D. Ellis-Brown
New member
As some of you in the Central Florida Region already know, I am fairly vocal about the IT rules, the CRB and the advisory committee that provides inputs to the CRB. I have been competing in Improved Touring for over 20 years. During that time, IT has matured and I do believe that the Purpose and Intent, as presently documented, are neither accurate nor reflective of that maturation. Therefore I propose to submit a change to the “original” Purpose and Intent of Improved Touring that will better reflect the reality of the current cars being added, the normal automotive product and technological evolution, and to restate the original “low cost” philosophy of the category to a more realistic “Cost Containment” focus that will better serve both the current and future competitors of Improved Touring.
Over the last year or so, I believe that the original philosophy and the Purpose and Intent of the category “Improved Touring” as currently documented, has been compromised. While I understand and usually concur with many of the decisions of the CRB, I find that the current trend of specification change decisions are not in accordance with the currently documented Purpose and Intent of the Improved Touring category. Therefore, I propose that a “New Purpose and Intent and subsequent Notes ” needs to be established to:
- Better reflect the current thinking of the CRB and it’s advisors and
- To better accommodate the configurations of cars be added and
- To put in place, a focus on “Cost Containment”.
Recommended New Statement of Purpose:
Purpose: “Improved Touring classes are intended to provide the membership with the opportunity to compete in cars offered for purchase in North America with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition. They will be prepared to the manufacturer’s specifications except for modifications permitted by these rules”.
Recommended New Statement of Intent:
Rationale:
I believe that these revised changes would provide both the CRB and its advisory committee the latitude to add cars like those now included within the category of ITR and other future groupings. Without the revised wording, I also believe that the current trend in newer car inclusion is not compliant within the scope of the currently documented Purpose and Intent. I also strongly beleive that a new focus needs to be established on "containing the cost" of building, racing, and maintaining a car in the Improved Touring Category in an attempt to keep the costs of racing an IT car to an acceptable level. The current combined “Purpose / Intent” of improved touring is to allow a variety of popular, inexpensive cars to be eligible, prepared and race in the category. “ However, those (cars) determined by the Club to be outside of these parameters will not be classified”. I do not believe that the current actions and subsequent rule changes of the CRB or its advisory committee, comply with the existing “P&T” statements. I further do not believe that the current statement of “Purpose and Intent” is realistic based on the vehicles that are currently included within the 2009 version of the Improved Touring Category Specifications (ITCS). I also believe that a “Revised” purpose and intent of IT should focus on keeping the “costs low“ with regard to building, maintaining and racing of an IT car by restricting and limiting modifications.
While I admit that the terms “low cost and inexpensive” are rather nebulous and undefined. Common sense does not permit the majority of current IT competitors to believe that the most recent crop of cars being added is either “low cost or inexpensive”. I believe that with the creation of ITR along with the newer cars that have been added, and future models / engines that are being considered, only validates my claim that neither term is applicable.
Whether it is a Lexus or a Porsche, newer BMW’s, or an Acura RSX, I don’t believe that any of these cars, and the years that are eligible, can be considered either “low cost or inexpensive”. Also the cars that are being constructed now, are purpose built racing cars. They maybe used streetcars, but they are being constructed with all of the precision and safety of a car that would normally built for a professional series, and the current rule wording adds unnecessary costs to be construction and maintainence of said vehicles.
In addition, I also believe that a “New Philosophy” for IT needs to be adapted to govern the rule making process to focus on “cost containment” by providing rules that are supportive of the construction and the maintenance of a “cost effective” racecar. And if adapted, I further believe that new rules should be freely made that facilitate cost effectiveness and vehicle maintainability while not jeopardizing safety or disregarding the original philosophy and concept of the IT category.
I have not submitted my proposal to the CRB. I have submitted my proposal to the members and readers of CFR's publication "The Checker". I submit my proposal to the readers of this website for constructive discussion.
Thank you in advance for your consideration, and comments,
Sincerely, David Ellis-Brown
Intent: “It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe racecar. It is also the intent of these rules to keep the costs of preparing, maintaining and competing a car in the Improved Touring category to a minimum. The class is intended to allow a variety of popular cars to be eligible; however, those (cars) determined by the Club to be outside of these parameters shall not be classified. Entrants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car, and competition adjustments, other than as outlined in section 9.1.3.C, will not allowed. Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, substituted or removed for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage”.
Rationale:
I believe that these revised changes would provide both the CRB and its advisory committee the latitude to add cars like those now included within the category of ITR and other future groupings. Without the revised wording, I also believe that the current trend in newer car inclusion is not compliant within the scope of the currently documented Purpose and Intent. I also strongly beleive that a new focus needs to be established on "containing the cost" of building, racing, and maintaining a car in the Improved Touring Category in an attempt to keep the costs of racing an IT car to an acceptable level. The current combined “Purpose / Intent” of improved touring is to allow a variety of popular, inexpensive cars to be eligible, prepared and race in the category. “ However, those (cars) determined by the Club to be outside of these parameters will not be classified”. I do not believe that the current actions and subsequent rule changes of the CRB or its advisory committee, comply with the existing “P&T” statements. I further do not believe that the current statement of “Purpose and Intent” is realistic based on the vehicles that are currently included within the 2009 version of the Improved Touring Category Specifications (ITCS). I also believe that a “Revised” purpose and intent of IT should focus on keeping the “costs low“ with regard to building, maintaining and racing of an IT car by restricting and limiting modifications.
While I admit that the terms “low cost and inexpensive” are rather nebulous and undefined. Common sense does not permit the majority of current IT competitors to believe that the most recent crop of cars being added is either “low cost or inexpensive”. I believe that with the creation of ITR along with the newer cars that have been added, and future models / engines that are being considered, only validates my claim that neither term is applicable.
Whether it is a Lexus or a Porsche, newer BMW’s, or an Acura RSX, I don’t believe that any of these cars, and the years that are eligible, can be considered either “low cost or inexpensive”. Also the cars that are being constructed now, are purpose built racing cars. They maybe used streetcars, but they are being constructed with all of the precision and safety of a car that would normally built for a professional series, and the current rule wording adds unnecessary costs to be construction and maintainence of said vehicles.
In addition, I also believe that a “New Philosophy” for IT needs to be adapted to govern the rule making process to focus on “cost containment” by providing rules that are supportive of the construction and the maintenance of a “cost effective” racecar. And if adapted, I further believe that new rules should be freely made that facilitate cost effectiveness and vehicle maintainability while not jeopardizing safety or disregarding the original philosophy and concept of the IT category.
I have not submitted my proposal to the CRB. I have submitted my proposal to the members and readers of CFR's publication "The Checker". I submit my proposal to the readers of this website for constructive discussion.
Thank you in advance for your consideration, and comments,
Sincerely, David Ellis-Brown
