Removal of Charcoal Canisters (fuel tank vents) okay?

This is a PDF of the PROPOSED national rules (not National) for v.1.0 of IT, from SportsCar's introduction to the category.

http://www.it2.evaluand.com/gti/downloads/ThisisIT.pdf

There might have been some differences between that and the first ITCS. Remember that they were separate publications back then (the GCR and category specs).

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that EV probably isn't racing ANYTHING right now. I find that a lot of the complaints about IT rules being "prohibitive" come from people who aren't in a position to actually go racing anyway, or who were on their way out for other reasons ($$) and are arguing purely from a theoretical - or aesthetic - point of view.

K
 
RacerBill said:
My Shelby is probably the only IT car in the country that is running a STOCK suspension (vs threaded body coil-overs). Hopefully, that will be fixed soon. But it is going to cost me $1500 - $2500 just to get my car up to the same level as all the other cars on the track.

If anyone knows any other ITB cars that are running stock suspensions, please let me know so that we can race together.:)
Click to expand...


My Pinto still runs a stock suspension. Double a-arm, coil springs and tube shocks up front, LEAF springs in the rear. Handles great.

Russ
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
So who do you race with currently and why?
Click to expand...
NASA PT class.

It's been hashed about over and over on these boards, but in simple terms, I felt that my car had a better chance to be competitive in PT within my budget than it would with IT. It offered me the flexibility to remain within the rules and enhance my car based on it's weaknesses. I believe that it makes for a more even playing field where many different cars can compete and have a chance to win, "warts and all" isn't in the NASA PT vocabulary. I also like the power to weight caps that limit the bank roll necessary to make the power. I'm sorry, I don't have 5K to build an IT engine just to keep up.

NASA also allows the removal of useless items like washer bottles and evap canisters. The addition of reliability/safety enhancing items like poly motor mounts, and battery relocation.

Sure, there is always room for improvement, but I feel that PT has a better base than IT....at least for me....
 
JLawton said:
Really?? Really?? You're willing to walk away from some of the best racing in the country, hang with some awesome people at a very limited cost (relatively speaking) because you can't remove all the "crap" from your car??
Click to expand...
Ya, really...

Just so you know, I work EV for SCCA and have for 10 years. I still get to hang out with those awesome people you mention, I just don't race with them.

As I said above, it's simple economics for me. I will never run near the front without a 5K Kessler engine that will last for 2 seasons (according to them). Sure I could buy the current car for the class (currently a Miata for ITA) and have a chance to compete equipment wise, but for the car I have and could afford I have zero chance with my current budget.

Next year, after I have the money to update the cage and add a fire system, I will run a few races in SPU. Sure, I won't be competitive, but it's track time and there will be several cars around my lap time to play with.
 
JeffYoung said:
I don't think it will stop. I just think it will, if we stick to the core principles, morph in a positive way. Which we have for the most part -- I certainly agree a picture of an IT car circa 85 v. 2011 is pretty shocking. But the basics are the same. The engine rules, other than the ECU rule, really have not changed. The suspension rules haven't changed. Stock body panels still. Brake rules essentially the same. Tranny rules essentially the same.

Most of what has changed has been appearance/reliability/safety stuff. Cage v. roll bar. Race seats. Interior gutting.

So on the surface you see a lot of difference. But at the core, not much change.

Which is my point -- because at the core we all tend to agree, quite a bit more than I think we give ourselves credit for.
Click to expand...

I think Jeff nailed it. but further than "a picture of an IT car circa 1985 v 2011 is pretty shocking," a basic mechancial overview of a car circa 1980 v 2006 (the newest cars eligable for IT at the same times as Jeff's "pictures") is pretty shocking.

the philosophical line must not budge, it is what defines IT. but the functional rules have to adapt to the new realities or the class WILL become like production - in the worst way. remember prod, ca. 1995, full of very old, very used up cars with no new blood? they started limmited prep cum prep II in an effort to get newer cars. then the rules creep REALLY blew up in an "effort" to rebalance everythign while keeping the old guys happy. at least that's my perspective from the outside lookign in.

but I fail to see where the removal of unneeded items, like horns, bottles, canisters, etc.. push the philosophical line, really. battery relocation? yes. motor mount rules? if written properly, no. they actually address the current reality much better than the existing rules for answering the same question. no philosophical change.

The ECU rule (outsdie of the original philosophy, IMO) might not have been needed when it changed, but it would be now in order to get currently elligable cars intot the game, happily, and keep us from becoming obsolete. modern ECUs think even the IT rules are too extreme a modification. Just wait until more modern ABS systems come into the fray - that will raise philosophical discussions.

as for me - I lost my evap can in prep of the engine room. I can get another, and likely will, but I'd never protest someone for having it out UNLESS I saw them using that same space for some performance enhancement.
 
Last edited:
EV said:
NASA PT class.

It's been hashed about over and over on these boards, but in simple terms, I felt that my car had a better chance to be competitive in PT within my budget than it would with IT. It offered me the flexibility to remain within the rules and enhance my car based on it's weaknesses. I believe that it makes for a more even playing field where many different cars can compete and have a chance to win, "warts and all" isn't in the NASA PT vocabulary. I also like the power to weight caps that limit the bank roll necessary to make the power. I'm sorry, I don't have 5K to build an IT engine just to keep up.

NASA also allows the removal of useless items like washer bottles and evap canisters. The addition of reliability/safety enhancing items like poly motor mounts, and battery relocation.

Sure, there is always room for improvement, but I feel that PT has a better base than IT....at least for me....
Click to expand...

And this post is PERFECTLY legit - except I am going to call BS on the lack of allowance to remove the EVAP (or WB or whatever) as the reason you don't race IT. You race PT because of the flexibility of the mods you CAN do (the difference makers, not the 'who cares' stuff)...and that is perfectly fine.

The way I look at NASA vs SCCA is simple: NASA guys like a structure where they can have a place to play (albiet with limited competition) with the mods they like. ie: Race my built car. SCCA guys seek out more competition and build a car to race.

Plenty of room for both....and I understand it's a gross generlization, but at the core, it's what I see.
 
Last edited:
Andy Bettencourt said:
And this post is PERFECTLY legit - except I am going to call BS on the lack of allowance to remove the EVAP (or WB or whatever) as the reason you don't race IT. You race PT because of the flexibility of the mods you CAN do...and that is perfectly fine.

The way I look at NASA vs SCCA is simple: NASA like a structure where they can have a place to play (albiet with mimited comeptition) with the mods they like. ie: Race my built car. SCCA guys seek out more competition and build a car to race.

Plenty of room for both....and I understand it's a gross generlization, but at the core, it's what I see.
Click to expand...
Fair enough... In spirit though, it's really the evap/washer bottle mentality that has kept me from focusing on an SCCA build.

I race PT because I can see that possibility that I could run with the lead pack and not spend my daughters college fund to do it. I really wanted to race this coming weekend with SCCA, it's my birthday. I added cams to my car, but otherwise it's ITA legal. I can't run IT because of the cams, and I can't run SPU because I don't have a fire system. The irony is, if swap out to the stock cams, I can run either....

Just doesn't make sense...

On edit... oh ya... I don't have an EVAP either....
 
Last edited:
EV said:
Fair enough... In spirit though, it's really the evap/washer bottle mentality that has kept me from focusing on an SCCA build.

I race PT because I can see that possibility that I could run with the lead pack and not spend my daughters college fund to do it. I really wanted to race this coming weekend with SCCA, it's my birthday. I added cams to my car, but otherwise it's ITA legal. I can't run IT because of the cams, and I can't run SPU because I don't have a fire system. The irony is, if swap out to the stock cams, I can run either....

Just doesn't make sense...
Click to expand...

So it just needs to be thought through a little. Just because your car isn't 'IT-legal' from a prep standpoint, doesn't mean it can't be entered in SPU AS AN IT CAR USING THOSE SAFETY RULES. Certainly doable if you want to race. Other than a handful of cars I know, I can find something illegal on every one.

Run and have fun.
 
I stand corrected, Bill - thanks.

EV said:
...Sure I could buy the current car for the class (currently a Miata for ITA) and have a chance to compete equipment wise, but for the car I have and could afford I have zero chance with my current budget. ...
Click to expand...

And that's a crucial point. It's not the rules that are keeping PT "affordable" at this time. It's the relatively shallow competitive pool. Once someone decides that they want to spend big $$ in ANY of the PT classes, you're going to see escalation (see also, pseudo-factory Honda CRX hybrid at the 25 hours).

Let's be clear that you COULD run IT for what you are spending to run PT, but you recognize that wouldn't run up front. The corollary of that is that if you - or anyone else - spent front-running NER SCCA IT dough on a PT car, you would go faster.

K
 
StephenB said:

Me: Don't worry SCCA DOES have a class for your car with all those "mods" the class is just starting to pick up steam, its called ST (U,O,L).​
Click to expand...


​
Actually, I did go on to explain Production, a little, but when he heard about the 3L displacement cap he wasn't interested.

I would have liked to explain something about Super Touring but I don't know all that much, hence my question yesterday in the Super Touring rules section. I've looked at the GCR about ST but with all the information about rules changing I was hoping there was a consolidated list somewhere of old and new rules.
 
Ron Earp said:
...but with all the information about rules changing...
Click to expand...
If you're referring to my post in the ST section regarding verbiage re-org, please read carefully where I note there are no rules changing, only words being re-organized to put them in more-logical and -organized location within the existing ruleset. As noted in the other thread, there are no major changes to rules/philosophy coming down the pike for Super Touring. What you see now is what you get.

As to the 3L limit, note that's been shown to be a "soft" limit; we are allowing 3+ into STU in limited cases. Philosophically, think of it less as a hard limit and more like a performance limit, a la "old" World Challenge Touring. But if you have a 3+ car and you want to play with the big boys (which everyone seems to think they want to do, but don't want to pay the entry fee) then make a request, we'll give you a power-to-weight that'll make you competitive.

GA
 
Knestis said:
I stand corrected, Bill - thanks.



And that's a crucial point. It's not the rules that are keeping PT "affordable" at this time. It's the relatively shallow competitive pool. Once someone decides that they want to spend big $$ in ANY of the PT classes, you're going to see escalation (see also, pseudo-factory Honda CRX hybrid at the 25 hours).

Let's be clear that you COULD run IT for what you are spending to run PT, but you recognize that wouldn't run up front. The corollary of that is that if you - or anyone else - spent front-running NER SCCA IT dough on a PT car, you would go faster.

K
Click to expand...
Opinions vary, this is yours, I have a different one. Enjoy the koolaid.

Andy Bettencourt said:
So it just needs to be thought through a little. Just because your car isn't 'IT-legal' from a prep standpoint, doesn't mean it can't be entered in SPU AS AN IT CAR USING THOSE SAFETY RULES. Certainly doable if you want to race. Other than a handful of cars I know, I can find something illegal on every one.

Run and have fun.
Click to expand...
I wish I could, but the rules in the GCR state (I paraphrase) your as prepped for IT can run SPU. Since I have made a change that wasn't consistant with IT, I have to comply all ST rules and that means a fire system. Ironic isn't it?

I don't like rule breakers, and know in my heart I am not legal for ST. Karma being what it is, I feel if I run that would be the time "something" would happen. Karma is a bitch....
 
EV said:
Opinions vary, this is yours, I have a different one. Enjoy the koolaid.
Click to expand...
SCCA = lemon/lime koolaide
NASA = Fruit punch koolaide.

Really .....Kirk isn't dim. Now, I don't doubt that for you, at this point in time, and in your geographic location, NASA is the better flavor and results in more satisfaction for you. And that's fine. But, if the competitive environment within the PT category (and specifically your class) were to change, I suspect your like of that flavor might wain....

I'm just trying to remove the cloaking arguments and get to the real crux....

(I'm not trying to argue the merits of IT vs PT, but...understand that, when you examine the rules closely, and get beneath the surface, experienced racers will know that there is a TON of money that would need to be spent optimizing any NASA package....IF, like an auction, two people decided the trophy was shiny enough to warrant the effort and expense. Also, to that end, the rules and p/w 'equilization', are a cheaters paradise. Granted, in general, these issues are not prevelent in large numbers currently within PT. And yes, anyone can cheat in any category....but the PT system makes it pretty difficult to catch anyone)

I wish I could, but the rules in the GCR state (I paraphrase) your as prepped for IT can run SPU. Since I have made a change that wasn't consistant with IT, I have to comply all ST rules and that means a fire system. Ironic isn't it?

I don't like rule breakers, and know in my heart I am not legal for ST. Karma being what it is, I feel if I run that would be the time "something" would happen. Karma is a bitch....
Click to expand...
The fire system rule is a leftover from the ruleset of World Challenge from whence the ST concept sprang. It's being changed to make more sense and be consistent with other categories.
 
lateapex911 said:
SCCA = lemon/lime koolaide
NASA = Fruit punch koolaide.

Really .....Kirk isn't dim. Now, I don't doubt that for you, at this point in time, and in your geographic location, NASA is the better flavor and results in more satisfaction for you. And that's fine. But, if the competitive environment within the PT category (and specifically your class) were to change, I suspect your like of that flavor might wain....

I'm just trying to remove the cloaking arguments and get to the real crux....

(I'm not trying to argue the merits of IT vs PT, but...understand that, when you examine the rules closely, and get beneath the surface, experienced racers will know that there is a TON of money that would need to be spent optimizing any NASA package....IF, like an auction, two people decided the trophy was shiny enough to warrant the effort and expense. Also, to that end, the rules and p/w 'equilization', are a cheaters paradise. Granted, in general, these issues are not prevelent in large numbers currently within PT. And yes, anyone can cheat in any category....but the PT system makes it pretty difficult to catch anyone)
Click to expand...
I guess it all comes down to how you define competition. In the NASA group I run with, any of 5 cars could win, often 3 are nose to tail fighting it out with 3 in close trail. I have yet to see a recent DC region ITA race as close. More frequently the closest race is mid back, and usually not that close. I am not saying Kirk is dim, but he's making blanket statements that are just inaccurate.

I am not going to be convinced that it's easier to catch a cheater in IT. With all you can do to a motor that can't be seen, and having to bank roll the teardown to "see" if you are right, illegal power making mods can and are done all the time in IT. With the NASA P/W rules, it's not prudent to make these invisible mods to make more power as there is a cap you can't avoid and is easily and frequently checked. Why go for the big$$ cheater mods when a $500 cam will do the job? See my point?



The fire system rule is a leftover from the ruleset of World Challenge from whence the ST concept sprang. It's being changed to make more sense and be consistent with other categories.
Click to expand...
Actually, the fire system rule I read wasn't anything from WC, it's in the GCR.

9.3.23. FIRE SYSTEM
All cars shall be equipped with an On-Board Fire System except
Showroom Stock, Touring, Spec Miata, and Improved Touring.

ST isn't on the list now is it? The rule allowing IT cars to run in ST is the only reason IT cars (as spec'ed) can run without a fire system. Again, my car isn't compliant in IT, so in order to run, I need a fire system....

FYI, I have already inquired about this and here was Gregs answer..
Greg Amy said:
Correct. Once you deviate from IT rules, you're no longer in the IT umbrella and need to be fully compliant to STx.

I have to wonder out loud if we should/could allow fire bottles in ST. Probably not, given that STU and STO can get pretty big and hairy and fast. A fire system is very handy when you're hooking along and it's gonna take a couple hundred feet (or more) to come to a stop so you can grab the bottle... - GA
Click to expand...
 
JeffYoung said:
But wasn't that technically always "allowed" under the shocks/struts are free rule?
Click to expand...

Actually, IIRR, threaded body shocks/struts were specifically not allowed. The more inventive racers found a way to create an adjustable threaded section that was not attached to the strut. So, someone said, let's let everyone do that with less expensive parts. (Seems to me I heard this argument with regards to ECU's). To quote another famous poster "I ain't sayin, Im just sayin !!!"

Here is the big problem. All of us, to some degree or fashion are in favor of 'rules creep' - primarily if it helps them in some way or form. I would like to see the wheel widths increased in order to take advantage less expensive, readily available wheels, mandated by my car having been moved from ITA to ITB. Request denied since it is perceived that 'everyone' in ITB and ITC would feel that they had to scrap all of the wheels that they already purchased - a form of rules creep. But had I had some skin in the game back when the shock/strut issue was changed to allow threaded bodies etc. I would have been against that 'rule creep' since I was on the other side of the fence.

The rules for IT have changed over the years, some of it has been 'rules creep' while other changes were for safety, etc. I guess when we look at a proposed change, we need to decide if it is really 'rules creep' or if it just makes sense. Now there's another bag of worms - what's your definition of 'rules creep'.

However, the rules stability of IT is one of the factors that makes IT stand out at a class.
 
EV said:
With the NASA P/W rules, it's not prudent to make these invisible mods to make more power as there is a cap you can't avoid and is easily and frequently checked. Why go for the big$$ cheater mods when a $500 cam will do the job? See my point?
Click to expand...

I completely understand your position regarding mods and "Value"....but
Some will agree with me, others won't, but I feel there is a distinct philosophical difference when it comes to the average competitors willingness to cheat. In Club racing, where we are responsible for policing each other, cheating is, to me at least, breaking a moral code that i have with my fellow competitors.

In Pro racing, where the sanctioning body is in charge of leveling the field and checking compliance, that stuff goes out the window, and everybody gets what they can.

NASA's method of checking is laudable, but some feel it invites the latter behavior. And it's way way easy to 'work around'.


My recent inquiries regarding fire systems indicated that the STAC is looking into changing the requirements. I don't know the specific of the situation, whether it's an across the board ST change or a STL only thing or what.
 
Last edited:
...I guess it all comes down to how you define competition. In the NASA group I run with, any of 5 cars could win, often 3 are nose to tail fighting it out with 3 in close trail. I have yet to see a recent DC region ITA race as close. More frequently the closest race is mid back, and usually not that close. I am not saying Kirk is dim, but he's making blanket statements that are just inaccurate. ...
Click to expand...

...or I wasn't clear about my point. Sorry for that.

I didn't mean that your PT class isn't currently competitive, as it does appear that the racing is good up front. What I was trying to say is that you've established a sort of detente among that group, where everyone is happy with the status quo, competitiveness- and spending-wise. As soon as someone decides to step it up, you all are going to be forced to decide whether you want to follow along and join the wars, or go all Switzerland and wait on the sidelines.

There are places in the US where a used $3500 MkI GTI will get a guy class wins. There are others (e.g., WDC SCCA) where it takes a bigger commitment. Budgets - at least as measured by the cost to run up front - are NEVER limited by class rules. They are determined by competition.

Go look closely at the case study established by those hybrid Honda CRZ things at the T'hill 25. A great friend of mine associated with the Miatacages E3 car called me from the track asking if I knew anything about them, after they showed up (in PT trim) and clobbered everyone by 3-4 seconds per lap. That's a car that is built to push the rules and it was NOT a cheap effort.

The same thing could happen to your local PT situation next month and the $$ bar would be irrevocably raised.

K
 
Greg Amy said:
Good try, but...nope.

Just remove the damn thing. No one gives a flying flip.

GA
Click to expand...

I had my charcoal canister removed from back in the day when I raced in the long dead SE-R Cup. I remember that my brother and I yanked that thing in the pits, sealed the lines and went racing.

I am in ITA now. I doubt that anyone gives a darn about the canister, anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top