Originally posted by Knestis:
This is going to sound a little harsh but should be taken as intended - as pragmatic.
It seems like an effort is under way here to conjoin two entirely different issues, to suit the policy intentions of a minority of people - those building cars with rare wiring harnesses.
You're right the arguments are becoming conjoined, which is why there is another thread on the wiring harness issue. Which is as much for extensive repair of aging cars as rare vehicles.
Originally posted by Knestis:
Whether the current ECU rule is stupid (or not), or too expensive (or not), or even enforceable (or not) is completely immaterial to the specific question of wiring harnesses.
There was no premeditation on the CRB's part to specifically allow high-dollar programmable EFI systems when the rules to allow FI tuning were put in place. That was an unintended consequence that resulted in what I think we may all agree is rules creep.
But this apparently extreme departure from the class intent, normal limits, etc is why it's used as a argument for everything else. If you allow this, then why not that? I'm not even saying that's a valid argument but it's certainly hard to avoid.
Originally posted by Knestis:
That is a prime example of why it is dangerous to open up the rules, even if in the case of wiring, the resulting loopholes might not prove to be as expensive and contentious as the MoTec issue seems to be.
Suggesting that, because we missed the mark with one big rule allowance, we might as well chuck it in with a few others too, is completely unreasonable - unless you have a particular agenda that you want to further.
Hey, I'll freely admit I have an agenda of wanting rules that allow me to build a reliable, cost effective vehicle that doesn't give me an unfair advantage over someone else.
Originally posted by Knestis:
Now, I'm on record as recognizing that the SCCA club racing rule system is based on exactly what some people are doing - advocating for their own competitive positions - but please don't expect to make the argument stick on the coattails of the ECU mess.
Again, the subject is on a new topic but there are still some fundamental flaws in the ECU rule one of which overlaps into the wiring harness situation.
Originally posted by Knestis:
Here's the pragamatic part: As much as I LOVE the idea of variety in the IT grids, when someone chooses to build a particular car, they accept it for better or for worse. Mr. Amy could race something that didn't require him to engineer all his own parts. Geo could have chosen something that didn't cost a bazillion dollars to get horsepower out of...
I could have picked something that didn't require a full chassis dip and strip, and ultra-light cage to meet minimum weight but, on the other hand, I can get an entire wiring harness from a boneyard for $25. That's the hand I'm dealt, bad cards and good, and I have to play it.
I'm willing to run a car a know is not classed competitively as are a lot of people. The common thread is if we aren't guaranteed to be competive why are we spending more time and money to do something that doesn't make us any faster anyway?
Originally posted by Knestis:
I'm sorry but I believe that everyone else should too, rather than injecting additional opportunities for the rules to get even more obtuse, as is SURE to happen every time a change gets made.
K
The rules might be opened to an unintended interpretation everytime they are changed, but if there is logic behind the rule based on the class intent the rule is less obtuse, not more.
If we are so concerned about halting all rule changes why was the ECU rule allowed? Because it was unenforceable? That sounds obtuse.
Also, would the Motec problem be as big of an issue if the BMWs weren't perceived as the class killers that most think they are? It appears that the biggest problem with the Motec system is it is a glaring modification on an already front running car. If the BMW wasn't the overdog most people think it is I don't think the ECU problem would be that big an issue.
------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96
[This message has been edited by Matt Rowe (edited December 23, 2004).]
