Open Coolers
- Thread starter Rabbit07
- Start date
Ron Earp
Administrator
I like that answer, fair.
Let's up the percentage to 93.5% of IT racers support a fundamental change to move IT off one of the core principles, hmmm, something like retention of heater cores. The members just say they hate it, they want the rule gone, no more heater cores or HVAC in the car. Some members of the ITAC say sure, change it, but a small faction of ITACers say "no, we're sticking with the core dual purpose principles laid out 30 years ago".
When what? Can a very small minority keep IT rooted deeply in the past even if the racing members do not want it? When do the wants of the many outweigh the wants of the few? Or the one?
Jake Gulick:
So, Phil, I see your point, but clinging absolutely to the old rules is just impossible if we want to remain current.
Agree-but explain the need to drop the "true dual purpose" clause (sounds like it still works in California), remove pass seat, gut(lighten)drivers door for "nascar" bars, remove headliner, replace intake duct on certain Jap cars, etc, etc. Those aspects of cars haven't changed and had no real need for change except to meddle with the rules and change the philosophy and tenor of the class. Differentials fall into the same category and so, of course, do washerbottles. They're pretty much made the same as they were 30 years ago only, hopefully, better.
So, Phil, I see your point, but clinging absolutely to the old rules is just impossible if we want to remain current.
Agree-but explain the need to drop the "true dual purpose" clause (sounds like it still works in California), remove pass seat, gut(lighten)drivers door for "nascar" bars, remove headliner, replace intake duct on certain Jap cars, etc, etc. Those aspects of cars haven't changed and had no real need for change except to meddle with the rules and change the philosophy and tenor of the class. Differentials fall into the same category and so, of course, do washerbottles. They're pretty much made the same as they were 30 years ago only, hopefully, better.
jumbojimbo
New member
a. And opening the rules would change this how?
b. You must be joking. If IT is dying, what do you call Prod and GT? Not to mention SS and AS.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Phil, (By the way, I haven't seen you at Lime Rock in quite some time. I was going to come over once and say hi, but it looked like you and your daughters were pretty busy packing up, and I missed the chance)
I'm sure you posed the items more rhetorically, but I'll take a stab. At least at a few that I have a clue on.
Remove pass seat, headliner: Before my time, but, I'd guess it had to do with making it easier for guys getting wrecked/stolen/salvage cars to get them on the track, without having to worry about sourcing stock things like that. Of course, the rule doesn't mandate the removal. The headliner weighs nothing, and the pass seat is often weight where it's needed, or would go anyway.
THe NASCAR bars: My take on this is that it was a reaction to some incidents that occurred. (Pocono Corvette incident maybe?), and that, in order to entice folks to beef up intrusion safety, the rulesmakers (CR
offered to trade door weight. I think they thought the bars were sorta close to the guts weightwise, and thought even if they were lighter, it was a worthy trade. Again, a hunch based on talks I've had with some CRB guys.Actually, I think all your examples are from before my tenure. THe dropping of the dual purpose item, I guess that was just a reaction to the percentages...I drove my car to the track my first year, 93, but even then, I was rare. I remember getting to the track, unloading, changing ride height, mufflers, etc. I know you did too, but even 10 years ago, I'd say the number of driver/racers was 1 -3%. And I think you can still do it if you want.
There are some rules I wish hadn't been changed, but I'm happy we've said 'no" to requests like: alt batt location, plexi windows, composite body parts, removal of bumper, alt transmissions, and so on.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
I wonder if the Nationwide stats back you up. IT is as strong as ever in the Northeast and Southeast. Car counts may be down across the board - but are they relative to other classes? Not here. You certainly could be right - I am sure the data exists.
Z3_GoCar
New member
This years winner of ITA told me he's planning on running Radial Sedan next year, partly because of lack of competition
Jake,
Don't forget that part of IT prep is removing all the smog crap that's required for most street cars made over the past 34 years. That in itself will eliminate dual purpose cars at the highest prep level.
Last edited:
There are things that democracies don't let majorities choose (e.g., impositions on minority civil rights). Similarly, there are aspects of IT that frankly a small group of people with a sense of perspective might need to prevent a majority of people with selfish or short-sighted views from buggering up.
And where would you put the cut score? 96% gets it done but 95% doesn't...? If it does, how about 90%? 80%? A simple majority...?
Or MAYBE, how about if only people with more than 20 years of experience racing in the category get to vote...
:026:
K
JeffYoung
New member
Ron asks a very interesting question.
My take on the answer is this.
(a) There are a set of core IT values that can't be touched. Compression. Valvetrain. Displacement. Stock brakes. Stock suspension pickup points. Stock body panels. etc. Yes, I agree that this list, like all "lines in the sand," is subjective, but for these items, no majority of the IT masses should be able to "overrule" the ITAC/CRB/BOD and change them.
(b) For other changes...washer bottles, jacking points, motor mounts, etc....I think the ITAC should listen to member input and treat a significant portion of members requesting the change as a "reason" to do so. Right now, all of these requests get shot down by a the simple response of "no reason for the change." For me, on a non-core IT value, membership wanting it is a reason. It isn't the end of the analysis. We have to take a hard look at costs involved, unintended consequences, etc., but we should be less dismissive of membership requests on non-core values than we are.
And yes, I know that we will all view what is a non-core value change request differently.
My thoughts anyway.
My take on the answer is this.
(a) There are a set of core IT values that can't be touched. Compression. Valvetrain. Displacement. Stock brakes. Stock suspension pickup points. Stock body panels. etc. Yes, I agree that this list, like all "lines in the sand," is subjective, but for these items, no majority of the IT masses should be able to "overrule" the ITAC/CRB/BOD and change them.
(b) For other changes...washer bottles, jacking points, motor mounts, etc....I think the ITAC should listen to member input and treat a significant portion of members requesting the change as a "reason" to do so. Right now, all of these requests get shot down by a the simple response of "no reason for the change." For me, on a non-core IT value, membership wanting it is a reason. It isn't the end of the analysis. We have to take a hard look at costs involved, unintended consequences, etc., but we should be less dismissive of membership requests on non-core values than we are.
And yes, I know that we will all view what is a non-core value change request differently.
My thoughts anyway.
Bill Miller
New member
The way I see it, once the open ECU rule was pushed through, the people that did it don't have a leg to stand on vis-a-vis 'clinging to principles'. Talk about lack of internal consistency.
I also find it interesting that people are worrying about things like this, when you don't even have a rules-making body that's willing to treat all cars equally.
And IIRC, it was stated in the ITCS upwards of 10 years ago, that the dual-purpose nature of IT cars was no longer valid.
I also find it interesting that people are worrying about things like this, when you don't even have a rules-making body that's willing to treat all cars equally.
And IIRC, it was stated in the ITCS upwards of 10 years ago, that the dual-purpose nature of IT cars was no longer valid.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
The problem is that everyone has a different idea of what 9.1.3.A means. And Jeff, you aren't talking about values, you are talkimg about rules.
Last edited:
JeffYoung
New member
Same thing actually, values are put into practice via rules.
I didn't do a good job of backing Ron up. Here is what I meant:
1. A vast majority of IT racers would agree that changing suspension pick up points, etc. are core values that should never be changed by leadership.
2. A vast majority of IT racers would agree that things like the washer bottle are not core values that leadership could change without changing the fundamental nature of IT.
I do understand, on point 2, that we need to look hard at each change for unintended consequences, and for a reason for doing it. But I continue to maintain, which I think is Ron's point, that we can't dismiss "membership wants it" as a reason.
I didn't do a good job of backing Ron up. Here is what I meant:
1. A vast majority of IT racers would agree that changing suspension pick up points, etc. are core values that should never be changed by leadership.
2. A vast majority of IT racers would agree that things like the washer bottle are not core values that leadership could change without changing the fundamental nature of IT.
I do understand, on point 2, that we need to look hard at each change for unintended consequences, and for a reason for doing it. But I continue to maintain, which I think is Ron's point, that we can't dismiss "membership wants it" as a reason.
betamotorsports
New member
I don't have the national data. I should have qualified my "IT is dying." statement to the region I'm most familiar with - Cal Club. I know of 3 wheel-to-wheel race cars being built from the ground up right now: an E36 BMW, a first gen RX7, and a Miata. None of these are planned or being built for IT and all the builders are long time SCCA members.
The Southeast has always been a hotbed of IT and will probably remain so forever. The ARRC is a huge draw for IT folks and having it in the SE region is great fro IT participation.
I know this won't be popular, but here's my simple opinion of where IT should go:
1. Eligibility should be any car 5 to 25 model years old. Anything older should be running Vintage (whether SCCA creates a vintage category or not is beyond this discussion). Anything younger should be running Touring or SS.
2. Acknowledge that these are purpose built race cars and not dual purpose street/track cars. Allow greater levels of non-vehicle specific race prep for safety and reliability - no HVAC required, coolers allowed, no washer bottle required, no wipers required, etc.
3. Allow competition adjustments (primarily weight) but limit them to changes every 2 years for each vehicle.
4. Allow rear spoilers up to some height and width limit.
5. Most other IT rules are retained - stock body panels, no wings, glass windows, stock dash, no internal engine mods, stock transmissions, wheel size limits, stock suspension mounting points, stock pedal boxes, etc.
Last edited:
seckerich
New member
Comp adjustments = politics = dead class.
Wipers are good, we put stock ones on our RX8 GT cars (might allow blades to be removed when not needed.
Wings = Bling You have been around NASA a while.
You live in a vacuum in CA where Nasa is big and IT is small. It is nothing for us to have 60 different drivers in each class earning points and 25 + car classes in ITS, ITA, etc. You do not have drivers building IT cars because there is nobody to race with. Another draw in the Southeast/Northeast is the enduro series that allow double and triple dipping for drivers with IT or SM. Most of the driver and team losses in IT over the last few years went to Spec Miata. Many are coming back and ITR is starting to grow. Hard to see screwing that up to please the vocal few.
And for Rons sake: ditch the washer bottle if any resulting openings are sealed.
Wipers are good, we put stock ones on our RX8 GT cars (might allow blades to be removed when not needed.
Wings = Bling You have been around NASA a while.
You live in a vacuum in CA where Nasa is big and IT is small. It is nothing for us to have 60 different drivers in each class earning points and 25 + car classes in ITS, ITA, etc. You do not have drivers building IT cars because there is nobody to race with. Another draw in the Southeast/Northeast is the enduro series that allow double and triple dipping for drivers with IT or SM. Most of the driver and team losses in IT over the last few years went to Spec Miata. Many are coming back and ITR is starting to grow. Hard to see screwing that up to please the vocal few.
And for Rons sake: ditch the washer bottle if any resulting openings are sealed.
Ron Earp
Administrator
And for Rons sake: ditch the washer bottle if any resulting openings are sealed.
Gone already. It melted in the fire at my first IT race as a novice at CMP, a very memorable weekend and one of the reasons I love CMP so much. Space it vacated was replaced with a oil catch can, which the car needed anyhow.
Yes, Jeff has succinctly stated what I was trying to convey. I believe if you search far and wide you'll find that core values are pretty much agreed upon all over - stock pickup points, low motor prep, stock tranny gears, and so on.
And, I think if you poll the membership you'll find a lot of agreement on changing some non-core IT rules like HVACs, heater cores, and wipers.
We can banter back and forth all day about what we think the IT population will agree on but without a solid IT racer survey we'll never really know. Now, I'd be willing to pony up some money to do a proper survey (and Kirk I know you know what that involves) as I have some connections via my wife's work that could help. The survey could be designed with the ITAC's guidance.
But the crux of the question is would anything be done with the results? What if 100% of the IT racers came back and said "you know what, we've decided that all IT race cars are going to be painted red, white, and blue", would the ITAC push for that change? The racers want it, will the club give them what they want?
Last edited:
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
I would support anything that the membership was behind as a majority provided it had justification and it was proven to be a valid survey sent to every IT racer.
By supporting it, I mean at the very least I would present it in an unbiased fashion to the CRB for their decision.
By supporting it, I mean at the very least I would present it in an unbiased fashion to the CRB for their decision.
Z3_GoCar
New member
I beg to differ, So-Pac covers Arizona and Southern Neveda too BTW, Look at IT from anyplace West of the Missippi River. With the exception on double-dipping Miatae in ITA, there's nothing happening. ITR is DOA, ask Josh how many other ITR cars he's run aginst this season or last.
Check out our numbers from this seasons standings:
http://www.calclub.com/html/html2/2009/2009r_points_11_03_09.htm
We've got more Formula Atlantic's and Fords than GT, Production, IT (except for ITA-SM double dippers and ITE-T1/ITR double dippers), T#, or SS cars running regionals. The fact is IT IS broken.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
James,
So you haev proven that it is not popular in your area. Some have proven it is immensly popular in their areas. Is IT broken? If it is, how is it ?
Here in the Northeast, ITS and ITA can outnumber EVERY class except for SM. At some events, IT represents over 25% of the entries.
So you haev proven that it is not popular in your area. Some have proven it is immensly popular in their areas. Is IT broken? If it is, how is it ?
Here in the Northeast, ITS and ITA can outnumber EVERY class except for SM. At some events, IT represents over 25% of the entries.
betamotorsports
New member
I guess since IT is a "regional" class we can go our own way with the rules... Oh wait, IT is a Regional class with a National rule set. So what's good for the SE region is good for the SoPac region...