ITAC News.

[JoshS]

Expect to see a letter from me objecting on both us founders having to replace parts long sold ...

I'm getting the picture clearly from all of you, but you all need to follow James' lead and send in your opinions because not everyone reads these forums.

But I just wanted to clarify -- based on the WDYT we published, no one would "have" to replace "parts long sold," as the removal of ABS components would still be allowed. But I do understand the counter-argument (which might be what you meant by "have to") that if it's a performance advantage, you'd feel some obligation to buy them back.

I'm still not clear on why we're talking about electronic throttles or what the proposal is.

 

[JoshS]

Leave the cars that want to run ABS in STx or Touring (is ABS allowed in Touring?). Leave the IT rules as is.

Yes, ABS, traction control, turbos, superchargers, and all sorts of stuff found on current cars is allowed in Touring. I don't think it is required to disable any stock equipment to race your car in Touring.

 

[Tristan Smith]

I'm not so confident in that statement. Why?

Many people wanted the engine mount rule changed, in fact, the member input was overwhelmingly in favor of changing the rule. But the ITAC didn't recommend the change to the CRB. So, based on that data I feel it is not entirely known what the ITAC will do. It might be that the majority of people do not want ABS in IT, but the ITAC recommends differently to the CRB.

And Josh,
I was not as angry as my earlier post would suggest.

BUT as Ron stated above, I have seen a trend in recent years that whenever these "ideas" pop up, that the ITAC or CRB has already set in motion their agenda, regardless of the member input.

I have said this a few times, and I will say it again. The ruleset needs to be left alone for a while. I appreciate all the things that the ITAC has done to try to lay out a repeatable process for classification, but there has also been a bit too much interest in "tinkering" with the rules and it makes me nervous.

 

[JoshS]

I think any tinkering makes anyone nervous. My goal as chair is to keep the ruleset relevant and interesting for BOTH existing racers and potential new ones, hopefully without upsetting the applecart in any way that makes existing racer's cars no longer viable. It's a tough line, but putting a moratorium on change would lead to IT becoming "vintage racing", somewhere I don't want it to go.

So we'll act carefully, I promise, possibly with the newer, faster classes becoming more progressive than the ones for which there are simply no newer cars to add. As of right now the only allowance change being discussed is the ABS in ITR one, and we're still soliciting member input, please write in if you have an opinion (http://www.crbscca.com).

Anyway, there is a whole committee (two of them actually) that work this stuff out, not just me, so my opinion is just one of many. I'm just the guy who keeps the meetings moving.

On that note, we had our meeting yesterday, and it went really well. Based on the last few posts on this thread, you'll be happy to know that we made no rule change recommendations, although we continue to work on the one that would allow us to adjust the weights of old listings. It's almost ready to go to the CRB, after which it will go out for member input.

Over the next couple of months we should be able to add listings to IT for several more currently-racing showroom stock models. On our list for this month and next are the Toyota Corolla XRS, the '06 Mazda MX-5, the Ford Mustang V6 ('05+), the Toyota MR2 Spyder, the Chevy Cobalt SS, the Pontiac Solstice, and the '06 Honda Civic Si. All great additions to IT and I look forward to seeing some move from SS. Of course the '06 models will not be legal until the '11 season.

 

[lateapex911]

I'm not so confident in that statement. Why?

Many people wanted the engine mount rule changed, in fact, the member input was overwhelmingly in favor of changing the rule. But the ITAC didn't recommend the change to the CRB. So, based on that data I feel it is not entirely known what the ITAC will do. It might be that the majority of people do not want ABS in IT, but the ITAC recommends differently to the CRB.

....And the CRB ignores the obvious member position.... it's been happening a lot in the past year.
Ron, on the engine mount issue, the ITAC was in favor, and the CRB knew it. The request could never have been put out for member input if the ITAC didn't support the concept. Member input was in favor... nearly unanimously. For some reason, (that I don't understand) it went back to the ITAC to be voted on again, but, there had been a change in the membership of the ITAC, and the vote result swung....to a tie. I'm still thinking it never needed to go back to the ITAC. But, the CRB accepted a "hung vote", and rejected the request, in spite of the obvious support from the vast majority of members, and the previous support of the committee.

 

[JoshS]

The request could never have been put out for member input if the ITAC didn't support the concept.

Jake, that's not really true. On that one, the ITAC supported the idea of asking the membership for more feedback, but wasn't necessarily in support of the proposal. It was sent out as a "WDYT" (What Do You Think?), not as a rule change recommendation. WDYT can be done without making a recommendation for a rule change.

And the same is true of the ABS in ITR thing. It is NOT true that the ITAC supports the change. We just want more than one letter on the idea to help figure out what to do.

If a committee actually does make a rule change recommendation to the CRB and the CRB accepts it, then it is put on the BOD agenda and published as a rule change proposal. These are different things.

 

[jimmyc]

Over the next couple of months we should be able to add listings to IT for several more currently-racing showroom stock models. On our list for this month and next are the Toyota Corolla XRS, the '06 Mazda MX-5, the Ford Mustang V6 ('05+), the Toyota MR2 Spyder, the Chevy Cobalt SS, the Pontiac Solstice, and the '06 Honda Civic Si. All great additions to IT and I look forward to seeing some move from SS. Of course the '06 models will not be legal until the '11 season.

Is that a mistake?? Or is forced induction now allowed in IT??

 

[JoshS]

There is a non-supercharged Cobalt SS with the 2.4L Ecotec. Came out in '06.

EDIT: Info from Wikipedia

 

[Ron Earp]

Jake, that's not really true. On that one, the ITAC supported the idea of asking the membership for more feedback, but wasn't necessarily in support of the proposal. It was sent out as a "WDYT" (What Do You Think?), not as a rule change recommendation. WDYT can be done without making a recommendation for a rule change.

What is the reason for asking for member input?

I'm inferring from the underlined statement above to mean "the ITAC was not in favor of the motor mount change rule". I think that is the only reasonable interpretation of the ambiguous language you used.

Did the ITAC ask for "WDYT" on the proposal just to see if the member input aligned with their direction? A sort of, "let's see what they think and if it aligns with what we think then that lends a bit more credibility to our decision, and, if it doesn't align with what we think, well, we'll write that off as letter responses are not indicative of what membership really wants and not recommend the proposal anyway."

If the member input isn't going to be acted on by the ITAC there is no reason to request it.

 

[JoshS]

The reason for asking for member input is to see if hearing from the members can clarify the positions of any of the ITAC members.

At the time we asked, it was not clear what would ultimately be recommended.

I don't really understand why you think it's all so sinister. Do you REALLY think that the ITAC sits around coming up with schemes to piss the members off? No one wants to piss the members off!

Occam's Razor applies. There are no black helicopters.

 

[EV]

... Do you REALLY think that the ITAC sits around coming up with schemes to piss the members off? No one wants to piss the members off!....

They don't have to "think" of schemes, they just do by their very actions.

The motor mount issue really angered me (and others). I can get a full set of poly mounts for my car for the cost of one OEM mount. There is zero reason to deny this request other than to piss people off... Be glad ITAC members aren't subject to member votes....

 

[tnord]

wrong bill.

the motor mount rule as written, in my eyes, was yet another handout to FWD cars. they get to upgrade what amounts to engine, trans, and diff mounts while the RWD guys got engine mounts only.

i'm not in favor of that.

 

[EV]

wrong bill.

the motor mount rule as written, in my eyes, was yet another handout to FWD cars. they get to upgrade what amounts to engine, trans, and diff mounts while the RWD guys got engine mounts only.

i'm not in favor of that.

But in a RWD configuration, the infamous "stay rod" works quite well to control engine movement. In a FWD configuration, a stay rod is nothing more than added ballast in my opinion. (unless I am missing something)

 

[tnord]

<---- doesn't buy that when an engine is rotated 90deg a stayrod goes from "works great" to ineffective.

 

[Knestis]

We use the current rule to great effect on the Golf, if I say so myself.

K

 

[GKR_17]

BTW, the big elephant in the room is that if you allow ABS, you allow wheel-speed sensors. If you allow wheel-speed sensors, then you allow that information to be fed to the ECU (at least for those cars that do that, stock). If you allow that information to go to the ECU, you potentially enable at least engine-based traction control, and maybe for ultra-sophisticated stock ABS systems, brake-based traction control too.

soon we're going to see requests to class cars with stability and traction controls, advanced ABS with electronic brake force distribution, and a host of other "illegal" features and a decision should be made NOW about how to deal with them

There are currently five spec lines that have some form of electronic stability control available. Those systems use the ABS unit for both traction and stability control. Let ABS in and traction/stability control is in by default for some cars.

NO auto shift manual transmissions...

Check again, there's one listed already.

 

[EV]

We use the current rule to great effect on the Golf, if I say so myself.

K

I would love to see how your implementing that. I can't see how I can do it without possibly compromising something. For my car, I am afraid to make a solid connection to anything since the rest of the motor flops around like crazy. I fear I may break something with only one attachment point that hard fast..

 

[CRallo]

There are currently five spec lines that have some form of electronic stability control available. Those systems use the ABS unit for both traction and stability control. Let ABS in and traction/stability control is in by default for some cars.



Check again, there's one listed already.

Didn't say there are or are not... I expressed my opinion that there should not be

 

[quadzjr]

I have a question.. I thought about asking to get the MR-S classified a while ago, but as far as I am aware it never came from the factory with a hardtop. However toyota did make a hard top and sold them.

Is this the same situation with the S2000? Obviously the S2000 was classed but maybe a few did come stock with the hardtop.

I don't think that anybody makes aftermarket tops for the MR-S, but what about the S2000. the top can be replaced with factory equilavent.

and by that same token if you say were to classify an elise in IT.. would it be allowed to run the hardtop off the extige?

are you allowed to run convertible? I have seem a few SM run without a top.. is this legal in IT as well?

as a note I don't have a copy of the GCR in front of me.

 

[JoshS]

I have a question.. I thought about asking to get the MR-S classified a while ago, but as far as I am aware it never came from the factory with a hardtop. However toyota did make a hard top and sold them.

Is this the same situation with the S2000? Obviously the S2000 was classed but maybe a few did come stock with the hardtop.

I don't think that anybody makes aftermarket tops for the MR-S, but what about the S2000. the top can be replaced with factory equilavent.

and by that same token if you say were to classify an elise in IT.. would it be allowed to run the hardtop off the extige?

are you allowed to run convertible? I have seem a few SM run without a top.. is this legal in IT as well?

as a note I don't have a copy of the GCR in front of me.

9.1.3.D.8.f: "Convertible models may compete with their respective OEM hardtop. All latches shall be replaced with positive fasteners."