March FasTrack is up!
- Thread starter Bill Miller
- Start date
Yes it has Jake and I've been waiting for someone to make this argument: that the writer wanted to limit the definition (perhaps he thought he was "the center of the universe" and could redefine accepted terms for his own use.
But, no, I think he or she probably just left off the part that instruments are also switches and it got printed that way. That's more logical than one purposely outdating intended rules. But I may be wrong, Jake, how about you, can you be wrong?
GRJ
[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 11, 2005).]
gran racing
Super Moderator
GRJ - hey, that's not a bad idea. Or maybe one on how to keep what I already have and keep using that in the future?
------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si
------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si
GRJ, as I've said many times (though some might disagree of course), intent is not valid in determining legality. The written word is what matters. Intent only matters when crafting a rule. It's up to the rules writers to write the rule as they mean it to be. But once it's written, intent is a non-issue.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
George,
The last time I used "intent" was in reference to changing a rule that was meant (intended) to allow removal and replacement of controls and gauges.
I don't know how more clear the written word can be (intent be damned)than when it says "Gauges and instruments may be replaced, added, or removed." Especially when people are using the rule to add switches as well as gauges. (I notice that only one person has stated he uses his stock ignition switch.)
I understand fully that the definition of "instrument" in the glossary takes precedence now and gives your argument credence, but as I've tried to suggest, that circumstance is a johnny come lately that probably is a mistake and we're suffering inadvertant turn signals flashing because of it. Many of the guys I've been racing with did away with their stalks 10-15 years ago because of the quoted rule and we all accepted it. Only since formation of the ITAC (as far as I know) has the insistance on retaining the stalks occurred. And that comes from Midwest and West Coast guys and now a few relative newbies to me from the North and Southeast. That's all. I'm not trying to insult anyone here, I'm just trying to put forth my ideas on a current rules situation. To tell you the truth, I still have my stalks on the car, simply because I had read that many people thought it was illegal to remove them and I didn't think it was worth the hassle.
I'll just add again that I see no reason for keeping the stalks or the driver's side glass, and I'm one who will suffer most from rules creep as I already have.
G. Robert
Joe Harlan
New member
Haha I love it come here and bust balls and then admit you don't even believe enough in your own reading? And BTW I maintain a lot of IT cars and they all have their ignition switches in place and so does the competition. It must be a west coast thing...lmao
Ron Earp
Administrator
Just a casual walk around the pits at a SE regional event shows a fair number of cars with no stalks and no stock ignition switch. Make it right? I don't know, just know both of my own cars are the same way (no, I didn't count those in to make a fair number).
Emperical data collected and sampled from the source, i.e. the running field, might be different from area to area I imagine. It seems that is what some of your are suggesting in the posts above.
------------------
Ron Earp
http://www.gt40s.com
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
My electrons don't care if they flow through OEM wires, do yours?
Emperical data collected and sampled from the source, i.e. the running field, might be different from area to area I imagine. It seems that is what some of your are suggesting in the posts above.
------------------
Ron Earp
http://www.gt40s.com
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
My electrons don't care if they flow through OEM wires, do yours?
Dave Zaslow
New member
I love you people
. This is sooooo amusing. Five pages of posts on what started out as someones desire to modify the present rules for future implementation. A proposal based on that persons perceptions and desires; who asked us to chime in with our opinions.
Rules, as presently written, are what we must live by until such time as they are revised, rewritten, or replaced. The IT rules, for the most part, are clear in intent and presentation. The process of requesting changes to those rules, or a wholesale rewrite of the rules, is also clear. The ITAC, whom we entrust with the oversight of the class, seems to have reasonable people with a broad outlook.
All that being said, I cannot help myself. At the top of page 4 Kirk Knestis said it all regarding turn signal stalks.
Here is the rule as written:
b. Gauges and instruments may be added, replaced, or removed. They may be installed in the original instrument(s) location using a mounting plate(s), or any other location using a secure method of attachment. Other than modifications made to mount instruments and provide for roll cage installation, the remainder of the dash "board" or panel shall remain intact.
Here are the definitions from the GCR's glossary:
Gauges - Mechanical or electronic readouts of automotive parameters.
Instrument - An indicator or readout which, when active, contains information about some aspect of car operation for driver reference.
And my car starts at the twist of its key.
Now lets debate if standard anti-theft systems should be able to be removed if all models on the spec line have them.
Yours,
Dave Z
Rules, as presently written, are what we must live by until such time as they are revised, rewritten, or replaced. The IT rules, for the most part, are clear in intent and presentation. The process of requesting changes to those rules, or a wholesale rewrite of the rules, is also clear. The ITAC, whom we entrust with the oversight of the class, seems to have reasonable people with a broad outlook.
All that being said, I cannot help myself. At the top of page 4 Kirk Knestis said it all regarding turn signal stalks.
Here is the rule as written:
b. Gauges and instruments may be added, replaced, or removed. They may be installed in the original instrument(s) location using a mounting plate(s), or any other location using a secure method of attachment. Other than modifications made to mount instruments and provide for roll cage installation, the remainder of the dash "board" or panel shall remain intact.
Here are the definitions from the GCR's glossary:
Gauges - Mechanical or electronic readouts of automotive parameters.
Instrument - An indicator or readout which, when active, contains information about some aspect of car operation for driver reference.
And my car starts at the twist of its key.
Now lets debate if standard anti-theft systems should be able to be removed if all models on the spec line have them.
Yours,
Dave Z
I'll be as clear as possible - my car starts with the stock ignition key and has all of the switches for the required parts and even for the AC, which has been legally removed.
Again - clarity: Stalks are switches, I left both of them in; switches are switches, I left all of the stock ones in; an switches STILL aren't instruments as far as the SCCA GCR is concerned. And that's all that is germane to the issue at hand.
Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I must confess that I have switches mounted in a plastic panel for my enduro driving lights. They are illegal as hell and if anyone were to protest them, I'd have absolutely no recourse.
K
[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited February 12, 2005).]
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
ITCS: D.1.e
"Any ignition system which utilizes the original distributor for spark timing and distribution is permitted."
I think this specifically allows push button starters and aux ignition switches as they are most certainly part of an 'ignition system'.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
[This message has been edited by Andy Bettencourt (edited February 12, 2005).]
Bill Miller
New member
Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I must confess that I have switches mounted in a plastic panel for my enduro driving lights. They are illegal as hell and if anyone were to protest them, I'd have absolutely no recourse.
K
I deleted because I again read K's response too quickly.
But you are not the only one to add and remove switches K - but I'll bet most are doing so because they read the rule the same way I do.
G
[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 13, 2005).]
Good Andy, but does this allow me to "remove" my old ignition switch?
And does this mean anytime the word "system" is used in context with a permitted modification, I can alter any component related to that system. Because if it is, you have just opened pandora's box.
GRJ
[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 13, 2005).]
ShelbyRacer
New member
No, it can't be removed. It doesn't say you can take it out, so it has to stay, it just doesn't have to be used for anything. Think of it like headlights. Even though many may not use them, they gotta be there.
Now, if you can prove that the steering lock cannot be defeated without removing the cylinder, you might have a case, since "steering lock mechanisms shall be removed." Just make darn good and sure the stock wiring all stays there...
Most IT cars I've seen with push button starters and remote switches still have the key mechanism still there.
The above is my interpretation, which has changed significantly since joining this forum (I now look for more latitude than I once did).
BTW- GRJ- I see your point about the "instrumentation" thing, but it is defined in the Glossary of the GCR. While that may not be the definition that is more widely accepted, the rules were written to that definition, so that is what we must follow. As a person who just wrote a whole rulebook, I can tell you that I "defined" certain terms specifically because there was no better way to do it. I can provide examples if you'd like, along with rationale for it, but I'd rather no hijack this thread any more than it has been.
Oh BTW- where are we all going and why are we in this handbasket??
------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."
Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
BTW-
Oh BTW- where are we all going and why are we in this handbasket??
I appreciate your comments, Matt; however, I'll bet again that "most" people who have added switches have removed their old switches. And I haven't researched it yet, but I earnestly believe that the ITCS rule in question as written precedes the glossary definition. (i.e., the ITCS rule was written first. and I know the glossary takes final authority. It's just that the glossary has messed up the intent (shudder, sorry, George, "the original meaning") of the IT rule.)
And now that Andy has clarified the use of system, I know I can increase the size of my exhaust valves because A"Any exhaust header and exhaust system may be used." And certainly exhaust valves are part of the "exhaust system." (I know I'm being a smart arse.)
GRJ
[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 13, 2005).]
[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 13, 2005).]
Joe Harlan
New member
And you know the intent how? Again the allowance of a electric fuel pump would allow a switch to run it. An open ignition system would allow a switch to run it. I would struggle that a push button starterwould fall under the ignition system. But no where does it say you can remove the original system. I would be careful staing that most have done these mods because I am willing to bet that's not the case.