Poll on rules changes

1. OK as writtem.

2. Relocation no, alternate already OK.

3. Yes, to all.

4. NO!

5. Thinking!?!

BTW, I saw a very interesting jacking point on a prod car. A straight bar with a pad extending into the driver's door cavity accessable when the door is open. I think current rules would allow this. Don't know what he had on the other side.
Chuck Baader, 265512

------------------
Chuck Baader
#36 ITA E30 BMW
Alabama Region Divisional Registrar
 
matt batson
member # 335603

1. Well the board already screwed the pooch on this one, so I think it's too late as most guys have spent a lot of money on it. (I cant believe this is allowed...)

2. No on relocation. Yes to a battery that is "close" to original size. I dont know, within 70 % of the original size? I just dont want people to be able to use the tiny little EXPENSIVE batteries.

3. Yes on all. If it costs nothing, then why not? Some people have a hard time making weight anyways...

4. I cannot see a performance advantage here, so if it enables guys with older, obsolete cars to more easily and INEXPENSIVELY fix the harness...

5. The board should look into classifying more modern cars in competitive classes. Maybe we need some young guys on the board...
 
Originally posted by zooracer:
5. The board should look into classifying more modern cars in competitive classes. Maybe we need some young guys on the board...
Click to expand...

What "modern" cars would you like to see classified that are not?


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
more modern cars in competitive classes.
If young guys cant go into IT with modern cars and race competitively...
matt
 
Originally posted by zooracer:
more modern cars in competitive classes.
If young guys cant go into IT with modern cars and race competitively...
matt
Click to expand...

I repeat...

What "modern" cars would you like to see classified?

And what competitive classes are you referring to?


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
I repeat can't we have one stinken thread that doesn't have to wonder off into a million other things. This is a poll feel free to answer here and discuss in other threads.

Thanks
Click to expand...

Joe, what is wrong with asking for a little clarification? Extremely vague answers to a poll are worthless. Or perhaps such answers should be categorized as worthless and go on?
And don't tell me that I know what he's talking about. My interpretation may be different from his and/or from yours.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
yeah, I had seen many requests to keep this thread clean of pointless arguements. I guess I knew it would be too much for some people...
Anyways, I will happily answer the question on the "March fasttrack is up" section...
matt
 
Originally posted by zooracer:
yeah, I had seen many requests to keep this thread clean of pointless arguements. I guess I knew it would be too much for some people...
Click to expand...

Matt, I fail to see how asking for clarification is arguing.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Why is it that only you struggle with it Geo. A poll is for collecting answers. If want to collect clarifications start a thread please.

[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited February 11, 2005).]
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm just dumber than the rest of the world Joe. I can tell you this, the answer I got (on the other thread) was very different from what I expected and I'm sure it was different from what others would have as well. And what good are answers if they are not sufficiently defined that you have to use your imagination?

As for starting a thread to clarify answers from another thread... Well, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) Yes
5) This is going to raise some hackles, but getting rid of external bumpers (not integrated plastic ones) would 1) cut down on intentional banging, 2) reduce weight cheaply and improve handling, and 3) make the cars look neater (attractive to the younger set).

G. Robert Jones
WDC Region
National 42-175-061
ITC Fiesta



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 19, 2005).]
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by grjones1:
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) Yes
5) This is going to raise some hackles, but getting rid of external bumpers (not integrated plastic ones) would 1) cut down on intentional banging, 2) reduce weight cheaply and improve handling, and 3) make the cars look neater (attractive to the younger set).

G. Robert Jones
WDC Region
National 42-175-061
ITC Fiesta

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 19, 2005).]
Click to expand...

Here's the problem with number 5. (Well, ONE of the problems!
wink.gif
)

Cars were classed with bumpers. Lets say, that you own a car with integrated bumpers. It's not a class leader. The class leading car (and we're talking nationwide, here) has the type of bumpers you propose being removed (am I to assume the Fiesta is a good example?). Are you suggesting that an already dominaint car have more weight removed...from the ends of the car??? making it even faster?? Not seeing your logic here...

Simply, changing rules that affect some cars but not others post classification just isn't fair.

Any rules change to the category must affect all cars equally...

(The oft mentioned ECU rule is a GREAT example of a TERRIBLE rules change, and partly because of it's non symetrical effect)

Attracting the "younger set"???
Puuuleeeze...I really doubt that the average 20 something will be wooed by an old Rabbit sans it's bumpers. A Honda with wings maybe...but not an old bumperless Rabbit!



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Here's the problem with number 5. (Well, ONE of the problems!
wink.gif
)

Cars were classed with bumpers. Are you suggesting that an already dominaint car have more weight removed...from the ends of the car??? making it even faster?? Not seeing your logic here...

Simply, changing rules that affect some cars but not others post classification just isn't fair.

[/i]

Attracting the "younger set"???
Puuuleeeze...I really doubt that the average 20 something will be wooed by an old Rabbit sans it's bumpers. A Honda with wings maybe...but not an old bumperless Rabbit!
Click to expand...

Jake,
Are you suggesting that the Fiesta is a dominant car in ITC? Wow, I had no idea.

The integrated bumper cars are the ones presently given the unfair advantage. Their bumpers are aerodynamically superior and they weigh a great deal less than the anchors hung on the ends of the older cars. But no one was concerned with that when the new cars were classified.

Oh I don't know. Take off the bumpers and my Fiesta looks like a number of new econoboxes.

But I'll concede the integral bumper exclusion (eventhough I doubt most people with them would bother because of the aerodynamics.
GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 19, 2005).]
 
I think you either missed the point or deny it...

First, my example of your Fiesta was to illustrate the type of bumper, nit it's class domination, or lack of same...

Second, changing a rule such as that destroys the competitive balance. It can be argued that, one, the balance might be improved in some ways, and two, that the original classification was spot on.

Both have some merit, but in the end, post classification rules changes that are non even handed is philosophically wrong...

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
Originally posted by lateapex911:
I think you either missed the point or deny it...
Both have some merit, but in the end, post classification rules changes that are non even handed is philosophically wrong...
Click to expand...
You are right. I don't think I'm following exactly what you are saying other than it's not fair to make a rule unintended for all cars in class. And that's why I conceded the point on excluding integral bumper cars from recommendation.
GRJ
 
Originally posted by grjones1:
Originally posted by lateapex911:
I think you either missed the point or deny it...
Both have some merit, but in the end, post classification rules changes that are non even handed is philosophically wrong...
Click to expand...
You are right. I don't think I'm following exactly what you are saying other than it's not fair to make a rule noit mutually beneficial to all cars in the class. And that's why I conceded the point on excluding integral bumper cars from recommendation.

Now Jake read what you have written and think back on some of your old remarks and ask yourself if you are not super-concerned with protecting the new cars from changes in the rules that might keep the old cars competitive, but you could care less if the new cars far outstrip the old cars with their advantages. And yes I admit with this post I am partially attempting to guard my turf - what's left of it.

GRJ

I think we're hijacking a poll here. Let's take it somewhere else if you wish to continue.
Click to expand...



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 19, 2005).]
 
How is having half the cars without bumpers and half the cars with going to cut down on intentional bumping. If you have an integral bumper you're going to be jut as, or more, likely to ram the rabbit in front of you that is unprotected.


------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top