Equal Time - In Defense of "Useless Items"

K

Knestis

Moderator
So we don't clutter up Ron's thread about what people want to remove, how about equal time to present the case against that kind of initiative?

Warning: Some of the following may be construed as intolerent but is put out in the interest of reasonable discourse.

In no particular order...

** The suggestion that removing stuff is "free" ignores the very real cost of time. Taking out my AC was NOT free - it cost two long evenings of hours for two guys, two pizzas, and - in this case - different belts and pulleys. While the degree of cost is much less with other items, it isn't "free" until it takes NO time at all. Leaving things ON takes NO time at all.

** The argument that we will make a lot of non-compliant cars legal by not requiring all of those useless parts is, while perhaps accurate, a dangerous precedent. It is NOT a stretch to suggest that the same language could be wrapped around illegal gearbox ratios, cams, or compression ratios. A large majority of college students believe that "everyone" plagiarizes web content for reports. Does that make it right?

** The belief that real race cars don't have those parts is perhaps the most dangerous rationale for additional allowances. "Real race cars" don't have any OE parts, cost huge pots of dough, and are expensive to run and maintain. I've had enough of them to know that I don't WANT a real race car: I want an IT car. This position gets summed up in the shorthand, "go run Production" - which is not a bad suggestion for someone for whom this is a big personal motivator, even if it does get slapped down with reactionary comments about chasing people away.

** Using the argument that IT cars are no longer dual-purpose cars is perpetuating a self-fulfilling prophecy. (Is that a mixed metaphor?) Rationalizing a purposeful decision to liberalize the rules based on the presence of de facto allowances largely the result of unintended consequences seems terribly dangerous to me.

** The most popular argument - "I just can't find one" - must fairly be translated into either (a) "I just don't want to find one," or (B) "I just can't afford to find one." I don't care WHAT you are racing: There is one of every part you could possible want out there. If you have to spend $100 to buy it and it cuts into your tire budget, that is a reality for a minority of entrants, for which the rules for an entire category should not be held hostage.

** Rationalizing the removal of parts on safey grounds has always been popular - that's where headliners and passenger seats went. Again - this can be logically applied to everything from Lexan windscreens (I've seen big things go THROUGH stock windshields) to bigger brakes. Any argument that can logically be applied incrementally until we "lighten and reinforce" the entire car away, to be built from scratch, should NOT be accepted as valid. (That is a reference, by the way, to the old TransAm [then GT1] rule that made it OK to make the transition to "real race car" suspension parts 25 years ago.)

** That they just have to be replaced once wrecked? Of course they do. Nobody WANTS to break anything but we all go into this deal with our eyes wide open to that possibility - I hope - and it seems fair to assume that we've considered those costs in advance.

I realize a couple of things, here. First, I am officially a old fart. I'm OK with that. Second, I'm probably pissing into the wind on this front.

Rules creep is glacial - slow and completely irresistable. It will always happen because those genies pretty much can't ever get put back in their bottles. Well meaning people make little changes, each of which makes perfect sense in isolation but the sum of them can be pretty huge - and every one has unintended consequences.

I'm more than a little worried that, by pulling a big stick out of the IT rules logjam, the hard work and successes of the ITCS will be seen as an invitation to go hog wild.

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited February 21, 2005).]
 
Been trying to stay away from this board and actually work on the race car, but do want to chime in here. Kirk, for argument's sake and because I appreciate your perspective as someone who was around with IT from the creation, would you say that the following is generally a true statement:

The core IT sacred cows that differentiate it from Production have not been subject to rules creep (wild cams/engines, non-stock gearboxes and stock body panels). Around those "core values," rules creep has made IT cars, slowly over time, become more and more like pure race cars.

I'm interested to hear what you think of that because for me, a latecomer to IT, it is my view of what IT "is" vis a vis Production and honestly, I like it. The really big ticket stuff -- crazy engines, special transmissions and bodywork -- stays in Production. IT racers are allowed to make their cars turn, but everything else is stock with allowances for the rigors and stress of racing.

I'm ok with that as the fundamental philosophy behind IT today, and see most of what has happened in the last few years to be well within the limits defined by that principle.

Trying to make an old fart joke here, but it just ain't working........by the way, how did Pablo, and his dad, handle the 3 hours solo?
 
Originally posted by JeffYoung:
The core IT sacred cows that differentiate it from Production have not been subject to rules creep (wild cams/engines, non-stock gearboxes and stock body panels)...
Click to expand...

As far as it goes, that much is true. The gearbox, engine mechanicals, and bodywork of IT cars have been consistent.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Around those "core values," rules creep has made IT cars, slowly over time, become more and more like pure race cars.</font>
Click to expand...

Also true but to be fair, rules creep (which I think of as incremental changes to the written regulations) hasn't been to blame for most of the difference we see. Lower costs for higher technology parts, more availability in the marketplace, evolving expectations of prep levels, and increasingly liberal interpretations of rules all play a part.

The enduro was pretty entertaining. I'm a little sore today but it was surprisingly not a huge problem to go 3.5 hours with one 4 minute stop. I had a drink bottle (a good thing - when it's cold in VA, it's dry) and the Golf is easy to drive with power steering and a good seating position.

It sounds minor but I had a "little" problem with my belt adjustment from the roll off so I was wrestling to get things worked out the first few times I got to the front straight. After that, it was smooth sailing...

...with the exception of more than a few REALLY awful drivers in high-horsepower cars. There was also a Porsche GT3 entered that turned - no shit - a 2:00 lap during the race. Got to see him a few times.

K
 
The core IT sacred cows that differentiate it from Production have not been subject to rules creep (wild cams/engines, non-stock gearboxes and stock body panels).

Thats what I've been trying to say.
As long as you keep these "core values" in IT, no other amount of inevitable rules creep will make it become Production or "Production Lite."
These are the big ticket items in Prod. These 3 items alone can be the difference between an otherwise identical $10000 ITC build and a $20000 G Production build, and frankly I think a pole of current IT drivers would reveal that 90% of them want to go nowhere near this stuff.

Thats where some of us newbies and "middle aged farts" (and I'm one of those) disconnect with some of you older guys. We hear "Passenger Side Door Glass" and we wonder why the hell we have to keep that on the car.
But we hear "Houseman Dog Box" and "14:1 compression" and we run from it like an oncoming plague.

Someone asked in the other thread where the line is drawn... The 4 core values (motor, tranny, bodywork,and suspension geometry, since that hasn't changed either and is another BIG difference between IT and Prod) are the answer.


------------------
#22 ITC Honda Civic
3rd Place 2004 ARRC
1st Place 2004 ARRC Enduro
 
In general, I concur with most, if not all yout points, K...

I am sensitive to the plight that owners of rare or older cars can find themselves in, but I do see the "Don't move next to an airport, then complain it's louder than you thought it would be" logic...

I think the one other item, which is not listed as a reason to back up the requests, is the possible unintended changes in potential performance from car to car, and the theoretical, or perhaps real, changes in actual performance.

My take is that the first "test" that I put a suggestion thru in my mind is..."If this were to be passed, would it affect ALL cars in the category equally?"




------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
I grant that a real clarity has been achieved here by defining the "Big Four" attributes of IT-ness. I confess that it actually gives me some comfort and provides perspective on the scale of the other issues that we kick around. This is helpful.

Giving full points there, I won't resort to armageddon hyperbole but riddle me this: If for the 2006 season, the IT and LProd rules were identical, except where they touched on those for areas - bodywork, suspension geometry, engine, and gearbox - do you really believe that there wouldn't be requests to the CRB for allowances in those areas for 2007?

It doesn't take 90% of the people in a category to want something, for it to get changed. It only takes one person asking the right question, of the right board members, at the right time.

A friend of mine used to say, "Once you're #@%$ed, you can't get un-#@%$ed." The $6000 gearset is a unplanned pregnancy resulting from a request of just this type which, if I understand correctly, is a relatively new addition to the Production rules. If the membership had been asked if it wanted the right to spend three months of the average worker's salary on gears, would 90% of them said, "Yeah, why not?"

K
 
do you really believe that there wouldn't be requests to the CRB for allowances in those areas for 2007?

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter if these things are *requested*.
This is where we just have to trust the CRB to do the right thing and NOT start letting IT drift towards being just more prod classes. And lets face it, if you start letting "The Big Four" be allowed in IT, then there is no reason to even HAVE both the IT and Prod classes. Might as well just eliminate IT and classify every car in Production.

So Kirk, the answer is "Let them ask for whatever they want and hopefully the CRB will have the common sense to immediately deny it."

Again, I'll say what I said in the other thread. I just dont see how allowing removal of passenger side glass and washer bottles will lead to tube framed IT cars, even IF someone requests it.
We simply must have more faith than that in the people that make our rules. They'll make mistakes, but they'd have to be sleeping at the wheel to make mistakes as big as Kirk is suggesting are possible.

As far as the IT rules mimicking the LP Prod rules, minus the "big four." Makes sense to me. The only stipulation I'd make is that those items "may" be removed instead of "must" be removed for the few remaining folks (like Kirk) who still drive their cars to the track.
 
And just to put some perspective on "The Big Four" in terms of real monetary cost... I spent the weekend at the CMP National crewing for a buddy of mine and his GP Limited Prep '87 Honda CRX. We had lots of conversations about the cost and effort on the car since GP is something I've considered doing.

The car is a very competitive limited prep car (on the pole for the race, under the existing GP track record). The car has custom molded front fenders, modified OE rear fenders, a houseman gearbox, and a trick Sunbelt motor with a custom cam (the Big 3 for limited prep). To this point (and there's still some things he can do to it) he estimates the car has nearly $25K in it. In comparison, had he stopped short of the Big Three and just built the thing as an ITB car his investment would have been around $13K.

Thats pretty much HALF... H A L F !
And thats Limited Prep. The suspension on the car is IT legal.

Again. THATS where you draw the line.

PS - Maybe we should make it "the big 5"
We forgot DOT tires. We definately want to keep that.
 
I'm a flip-flopper on this one. The racer in me says get rid of that junk, the old-timer in me says they should be dual-purpose race cars. The Big 4 core values are reassuring but I am just enough of an old-timer (my dad raced Hprod with his MG-TD street car and my brother and I turned a 70's era HP Sprite into an 80's era Prod car) to know that the Prod rules used to read just like the IT rules. So it behoves all of us to keep a foot on the CRB's chest and control rules creep. I wrote the Board when there was talk of turning SS into T1,2,3,4. Prod used to be showroom stock, heck SS used to be showroon stock. Who was it that said "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it."?

------------------
Thomas Benham
 
I am totally psyched that we are having an actual civil debate on a point of philosophy regarding the direction of the class, and discussing in a constructive way what to do (or not do.) This is great!

I think the clarification of "Big Five" is the best summary I have ever heard of what IT is about. How about we get some other letters going to the CRB? That would be such an excellent foundation upon which to base a re-write of the IT rules (gonna happen anyway...)
 
Originally posted by Catch22:
The suspension on the car is IT legal.
Click to expand...

You guys need to go read the LP rules a little more carefully... the suspensions in LP are NOT IT legal in many ways... LP has it's own set of suspension rules that vary from IT in several respects...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Being a total newb (I hope to run my first race this weekend), I think my idea of IT was that the things that make the car go, stop, and turn as well as the body would be severely restricted, but that things outside of this core group would be left open. I certainly have no desire for a high compression engine with radical headwork, free gearboxes, or any other major modifications to things that affect the speed of the car. I would, however, like the freedom to remove the water bottle, turn signal stalk, or other extraneous items if I so desire.

I think the brake system should also be added to the list of core areas. There could be some major modifications done there if not regulated.

There seem to be some people on this discussion that have been around for a while. So I was wondering if somebody could give me a history lesson on how differentials became free and how the aftermarket engine management system in the stock box rule came about. These would seem to be major modifications to a core area, which I would think would be outside the philosophy of IT.

David
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
...with the exception of more than a few REALLY awful drivers in high-horsepower cars. There was also a Porsche GT3 entered that turned - no shit - a 2:00 lap during the race. Got to see him a few times.

K
Click to expand...


I would personally fund the purchase of enough gasoline to burn the entire world's supply of 'replica' Cobra race cars. This weekend at VIR did nothing to change my opinion of them...
 
A good thread. Two other sacred cows maybe: DOT tires only and IF IT DOESN'T SAY YOU CAN, YOU CAN'T?

A 30 second a lap difference at VIR is in my view not safe. But that is NASA for you I guess. Of course, I saw that little Honda and that blue Acura a lot at the 13 Hour too. Glad you had a good run. You will be there in March I assume?
 
the suspensions in LP are NOT IT legal in many ways

I know that. What I meant was that the suspension on *this particular car* is IT legal. So there is still plenty of potential Prod money to spend.
The braking system on this car is IT legal as well. Even MORE potential Prod money to spend, even in Limited Prep.

Are we up to "The Big 6" in core values now?
- Motor
- Transmission
- Body skin
- Tires
- Brakes
- Suspension

I wouldn't touch any of these things in the current IT rules. They are the buffer zone between IT and Prod and where all the extra money is spent.

Passenger door glass???
I can go take mine out right now. It'll take about 15 minutes and a monetary cost of zero.
What do I gain?
Nothing, but I lose a big piece of potentially broken glass that I'm required to NOT use in a race.

PS - An IT car was black flagged this past weekend and brought in for leaving his passenger side window UP (it was raining).
Yeah, lets keep that glass in there. We obviously need it.
 
David-

I haven't been around since the begining, but I will hazard a guess on the diff. I bet it was done to ease the classing issue, and make it easier to have large groups of cars able to race each other.

An example is my car...a 1st gen RX-7. Only the GSL models came with ltd slip diffs, (optionalon the GS too maybe?), but the vast amout of cars out ther were non ltd slip models. It makes sense to allow them because the pool of available cars becomes greater, and therefor, cheaper. Also, if yu allow them, that is one less "factor" you need to consider when classing cars. In other words you can pretty much forget about car A being slower than car B because it lacks a diff. So it's simpler to class. (One less "adder")

The ECU rule was a reaction to the growing concern that ECUs were being modified in large numbers, and policing them was way beyond the reasonable capability of most regions. So, it was thought to just change the rule to match the reality.

A note here, is that GRJ, in another thread recommends the exclusion of turn signal stalks based on two factors. One, it's actually an instrument and is therefor legal to remove anyway, and two, everybody he knows has done it anyway, so it might just as well be legal.

So the ECU rule stands as an example of something to consider when the bar is lowered to meet perceived "reality."

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
Jake, what about free gearing in the rear end though? Same thing? Some models of the same car came with competitive gearing but others didn't?

This is a HUGE "free" rule in the ITCS. I agree with it, but I bet it nets people more seconds than any other in the book. I picked up 2 seconds at VIR -- TWO, that's a ton -- with a gear change.
 
When we were writing our OWN IT rules in NW Region - two years before the "national regional" rules were published - we put in the diff and FD rules because quite a number of models that offered them as options or production variants.

I don't KNOW but I'm confident that had something to do with National's inclusion of the same thing. Remember too - many, if not most, of the very first crop of ex-SS IT cars were RWD.

K
 
I think we are still at the Big 5, as I consider all the allowances to the suspension above and beyond a stock car, coil-overs, adjustable shocks, any sway bars, traction bars, etc.. And, as technology has advanced over the past years (or unadvanced depending if you got caught up in the remote resovoir shocks)the suspension bits and pieces have been revised in several areas. However, I am relatively happy the way the suspension rules are currently written. The Big 5 are still "stock" with a few exceptions such as engine rebuilds to "stock", final drives, race DOT tires, and racing pads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top