March FasTrack is up!

You guys are a little loopy if you think that a "comprehensive rewrite" of the ITCS/GCR is going to solve ANYTHING... All it will do is introduce a new set of abiguities for you guys to bicker about...
biggrin.gif


Just watch Production try to re-write their rules in the coming future...
eek.gif


Once they are written, the next 15 years will be spent working to get them corrected... in "piece meal fashion", just like we are doing today...

It has little to do with the way the rules are written, and everything to do with the nature of human beings... We live to break/bend/stretch rules...

Rewriting a set of rules such as this that have managed IT racing successfully for 15+ years makes about as much sense as re-writing the constitution of the US in a wholesale fashion...

Sorry guys, that's just not how "Progress" is made... Last time I checked, we make amendments, and incremental re-writes to large sets of rules (Bill of Rights, Constitution, FCC laws, etc...) in response to a changing environment...

Our environment has changed, no one is denying that, but the overlying purpose has not. That being the case, I see no need to make wholesale changes and "starting over", as many of you seem to advocate... The rules just aren't that "broken"...

In fact (well, fact to me...), I just don't see what's so hard to follow here... It's those of you who choose to stretch, contort, analyze, and otherwise make something out of something it's not, who really seem to have a problem with the rules as they are written... example case... those of you who think "up to" allows something smaller...
rolleyes.gif


Bottom line... yes, there are some sections that could use some work, but people have raced for 15+ years with these rules and gotten by just fine... so I doubt that a wholesale rewrite is really in order...

Besides, you guys can't agree on whether or not a washer bottle must remain in place... how the heck do you expect to get a complete set of rules together that are agreeable to most???
rolleyes.gif


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg



[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited February 15, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited February 15, 2005).]
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">...the problem with Jake and Amy is that they feel they can say anything they wish and not expect retaliation.</font>
Click to expand...

"Not expect retaliation"?? Are you kidding me? Dude, I count on it! I can't wait until I read your responses to my comments; in fact, I sit here shaking with anticipation simply waiting for them (and I'm rarely disappointed!)

Hell, it's some of the only true entertainment I get during the work day!
 
Originally posted by grjones1:
...I don't believe those of us who advocate rules that depart from a showroom stock mentailty play any more "word games" than those of you who wish to keep your IT racer in "street" condition. ...
Click to expand...

But that is my point: You are NOT advocating for a change in rules. You are taking massive semantic liberties - at least beyond the frame defined for the document at hand - and calling a wiper switch an "instrument."

If you want the rules changed to make them more liberal, fight that fight. I support your right to use the process as it's been defined. Propose additional allowances to the ITCS, propose changes to specific spec line items for your car, propose changes to the terms in the glossary - all OK.

But saying that X means Y is a different thing and, while I'm impressed with the ability of those to stay on-message with these arguments, simply repeating them over and over doesn't make them any more well founded.

I will indeed be at the SARRC/MARRS and hope you and the rest of the WDC guys and gals come down. I wouldn't mind another 70+ car grid to play in.

K
 
I would like to suggest that within the original glossary that the word gauge was used & as the digital devises came along that the word instrument was added to the glossary so that the old (gauge) & the new (instrument) is covered.

Have Fun
wink.gif

David
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
massive semantic liberties - at least beyond the frame defined for the document at hand - and calling a wiper switch an "instrument."
K
Click to expand...

K,
Come on, a wiper switch by such authority as the ISA is an instrument, that's not "massive semantic liberty," that's calling something what it is what it is as established not by me but by those who determine such things.

Furthermore, your scenario of how the rules came to be written is no less speculative than mine. The difference is simply that my opinion is different from yours. No less, no more valuable, and you refuse to admit it.

Let's remain cordial at opposite ends of the spectrum. I can deal with it otherwise, but as I think I said I value your opinion and your acquaintanceship.

GRJ
 
Just a side note.....History proves every move to loosen the rules has brought every class in history closer to death than any other cause.....Looser rules always mean more money and less competition.
 
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
I would like to suggest that within the original glossary that the word gauge was used & as the digital devises came along that the word instrument was added to the glossary so that the old (gauge) & the new (instrument) is covered.

Have Fun
wink.gif

David
Click to expand...
And David, you may be right.
 
All I can say is, "God bless Spec Racer Ford."

Seriously, you guys have put forth a Herculean effort to make work the distinctions between the various production-based classes (how many are there now?), yet it seems that the slicing and dicing of class differences/philosophies never ends.

I suppose that's part of the human condition, always tweaking to optimize one thing or another.

At some point the GCR should be thrown out and rewritten. There are actually people in Topeka who will pound the table defending some cockamamy (sp?) idea brought up in 1960.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com
 
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Who gives a flying crap...The GCR is the authority in this case........
Click to expand...
True, but the GCR in most cases deals in generally accepted automotve terms and I believe assumes others will be cognizant of those terms. There are cases of conflict obviously and that's exactly what we're dealing with here.

You know even I am getting tired of the sound of my voice. Why can't I let this go and let some protest somewhere settle it? I guess because I've known too many drivers in the last 15 years in IT (and 34 years in the SCCA) who see this rule the same way I do. We all can't be wrong because a few web-posters say we are. Let's take a poll.

GRJ



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 15, 2005).]
 
Folks the crux of the issue is not the GCR, it's not the rules & it's not the people spewing about some rules one way or another. The issue is the fast method of communication we have today. The quickness of the PC provides INSTANT SATISFICATION to ones EGO.
rolleyes.gif


Have FUN
wink.gif

David
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">True, but the GCR in most cases deals in generally accepted automotve terms and I believe assumes others will be cognizant of those terms.</font>
Click to expand...

Could that be because we are racing cars? It really doesn't matter if one has a basic understanding of automotive terms, That's what the definitions in the GCR are there for. Beating your head against the wall is not going to change the fact the GCR is the governing definition and nothing else matters. Once again signing off from this stupid debate over nothing..
 
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Folks the crux of the issue is not the GCR, it's not the rules & it's not the people spewing about some rules one way or another. The issue is the fast method of communication we have today. The quickness of the PC provides INSTANT SATISFICATION to ones EGO.
rolleyes.gif


Have FUN
wink.gif

David
Click to expand...

David,
Show me a driver without ego and I'll show you a slow driver.

Just having fun.
GRJ
 
Originally posted by zooracer:
Think about how cheap and easy it would be to get into this class if we were more like a showroom stock class for older cars.
Click to expand...

Oh...

You mean like IT originally was...

Before rules creep and people coming in saying this or that is a stupid rule and the SCCA fears change.

tongue.gif



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
Originally posted by Geo:
Before rules creep and people coming in saying this or that is a stupid rule and the SCCA fears change.
Click to expand...

please George, just because a person favors some rule change or interpretation that makes it easier to keep an old IT car running and legal such as the signal stalk/washer bottle/wireharness repair don't blame them for ECUs and 40 over pistons.
Dick Patullo
 
Originally posted by dickita15:
please George, just because a person favors some rule change or interpretation that makes it easier to keep an old IT car running and legal such as the signal stalk/washer bottle/wireharness repair don't blame them for ECUs and 40 over pistons.
Dick Patullo
Click to expand...

Come on Dick, you don't find it the least bit ironic? I'm sure Kirk will agree with me that every rule change has occured because someone thought the current rule was stupid or was unfair to them in some way.

One little change here. Another there. And somewhere down the road we wonder how we got here from there.

I just found the question ironic.
smile.gif



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
I have to admit to being pretty ignorant when it comes to the history of IT rules/changes.
So my question is this. If it was meant to be a showroom stock class for older cars, when did the following become rule,
- porting 1" in on exhaust and intake
- open final drive's
- open ECU
Now notice I didnt mention half point rise in compression or 40 over. The reason for this is these may be unavoidable to keep and old car or engine going after a rebuild, or several rebuild's.
Why didnt everyone on here raise such a stink over these modifications that they were turned down by the board? I mean, I can really see how these mods are taking us closer to production; not turn signal stalks.
And if these mods were in place with the origination of IT, then that means they werent really trying to make a showroom stock class for older cars.
This class is so popular because it is the most inexpensive way to go racing in the SCCA, period.
I wish we could go back in time and start over...
matt
 
Originally posted by dickita15:
please George, just because a person favors some rule change or interpretation that makes it easier to keep an old IT car running and legal such as the signal stalk/washer bottle/wireharness repair don't blame them for ECUs and 40 over pistons.
Dick Patullo
Click to expand...

Thinking about this a little more, I think it's even more ironic that you talk about keeping an old IT running, but by the tone of your post it seems to imply that 40 over pistons are another matter entirely.

What's ironic is that I'd bet good money that 40 over pistons were sold to the rules makers as a money saver since "Hey, these aren't new cars and need to be refreshed now and then." As such, 40 over pistons are a money saver." Today some people see that differently.

Oh, and wiring harness repairs are already allowed.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top