An ITCS Re-Write

A simple question to ponder:

Is the rule book broken or is the diligence with which it is enforced broken?

I've seen 1 ITA NER protest in the last 3 seasons and I have only missed 2 races in the last 2 seasons. I've seen plenty of rules get written, modified, codified, and sanctified, yet little if any ACTUAL enforcement. We can't rely on tech to do our dirty work. Break out the slide ruler............

R
 
I think the rule book is sort of broken. I think someone taking the time to rewrite it would be great and really needed. Would I want to do it... HECK NO!!! But from a guy's point of view who really wants to build a legal car, there are so many grey areas, you can't help but have to make a few interpretations. I always though the original writers were trying to promote ingenuity... really!! And where does a guy get help trying to figure out if something is cool or not? Pay $250 (or whatever it is) for a non binding whatever it's called from topeka? For each thing you don't understand? I don't think so. Come here and get your simple question turned into a pissing match between old rivals? Not so great either.
Boy, you guys want to make it easier for new guys to get into the sport? Well then give them a source of definitive binding advise on rules! Forget trying to legislate out overspending, in racing it ain't going to work. New guys realize racing is expensive. OK... rant over let's try to be constructive.
To answer Andy's original question (I think it was) do we add to the glossary to define every word mentioned in the rule set? Seems the glossary would need to be made huge? Might not really fit the definition of other classes. Use the dictionary? what Webster's ? which edition? The shop manual? well my late 70's japanese shop manual has some funky names for stuff that obviously lost something in the translation from japanese to english. (mixing chamber... what is a mixing chamber, look at picture... oh the throttle body) So that ain't going to cut it. How about if a rule mentions a term, it describes what that term is in the rule. shift knob is free. shift knob is the thing your hand grabs on the end of the shift lever. Shift lever is the thing that runs from the trans to the shift knob. It isn't going to be easy I admit. Maybe if something is 'free' it needs to be defined what that thing is. Maybe free is a bad term to use. (replace , modify) I like taking out what you can't do. I like sticking to IIDSYCTYC. I don't think that needs redefined. I like simple, I think simple rule set is part of what made IT so popular. I think if someone does rewrite the rule set, that person should be canonized. If not a total rewrite, I think a thorough cleaning up would be a great start.
oh sorry... edit to add my name Andrew Rowe
 
What about looking at this rule another way (which is how we got to the open ECU rule). Would it be easier to change the rule to state that the shifter is free above the floor. Do you get any advantage? In theory the a short shifter has to do with what is below the floor.
 
Kirk will be able to say this better but a total re-do of the ITCS is NOT in order. What I want to do is take out all the "YOU CAN'TS" and have only "YOU CAN'S". Then we rely on the IIDSYCTYC. A good rule should be able to have that foundation, be simple and to the point. Any additional 'you can BUT...you can't' just open rules up to more scruitiny and creative interpretation - and grey cars and future codification of rules that were not intended etc.
 
I love the wording for SURE...I wonder if we can adapt it into the ITCS in order to discourage - and then really hammer our local guys to get with the program...
[/b]
Click to expand...
It won't work. You aren't going to get local tech people to treat IT cars differently than other categories.
 
The only thing I've ever seen enforced at regionals are weight. Seriously, I doubt our tech crews even have the tools. At our last regional we had one run group with only seven cars. When our region is fighting to keep every racer we can, do you think we want to tell them not to come back?

James
 
...a total re-do of the ITCS is NOT in order. What I want to do is take out all the "YOU CAN'TS" and have only "YOU CAN'S". Then we rely on the IIDSYCTYC. [/b]
Click to expand...
I think that's a great goal and even though it won't solve all of the problems, it will be a help. A revised introduction, a la Greg's IT2 verbiage, would probably reinforce the effort. This is a great project and long overdue.

K

EDIT - what then happens at your local level, James is whatever your region WANTS to have happen. This just takes one set of opportunities for silliness out of the equation.
 
Bad idea I think. Some of the "you cants" help make things clearer, and prevent overreaching on the you cans.

I don't see the ITCS as broken, at all. The "problem" we have is that people want to stretch the rules - we all do, we are racers. That gets reined in other ways. Culture of compliance is the primary means of doing so.
 
I don't post a lot here but what's so broken about the rules? Rules interpretation is part of every competitive event in the world. Hell, it's part of daily life. When the rule says "any material" you can't send someone home for air bushings or they'll come back the next week with light foam. At what durometer do you call it a bushing? Which tech inspector has the magic "bushing finger" to say if it's OK? If it's a big hole in the rules then it needs to be fixed but putting the onus on the tech shed is only going to cause legitimate arguments.

As for the "motec rule disaster" (ooooooh, computers, oh no!). Some guys are good at shocks and springs, some guys are good at 0's and 1's. A computer geek will look at the rules and say "Oh, I'll build up a megasquirt and have full motec functionality for the price of an adjustable fuel pressure regulator, easy." Then he'll drop $5K on on shocks because he doesn't know better. A springs and bars guy will spend $500 on take apart bilsteins that, when tuned, out perform the geek's mega $ shock setup and then drop $5K on a motec. If they're both competitive people they'll pick up each other's craft and their cars will get faster and cheaper and they'll get smarter. Further, at the rate new cars are progressing unless we want to look like the prod groups in 15 years we will have to welcome both types of technology.

Nothing in the current IT rule set requires mega $$ to run 10/10ths. Most people here aren't familiar with fuel injection so it's scary but it's not expensive unless you want it to be, just like shocks and IT engines. Yes, it's more expensive than a stock ecu but we were in a legitimate bind with ECU enforcement issues and, as I see it, an open ecu rule is less expensive for me than a 'stock flashed chip only' rule.

For crying out loud, I bought a car that has been competitive with the Mosers (not since I've owned/driven it, though!) for less than $10K, I just don't see the problem. Even my $5K first CRX was an occasional 3rd place car and a ton of fun. When the whole first half of the field is in $40+K rides we probably went astray but I just don't see it happening with the current rules.

Alex
 
Here's a simple idea... reitterate (sp?) the IIDSYCYC rule after every rule section in bold. I'm amazed at how often people in the real world (the non IT.com world) don't know about or gloss over this rule.
 
The original intent of the glossary (over 10 years ago) was to define technical words not commonly found in a dictionary. Since it was originally submitted as a draft, there have been surprisingly (at least to me) few changes. It wouldn't be a bad idea to revamp it, but it is a VERY large task, and one that needs to be defined in advance - i.e what is the criteria now? Should the glossary be all words, most words, all but common words, only technical words, totally subjective???? Without a clear cut objective, and a volunteer, it probably isn't worth discussing a total rewrite. Instead, ideas for changes and additions would probably be a more obtainable goal.

my 2 cents....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top