. I want to change my vote.
No No No.
To paraphrase Bowie.
"Leave it the F alone."

But lets apply that all the way..... We like IT fine right now. Do what Bowie suggests for the whole thing. Leave it Be and lets just Race!

 

[frnkhous]

If you didn't do the work yourself, all the things listed would cost money, no matter what they cost money or time when building a car.(unless your assuming all IT cars are built by tearing down to a shell) at that point you might as well open up seem welding, cage rules, etc cause it is easy, you are already inside. Who needs a dash, that is a throwback to dual purpose cars. bring on the lexan and carbon fiber replacements for headlights, turn signals, etc.

Otherwise all the silly things you guys want to remove do cost either time or money to do. Honestly I'd have been fine with a car having to have a truly "stock" ecu. However that brings up issues in enforcement as well as If I have to have a stock ecu, then a carbed car should still have the stock rev limit via whatever ignition system it has. I understand the ecu thing, but don't use motec next to washerbottles to justify changes. I still don't undertand carbed guys being up in arms about computers, you are already allowed to rejet/tune carbs, maybe you should have to run untouched factory carbs(good luck with that since they are 20+ years old)