I decided to send in a request to remove/replace wires in IT cars
- Thread starter shwah
- Start date
RacerBill
New member
Just for the record, I was told by a National licensed tech inspector during an annual inspection a couple of years ago, that my stock wiring harness looked messy and that I should consider 'cleaning it up'.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Sure, and what he meant was, degrease it, organize it and/or route it through some plastic snakes.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Isn't that who votes on these issues?
RacerBill
New member
Actually, it was pretty clean, and was running thru the original plastic snakes!!!!!!!!
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
And some would tell you that the 'evolution' of the rule-set was to blame. To redefine the rules to come more in line with where the rules have evolved to or even better - "what people are doing" is, to many, the very definition of creep.
Read: History of Spherical Bearings in Improved Touring
Just sayin'.
DooDs, I agree that we could amend the rules to the greatest common denominator in terms of what we would like allowed. But you best be prepared to define the allowance that encompases 'non essential engine bay components' or however you are going to allow the removal of a WB or whatever else you think the membership wants.
Last edited:
To your organizational change theory concerns, Chris - I dug in my heels over what I viewed as malfeasance on the part of selected CRB members, bad governance practices imposed by a few folks between the ITAC and the that body, and (mostly) to being told that I shouldn't communicate with members. The actual practices the ITAC was applying were established and had been accepted - hell, endorsed - by the CRB and our liaison. Everything was fine until what we were doing bumped up against a few sacred cows.
To your point about intentions, I'll just refer folks to...
http://www.roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?p=846519#post846519
K
PS - I think that we violated the "core values" of IT when it became essentially impossible to maintain the dual purpose nature of the cars with a car prepared to the limit of the rules. How about that...? Why are the values of the Real Racing Car™ crowd more valuable than mine...?
To your point about intentions, I'll just refer folks to...
http://www.roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?p=846519#post846519
K
PS - I think that we violated the "core values" of IT when it became essentially impossible to maintain the dual purpose nature of the cars with a car prepared to the limit of the rules. How about that...? Why are the values of the Real Racing Car™ crowd more valuable than mine...?
JeffYoung
New member
Kirk, that's a fair point, and it would have a lot of sway with me....if we were back in 1990, or if things hadn't changed before my time.
The reality is the dual purpose language is no longer core IT value. Maybe we shouldn't have changed that, but it was changed (before my time).
Your viewpoint is valid, but that battle was fought and decided.
The reality is the dual purpose language is no longer core IT value. Maybe we shouldn't have changed that, but it was changed (before my time).
Your viewpoint is valid, but that battle was fought and decided.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
While true, please don't dismiss the history as not pertinent. It is a real example of creep (also known as 'you get what you want').
It WILL continue, no matter how slow, unless someone holds the line.
Gary L
New member
Chris - I'm going to respectfully suggest that if this ^^^^ was your intent, you need to do a re-write. The letter in your first post says something altogether different, IMO:
I read that as a proposal to allow removal of any wiring that isn't necessary to make the car function. (Which, BTW, as the owner/driver of a 40 year old car, I would favor highly... selfish or not!
)i am here to serve the category, and SCCA as a whole. we will never be 100% sure what is representative of the drivers of the 1000+ IT cars *out there.* i will absolutely consider member input, but on some issues almost no amount of member input will sway me to change my mind on a few things (like alternate control arms)....hence my "I'm not here to make friends" comment. regardless of the issue, "it's easier," or "real race cars have/don't have," or "this is cool," is not sufficient for me to forego RULES STABILITY in favor of the flavor of the day.
somewhat OT but a relevant comparison....
US politics is totally fucked in part because as soon as they are in office, they're already worried about re-election. they're only worried about the next 2-4 yrs with zero consideration for the implications of their decisions further down the road. an ITAC member is not elected, and i am here to consider BOTH the short term and long term effects of each decision on their own merits.
JeffYoung
New member
What is "the category?" It's the members.
I don't think being proud of not being here to make friends is a good idea either. We are on a committee. We need to work with other committee members and membership. I'm not saying you don't do what you think is right -- you should -- but this isn't (or shouldn't be) a head butting contest.
I fully agree with you on rules stability. It's a valid concern, and one that is important to me. But again, it ties back into to "core IT values" for me. If it isn't a core value, and most of membership seems to want it, we need to consider it AND we need to understand that "membership wanting it" can be a sufficient 'why" or reason for the change.
That doesn't mean we do it, but it means that we consider it, and consider the fact that our constituents are asking for it as one factor weighing in favor of the request.
I don't think being proud of not being here to make friends is a good idea either. We are on a committee. We need to work with other committee members and membership. I'm not saying you don't do what you think is right -- you should -- but this isn't (or shouldn't be) a head butting contest.
I fully agree with you on rules stability. It's a valid concern, and one that is important to me. But again, it ties back into to "core IT values" for me. If it isn't a core value, and most of membership seems to want it, we need to consider it AND we need to understand that "membership wanting it" can be a sufficient 'why" or reason for the change.
That doesn't mean we do it, but it means that we consider it, and consider the fact that our constituents are asking for it as one factor weighing in favor of the request.
Z3_GoCar
New member
But does the ITAC have any power to really maintain the dual purpose nature of IT cars? So in essence you'd like to have a race car with it's full smog gear? How about passing various state safety inspections, Virginia's laws on loud exhausts. So you'd like the ITAC to dial back the rules any time a state legislature/Feds come up with new more restrictive rules?
NO, it most certainly was *not* fought and NOBODY made a "decision" to move past that first principle. We "creeped" past where that was any longer possible over dozens and dozens of small additional allowances over the years. The dual purpose statement was made obsolete by incremental changes, not because someone sat down and decided it was a good idea to do it in. Nobody knew to fight it because everyone was busy looking forward to their own next request for a neat thing they wanted to do.
Frog. Pot. Burner. We aren't paying enough attention to know we should jump until we're cooked. Travis's comparison to politics is apropos.
K
EDIT - Note here that "dual purpose" was, back in the olden days, the way we operationalized "affordable."
Last edited:
JeffYoung
New member
I'm sure that similar arguments against proposed changes were made then as well.
Maybe there was unintentional creep, but I doubt it. You've been around a long time, do you remember discussions over removing the passenger seat, or the cat, or the headliner?
I know these cars were originally showroom stock cars and they've of course gone way beyound that. But I still think they remain much closer to their original purpose and intent than most SCCA classes. Hell, look at SM at this point, after just a few short years. And there is always the Prod example of course.
I read the ruleset you dug up from 1985 or whatever, and other than spherical bearings and ECUs there didn't seem to be a whole hell of a lot of difference in peformance mods then versus now. Safety and convenience have changed a lot, I agree.
Maybe there was unintentional creep, but I doubt it. You've been around a long time, do you remember discussions over removing the passenger seat, or the cat, or the headliner?
I know these cars were originally showroom stock cars and they've of course gone way beyound that. But I still think they remain much closer to their original purpose and intent than most SCCA classes. Hell, look at SM at this point, after just a few short years. And there is always the Prod example of course.
I read the ruleset you dug up from 1985 or whatever, and other than spherical bearings and ECUs there didn't seem to be a whole hell of a lot of difference in peformance mods then versus now. Safety and convenience have changed a lot, I agree.
Here are a few others--Threaded Body struts allowed (You used to only be allowed to use a threaded sleeve--ridiculous rule).
Passenger seat removal
BATTERIES ("similar" cca and weight)
Driver seat--One piece race shells (with or without back brace/ FIA)
Mandatory kill switch
Regressive--Ban on separate cannisters for struts
Extra cage bars
Driver door gutting
Passenger seat removal
BATTERIES ("similar" cca and weight)
Driver seat--One piece race shells (with or without back brace/ FIA)
Mandatory kill switch
Regressive--Ban on separate cannisters for struts
Extra cage bars
Driver door gutting
I had no window into the rules-making process between the time I left road racing (1990) and returned in 2004, so I don't know, Jeff.
Creep is by definition unintentional, in that nobody sits down and develops a strategic plan for how allowances for new modifications will be rolled out. And you take a much narrower view of what a "performance mod" is than I do. EVERY allowance has improved performance at the margin - otherwise each wouldn't have been requested.
Finally (and sorry I missed it before), back to this...
NO IT IS NOT.
The Improved Touring category has outlived something more than a QUARTER MILLION members. The first obligation of the decision makers is to the well-being and longevity of the program, NOT to the relatively limited number of current participants. Recruiting, retention, and satisfaction of the members is an outcome of program health. See Travis's comparison again. Read it a few times, while thinking about the Club Racing participants who have come and gone just in the time you've (you all) been involved.
They leave for all kinds of reasons, almost none of which are factors controlled by the IT rules-makers. We have no obligation to try to give each of them what he or she wants. You have the responsibility to remember the history and take the long view.
K
Creep is by definition unintentional, in that nobody sits down and develops a strategic plan for how allowances for new modifications will be rolled out. And you take a much narrower view of what a "performance mod" is than I do. EVERY allowance has improved performance at the margin - otherwise each wouldn't have been requested.
Finally (and sorry I missed it before), back to this...
NO IT IS NOT.
The Improved Touring category has outlived something more than a QUARTER MILLION members. The first obligation of the decision makers is to the well-being and longevity of the program, NOT to the relatively limited number of current participants. Recruiting, retention, and satisfaction of the members is an outcome of program health. See Travis's comparison again. Read it a few times, while thinking about the Club Racing participants who have come and gone just in the time you've (you all) been involved.
They leave for all kinds of reasons, almost none of which are factors controlled by the IT rules-makers. We have no obligation to try to give each of them what he or she wants. You have the responsibility to remember the history and take the long view.
K
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Regarding the dual purpose nature of the category, I would agree that it was lost due to creep, but I'd suggest that creep was from two sources, and one fed the other, much in the way software development and hardware development were tied together in the early days of computers. (No cool software without increases in processor speed, etc).
Our rules were allowed to creep away from the dual purpose core because, in part, even the most basic form (earliest) of our rules would be illegal to be driven on the road today, in most states.
Further, our sport has seen fundamental shifts in peoples perceptions of, and acceptance of, risk. While we once drove our race cars to the track and nobody gave it much thought*, now, it would go like this:
Husband: "I'm just going to drive the racecar to the track this weekend, so you can have the SUV and take the kids to the beach, honey"
Wife: "WHAT?! Are you insane!? Seriously, have you lost your mind? You'll be killed in that thing! It has no airbags, or traction control or anything!! If it rains and some SUV spins you'll be run over! Flattened!! You have kids, you have responsibility, it's bad enough you take that thing on a track, but on the street!? no way!"
So, I think the rules have evolved to match social norms, technological considerations and legislative standards outside the inner circle of racing and our prep rules as much as anything.
Or, I imagine the rulesmakers thought process could be boiled down to the short story: Why bother having a dual purpose care when nobody will use it like that, and it would be illegal to do in most states anyway?
Our rules were allowed to creep away from the dual purpose core because, in part, even the most basic form (earliest) of our rules would be illegal to be driven on the road today, in most states.
Further, our sport has seen fundamental shifts in peoples perceptions of, and acceptance of, risk. While we once drove our race cars to the track and nobody gave it much thought*, now, it would go like this:
Husband: "I'm just going to drive the racecar to the track this weekend, so you can have the SUV and take the kids to the beach, honey"
Wife: "WHAT?! Are you insane!? Seriously, have you lost your mind? You'll be killed in that thing! It has no airbags, or traction control or anything!! If it rains and some SUV spins you'll be run over! Flattened!! You have kids, you have responsibility, it's bad enough you take that thing on a track, but on the street!? no way!"
So, I think the rules have evolved to match social norms, technological considerations and legislative standards outside the inner circle of racing and our prep rules as much as anything.
Or, I imagine the rulesmakers thought process could be boiled down to the short story: Why bother having a dual purpose care when nobody will use it like that, and it would be illegal to do in most states anyway?
Last edited:
JeffYoung
New member
Well, I always respect your viewpoint both historical and in the present, but I couldn't disagree more.
IT is nothing but a name. It means nothing without the folks who are putting their time and money into going racing in it NOW.
The long view is protected by not making basic changes to the rules like the ECU rule, or spherical bearings. Beyond that, our duty is to the members.
IT is nothing but a name. It means nothing without the folks who are putting their time and money into going racing in it NOW.
The long view is protected by not making basic changes to the rules like the ECU rule, or spherical bearings. Beyond that, our duty is to the members.