March FasTrack is up!

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">For instance, for the 944 there are essentially 3 things I can do to the engine I cannot in IT: cam, adjustable cam sprocket (and these have been requested for IT), and alternate rods. I can already shave the head and install alternate pistons. Head prep is otherwise the same.</font>
Click to expand...


George,

Last I looked, you were required to run stock rods on an l-p car. You can however, lighten them, just like you can do to the stock crank (something else that's not allowed in IT).

Hey Andy, any luck finding that VW data?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Originally posted by rlearp:
Amen. George likes to pull out the old "$5k wiring harness" everytime the wiring harness dicussion comes up but it just doesn't hold water. People will spend $5k to have someone strip their car and paint it for them too, but it doesn't make them any faster and repeating it on multiple threads doesn't make it truth.
Click to expand...

Did you know that a full Pi Stack Data Acquisition setup with Motec engine management can cost over $25K ITSELF? If you allow wiring to be free, it facilitates the things that DO make you faster.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967

www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Originally posted by mlytle:
what is the age break to be eligible for vintage racing? it would not be very forward thinking to hold a vintage eligible car up as the benchmark for any it class.
Click to expand...

Why? After 30 years of development I would think we would know what the car is capable of? Now if you asked me to classify a 30year old car that had never been race before I would NO the interest is not great enough to deal with it. Every class needs to have a few benchmarks to work with. without a benchmark you have no plan. With no plan you always have somebody pissed off. If the 240Z, second gen RX7, and E30 BMW are used as the ITS bench mark then the E36 has been a little bit to quick. No big deal make a minor adjustment back on the bimmer and you have a larger group of cars to choose from. Do not attempt to speed up the benchmarks. When a car is found to be to slow then make adjustments and lower it a class.The benchmarks will go away on their own but by the time they do we will have other models with enough history to work from. The time will come when we need a class above S and that will be a good thing. I personally see a need for an IT Turbo class in the not to distant future. As far as getting into the gutting car argument I don't believe it is all that needed to keep this type of cars healthy. Remember you don't have to run Nationals to run production and production allows all the mods you are looking for.
The 5k mil spec wiring harness is a pile of golden poop Geo and you need not whip it out every time you need an extreme view. I would probably do it exactly that way for a customer and build my own out of wire and connectors from radio shack....The result would be the same. We are not trying to pull a 7g inverted dive so having connectors that would take that is not needed....Besides some would say if you survive a 7G inverted dive in a race car your wiring harness would be the least of your worries. To the ITAC....You all doing a great job this group is like steering a big ship......little corrections and wait till she comes around.
wink.gif
 
Things seem to be golden in IT racing.

Things are not golden in Production racing.

As Production racing is being reeled back via Restricted Suspension (in theroy) a few people from within the IT ranks have a desire to open the IT rules which moves IT race cars closer to Production race cars. (I beleive the roll cage rules between IT & Production should be identical going forward.)

It would be interesting to know the age of ALL the people throwing the rules thoughts around.
wink.gif


Continue the Fun
wink.gif

David Dewhurst
CenDiv
 
Originally posted by Russ Myers:
Lawyers have a phrase that they use(yeah, I know, lawyers, ugh!) when arguing cases that might have an effect on a precedent. They refer to "the slippery slope". I don't say the rules are good, I don't say they are bad,ut they are the rules. I think if you do not have a stock ECU in your car you are not legal(in the spirit of IT). Vintage racing has been mentioned, well, the grids at a vintage meet are lousy with old SCCA racers who didn't want (or couldn't afford) to update their cars every time the CRB heard that this or that was cheaper, safer, etc. As we have seen with Form Ford, Prod, Sedan nee,GT when you start down the slippery slope...well.
Isn't it interesting that the two most popular classes with the largest car counts every year are Spec Racer and FV, the two classes with, FOR THE MOST PART, the most stable rules package in all of racing. Spec Miata could be this way too, but already, people know in their hearts how to "improve" the class, how to make it better, how to shape it in their image. What's wrong with it now? Car counts are through the roof. Competition is tight and fantastic. I guess that is really not good enough.
In 1983, when IT started, car counts were large. Many competed throughout the land. But can you tell me that the same exist today. Fields are alot shorter now.
As the practicioners of juris prudence are wont to say, once you start down that slippery slope, who knows where you will end up. No first or forth ammendment rights, or thinly disguised prod cars. I myself would like to leave well enough alone.

Oh, by the way, it has been said that it dosen't cost anything to remove this stuff. Well, it dosen't cost anything to leave it on the car, either.

Russ
Click to expand...

Russ,

Do you realized the things that have been made legal? Alternate ECU's as long as they fit within the original housings? Threaded body shocks? The rest of the laundry list I've already mentioned?

Using your "slippery slope" argument, well, we're already well down the slope, sliding fast, and you're here saying "If we're not careful we'll slip and fall down this slope!" Hello! Bueller? Bueller?

FWIW, I don't think we should have lexan allowed. You'll notice that doesn't fit one of my two "criteria." It costs money.

As far as the washer bottle, my car had it, being used as a catch can, right to the day it was sold. That's beside the point. It shouldn't be require to be there to begin with, for the sake of those who have cars that finding a replacement washer bottle for is nearly impossible, and locating one may well be an expensive proposition, if not in $$ at least in time. Sure, those situations are probably few and far between, but fact is that it is a component who's being required to be present in the first place is just STUPID.

I stand by my previous statements, make each consideration meet the no cost, no performance enhancement criteria and you automatically weed out all of the "5K$ wiring harness, 2K$ cam, Prod-light" BS arguments.

To use the same logic as some of you guys, why don't YOU guys go race Showroom Stock if you're worried about somebody removing a useless part from his car?

And Raymond, no $100 for you. Reading is fundamental, bro.

------------------
Richard Floyd
'86 Acura Integra LS #90
SCCA ITA / NASA ECHC H5

[This message has been edited by RFloyd (edited February 05, 2005).]
 
Richard,
I know it's coming, I've been at this long enough to have seen what has become of SS, Prod, Sedan(GT), et.al. I know it will happen, but what I want to point out is just because one thinks its a stupid rule, dosen't mean everyone thinks its a stupid rule. Some might actually like the way the rules are set in a particular class or group.

Lobby the CRB, write your area reps, but if the changes don't come fast enough, or at all, bite the bullet and build your car by the present rules. I know Prod people who are still waiting for the brake rules to be rewritten. And not to sound uppity, but if you don't like a certain rules pack, go where you can like them. My sled is heavy enough to make the slippery slope a real fun ride.

Russ
 
Originally posted by RFloyd:
... locating one may well be an expensive proposition, if not in $$ at least in time. ...
Click to expand...

But waitaminute - I thought that "removing stuff" was free. It costs time doesn't it? Pick an argument and stick with it guys.

I call BS on a lot of the rationale that get applied to opening up rules in IT. At the end of the day many of the suggestions grow out of (a) a desire to improve one's own competitive position (real or imagined), (B) a desire to make one's car faster (cuz faster is funner, no?), or © some conception about what "racing cars are supposed to be" (e.g., they don't have door glass so you can crawl in and out like Little E.

With only a smidge of hyperbole,

K
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
I call BS on a lot of the rationale that get applied to opening up rules in IT.
Click to expand...

well then Kirk I get to call BS on many of the slippery slope go to prod rationales. "most" of these guys are not talking about speed mods, they are just pointing out things that they feel from thier point of view are illogical.
I really find the go to prod statements insulting

dick patullo
 
I really find the go to prod statements insulting

dick patullo
Click to expand...

I know for myself it is not meant to be insulting. It means that there are levels of prep and there is no reason to change the whole rules set for one catagory when there is a catagory to move to. It would be really cool if our safety stuff reflected being able to make those moves easy and allow folks to dip a toe in the water kind of thing. I certainly don't think that it should be insulting to anyone to suggest going to the next level.
 
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
It would be interesting to know the age of ALL the people throwing the rules thoughts around.
wink.gif

Click to expand...


I'll be 37 in a couple of months.
Now that you know this, tell me what the hell it has to do with anything?
I happen to have a buddy that is Randy Pobst's World Challenge crew chief. He's 25 years old.
Now tell me what age has to do with ANY sort of knowledge about the sport. I'm dying to hear your thoughts?
If you tell me that you have more experience, I'll counter it with my opinion that many of your experiences have made you stale and inflexible... So lets go.
Its an argument neither of us could win, but whatever, I'm up for it.

And I'll only say this one more time.
Very few people here have argued to "open up" the rules in IT. We just want them cleaned up to get rid of the silly things that serve no purpose.

If you want your pass. side glass... Fine, keep it. Same goes for the other stuff.

But I for one don't want to be hunting around the junkyard looking for a friggin' washer bottle or a piece of unbroken door glass after an incident on the track. These are things that will cost me time and money to repair and they SERVE NO PURPOSE on my car. The freakin' rules even state that I MUST run with my windows DOWN!!!
Its just stupid. STOOPID!
If you want to keep yours, fine. But let me take mine out. And don't tell me that you've seen similar stuff happen that lead to the Great Production Disaster of 1978. If you honestly think that removing washer bottles and door glass will lead to rampant and mindless spending in IT, you need to get your prescription refilled.

Scott, who isn't suggesting unlimited compression and free cams and never would.
 
Originally posted by dickita15:
well then Kirk I get to call BS on many of the slippery slope go to prod rationales. ...
Click to expand...

Totally within your right, Dick.

But how do we then explain the ongoing tendency for any given class to become incrementally more liberal in rule allowances, as time goes on? What is to keep it from happening to IT like it demonstrably HAS to Production, GT, and even Showroom Stock? The trunk-kit cars of a couple years ago were prettty much where IT was in 1983. They've all gone too far and had to be throttled back somehow.

My point is that, just as a case can get made for passenger side door glass, so can a case be made for one more allowance. And one more. And one more...

I am pointedly NOT arguing the rationale for or against any one of the changes being tossed around here. They all make some sense when considered in isolation but a man can drown a drop at a time.

How do we know when to stop?

K
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
How do we know when to stop?

K
Click to expand...


I'm going wayyyyyyyyyyyy out on the limb here, but I'm going to say it anyway...

<ahem>
"Common Sense."

Thank you. Thank you.
Please tip your servers.
I'll be playing here all week.

Scott, who is neither old nor young, and thinks some of you young guys are nieve and some of you old guys are scared of your own shadows (including you Dr. K).


[This message has been edited by Catch22 (edited February 05, 2005).]
 
By the way.
It makes me giggle to sit here reading how some of you guys think removing washer bottles will lead to the Improved Touring Dark Ages, while at the top of the page there sits a banner advertising ITS BMW rebuilds starting at $6500.

Good stuff.
Excellent.
 
Scott, If it were just removing washer bottles it would not be an issue. You are saying how stupid it is and others feel it would be stupid to allow it. I personally would be fine with the washer bottle deal but leave door glass and heater cores and that kind of stuff alone. Hell I may even have to rethink my position on batteries. The things you want to do are out there waiting for you.



[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited February 05, 2005).]
 
Joe, on this monday 2/7 I'll be 17 via my method of counting. My counting method is similar to the "common sence" methods used by some to attempt to change the IT rules. IMHJ if some of these folks who have a desire to change the IT rules would understand that changes within IT are not a ready given thing they would quit posting & start writting letters to the CRB/ITAC. After a few undefined rejections in Fastrack of their rules thoughts/letters they would realy have something to bitch about. Then we will hear. They (CRB) can't respond with a undefined NO to ME I am a MEMBER of the SCCA & they are there to SERVE ME. Joe, IIRC you are just just over my age line.

Scott, your age puts you under my defined age line. & why don't you provide a last name so that when you start writting letters we all can see the varity of reasons the CRB uses for rejecting your rule change requests... Within a few request letters to the CRB using your "common sence" thoughts the CRB will have dulled your brass aggressiveness.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

***"Common Sense."*** by Scott

I'll be 37 in a couple of months.

Now that you know this, tell me what the hell it has to do with anything?

Now tell me what age has to do with ANY sort of knowledge about the sport.

I'm dying to hear your thoughts?

If you tell me that you have more experience, I'll counter it with my opinion that many of your experiences have made you stale and inflexible... So lets go.

Its an argument neither of us could win, but whatever, I'm up for it.

And I'll only say this one more time.
Very few people here have argued to "open up" the rules in IT. We just want them cleaned up to get rid of the silly things that serve no purpose.

But I for one don't want to be hunting around the junkyard looking for a friggin' washer bottle or a piece of unbroken door glass after an incident on the track. These are things that will cost me time and money to repair and they SERVE NO PURPOSE on my car.

The freakin' rules even state that I MUST run with my windows DOWN!!!
Its just stupid. STOOPID!

And don't tell me that you've seen similar stuff happen that lead to the Great Production Disaster of 1978.

If you honestly think that removing washer bottles and door glass will lead to rampant and mindless spending in IT, you need to get your prescription refilled.

Scott, please let me know when YOU write your FIRST sucessful letter to the CRB & a rule change is accecpted.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

An ol man on new prescription drugs.........
wink.gif

David Dewhurst
CenDiv
 
Originally posted by 924Guy:
Simply - because nobody races in Prod!!! OK, so I can't speak for everyone here, but I know that I, in spite of having not one but TWO classes in which I could run my car in Prod, cannot see running there in the forseeable future - cause I like competition!!!
Click to expand...

Right! So I can't see the point of making IT nearly the same as Production.

Originally posted by 924Guy:
I do also think the $5k wiring harness argument is rather stretching it
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you're saying it won't happen or if there is no advantage, but in light of $50-60k IT cars, I guarantee it would happen. Perhaps not quite $5k, but perhaps not (I know a professionally built race car wiring harness can certainly cost that). And once it happens that will be the standard upon which "fully prepared" will be judged.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
Originally posted by dickita15:
I really find the go to prod statements insulting
Click to expand...

Dick, if you're referring to me, please read more carefully. What I want to know is if someone wants all these rules changes that would make an IT car very nearly a Production car because "it's a race car" why don't these people race in Production. It's a fair question and I have NOT told anyone to go race in Production.

What I have done is summarized all of the things people in this thread have suggested for a variety of reasons and said, and tried to list as best I could the remaining differences between that and Production. And then I asked the question again. And again, a very valid question.

I further asked how would people like to differentiate between Production and IT. It's also a very valid question since if we implemented all of these suggestions, the only real differences would be the drivetrain.


------------------
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