December 2011 Fastrack

Z3_GoCar said:
Funny, there's no allowance to change the oil. Yet find me a racer that doesn't do this?
Click to expand...


Not to be nitpicky, but-

ITCS 9.1.3- D.1.h - Oil pans, pan baffles, scrapers, windage trays, oil pickups,
lines, and filters are unrestricted. Oil and power steering hoses
may be replaced with metal braided hose (i.e. Aeroquip). A
pressure accumulator/”Accusump” may be fitted. The location
of the filter and accumulator are unrestricted, but they shall
be securely mounted within the bodywork. All oil lines that
pass into or through the driver/passenger compartment shall
be metal or metal braided hose. Dry sump systems are prohibited​
unless fitted as standard equipment. Engine oil and oil
additives are unrestricted.
 
I don't believe the ITAC and CRB members could have looked at the Ignition System rule and all agreed it was illegal. It clearly is. The definition of Ignition System puts the ignition switch CLEARLY in line of the point-A to point-B allowance. The switch that activates a 'system' is undeniably part of said 'system'.

Regardless, the purpose of clearing up rules is twofold at least. First, you revise the rule to better portray the intent AND if rules read easier and make more sense, there may be less resistance to initial entry into a class from inside or outside the Club.
 
We absolutely did. We all sort of had an "ah-hah" moment with that and I was asked to do a quick rewrite.

Andy Bettencourt said:
I don't believe the ITAC and CRB members could have looked at the Ignition System rule and all agreed it was illegal. It clearly is. The definition of Ignition System puts the ignition switch CLEARLY in line of the point-A to point-B allowance. The switch that activates a 'system' is undeniably part of said 'system'.

Regardless, the purpose of clearing up rules is twofold at least. First, you revise the rule to better portray the intent AND if rules read easier and make more sense, there may be less resistance to initial entry into a class from inside or outside the Club.
Click to expand...
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
I don't believe the ITAC and CRB members could have looked at the Ignition System rule and all agreed it was illegal. It clearly is. The definition of Ignition System puts the ignition switch CLEARLY in line of the point-A to point-B allowance. The switch that activates a 'system' is undeniably part of said 'system'.
Click to expand...

I dunno.. my opinion of the "ignition switch" is that it is a "system power switch". It's also a "steering wheel lock key", if you will.
IMO, it's intorturation to take "ignition components are free" or whatever it says to "you can scrap the entire ignition key and everything around it."

But hey, that's just me and my opinion. you have your opinion. Bob has his, and Jeff his. That's why the rules need to be clear and concise.
 
it's a clarification as far as I'm concerned. are we really on Pg2 of this topic???

Andy, I think you managed to outhink yourself on this one. Even if the ignition component of the switch was open, the current rules to NOT address the non-ignition circuit components of the key switch nor the adding or relocation of switches for existing vehicle functions, like overide for the fans, wipers, etc... to improve their accessibility in the car or replace a finiky witch with a positive action one. The "ignition" switch circuit also breaks power to the ECU, injectors, and many other components of the car NOT included in the ignitions systems rule.
 
Chip42 said:
it's a clarification as far as I'm concerned. are we really on Pg2 of this topic???

Andy, I think you managed to outhink yourself on this one. Even if the ignition component of the switch was open, the current rules to NOT address the non-ignition circuit components of the key switch nor the adding or relocation of switches for existing vehicle functions, like overide for the fans, wipers, etc... to improve their accessibility in the car or replace a finiky witch with a positive action one. The "ignition" switch circuit also breaks power to the ECU, injectors, and many other components of the car NOT included in the ignitions systems rule.
Click to expand...

Right back at you my friend!

The rule states that any ignition system may be used (with other non-pertinent limitations). The GCR then defines the ignition system as "A system which converts on-board storage battery supply voltage into a timed sequence of high voltage pulses suitable for igniting engine combustion mixtures in a controlled manner".

To say that the very switch that actually gives the 'permission', or makes the connection if you will, between said voltage supply and the ignition distribution device - is NOT part of the 'system' is absolutely crazy IMHO. I have no idea what grounds you guys think you are standing on here.

On fans: you are killing me with that example. Fans are indeed FREE. You can remove them, replace them or add electronically controlled units. You most certainly can add a switch and make your fan system do whatever you want, however you want it, from whatever switch you want to do it with.

Wipers? No current provision for a relocation of the switch, I agree.

Clearing up the rules? No problem. The wording looks good and makes things more concise, but it certainly doesn't make something like ignition switches of fan switches any more legal than they are now.

Is the new rule creep? Sure is - but it's creep *I* like. LOL
 
When i built my car I had a conversation with my friend, who was the chair of the CRB.
Me:" I see lots of cars use separate ignition and starter switches. Does that fall under the 'free ignition systems' rule".
Him: "Does your ignition system work if that switch isn't ON?
Me: "Uhh no.
Him "Duh"
Then he whacked me upside the head....

I find the ability to turn the engine over while not having the ignition system energized is very useful.
 
Jeebus we can be some pedantic to a fault hobbyists.

Build your car. Make sure your engine is legal. Suspension, chassis, and body too. Race above minimum weight. Have fun.

Does it have to be more difficult or involved than that?
 
You forgot brakes and transmission. Is there something you aren't telling us?

Seriously, I do sometimes wonder if all the "discussion" here over rules like this doesn't drive people away.

We didn't really have this kind of "discussion" back when this Board started it. It was almost exclusively a big rah rah club for IT racing. That wasn't entirely good either, and a ton of good work has come out of the hard discussions on this board, but I do think the pendulum has swung too far towards "rules nerd" and I'm as guilty as anyone.
 
I think some guys get their panties in a wad over the debate of minutia - way to easily. It's an internet board. It's what it's for, discussion. Somebody asks a question or states something as fact, it's a place to debate it.

It's eleventy-billion miles away from what we care about when we are actually racing. Take it for what it is, healthy debate. I have actually been told by more than a few lurkers I have met that they have LEARNED how to read the ITCS from these discussions. Angles, intent, etc.

Were alternate switches for windshield wipers legal? No. But when someone asks here, we go at it from the book. When at the track, we don't care. Simple.
 
JeffYoung said:
You forgot brakes and transmission. Is there something you aren't telling us?
Click to expand...

Doh, yea, the 6 pot Wilwoods and six speed Tremec.

Forgot, sort of counted those in chassis/suspension, but yeah, have some legal brakes and a legal transmission.

Andy Bettencourt said:
Were alternate switches for windshield wipers legal? No. But when someone asks here, we go at it from the book. When at the track, we don't care. Simple.
Click to expand...

But, it'd be nice to have the website and real life agree. If we can do that by cleaning the rules up I think it is definitely worth it.
 
JeffYoung said:
Seriously, I do sometimes wonder if all the "discussion" here over rules like this doesn't drive people away.

We didn't really have this kind of "discussion" back when this Board started it. It was almost exclusively a big rah rah club for IT racing. That wasn't entirely good either, and a ton of good work has come out of the hard discussions on this board, but I do think the pendulum has swung too far towards "rules nerd" and I'm as guilty as anyone.
Click to expand...

Good god I couldn't agree more. Someone asks a question, you get 10 opinions on the subject and then inevitably someone brings up how the MR2 is not classed correctly or the "washer bottle" thing comes up. Now the switches, :blink:



Andy Bettencourt said:
I have actually been told by more than a few lurkers I have met that they have LEARNED how to read the ITCS from these discussions. Angles, intent, etc.
Click to expand...

Andy - But it shouldn't be that way. It should be black and white, right? No guessing.
 
Last edited:
ShelbyRacer said:
Not to be nitpicky, but-

ITCS 9.1.3- D.1.h - Oil pans, pan baffles, scrapers, windage trays, oil pickups,
lines, and filters are unrestricted. Oil and power steering hoses
may be replaced with metal braided hose (i.e. Aeroquip). A
pressure accumulator/”Accusump” may be fitted. The location
of the filter and accumulator are unrestricted, but they shall
be securely mounted within the bodywork. All oil lines that
pass into or through the driver/passenger compartment shall
be metal or metal braided hose. Dry sump systems are prohibited​
unless fitted as standard equipment. Engine oil and oil
additives are unrestricted.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll give you motor oil, and coolant, but there's no where that allows substituting brake fluid, transmission oil, differential oil, or even powersteering fluid. Not a word about any of those in my 2011 gcr.

I found brake fluid... 6 Brakes a. Pads linings and fluid
 
Last edited:
>> ...or is it time to use some common sense and permit " a component or part, found on a stock example of a given model may be disabled, altered, or removed as long as no competitive advantage is obtained".

Fine. But there's a hell of a lot of room this side of "NO" competitive advantage. I'd argue that you wouldn't MAKE those changes to slow your car down. You believe they are good things, whether they take off weight (any weight) that you can put somewhere else, make service easier, save you money you can spend on new tires, or any number of other means by which you gain COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE.

It's been a while but we went down that path with other class rules in the past. It was finally determined that it was a flawed way of thinking about whether something should be allowed or is a cheat. We do NOT want to go anywhere near that - at least I don't think so.

But you're winning the "pecked to death by ducks" war, David. Good on ya. The upshot of this most recent episode is that I'm past giving a shit, and about ready to leap to BLOW THE EFFING DOORS OFF, BABY. I am facing some substantial repairs and service this winter and I could get another 30 pounds out of my car by taking out all of the "non-performance enhancing" crap that the rules currently require me to have. Since I'm well over the new minimum as I sit, I would, uh...

Oh, wait. Nevermind. No performance to be gained here. Nothing to see. Move along.

K
 
JeffYoung said:
Something like that happened to the ITS ARRC winner a few years back.

He had the ballast in the passenger floor, when it was supposed to be in the footwell.

Pretty ticky-tacky, but it cost (was it James Clay?) them an ARRC win.
Click to expand...

chuck baader said:
Was actually Kip VanSteinburg that got DQed from the ARRC after winning ITS. Bad part about it was that he asked a steward about the placement of the weight before the race and was told it was good. He's still pissed. Chuck
Click to expand...

Yup, it was Kip. I'll double check next time I see him, but, IIRC, he had the stuff bolted in, dbl checked with a tech steward about the placement. Again, it was years ago, but, I THINK he bolted it to the front rail of the passenger seat, as there was a good anchor point. Tech official (again, I THINK it was a tech official, but it might have been another steward), said, "ya you're good to go".
Then he was DQ'ed in post race tech, and I don't think it was a competitors protest that started it.
To his credit, he handled it pretty well, (all things considered, he WAS pissed!) took some blame, and has returned.
 
Kirk, as with the ignition switch sometimes people may choose to add a push button start because they made a mistake in their attemts to eliminate the locking device (raises hand). In other cases, people do it simply because they think it's cool. I can not see a competitive advantage to be gained by modifying how the car starts.

Maybe we, including the ITAC, should just make this rule so it gives room for people to add the freakin' push button start if they want to. Yeah, yeah, slippery slope and all of that about how this and the washer bottle is going to totally change IT. LOL If we're able to identify some items that has no performance advantage and the rules as writen currently are unclear, open it up a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top