That is incorrect......since a SM is explicitly legal for ITA...
I suggest that's within the spirit of the rules, especially since we can remove all door glass otherwise with NASCAr door bars....9.1.3.9.m says "vent window" and its structure may be removed...
It is legal... Never had any problem going through tech.
Yes, but the question was not whether it is a good idea, but whether it is legal. Those are very different questions. Make sure you keep them separate except when discussing potential rule changes.Sounds like a safety thing to me with no real performance benefit.
the guys that are asking the questions are familiar with the relevant IT/SM rules and should understand the point I was inferring. In this case it wouldn't matter what year or engine it was-- SM is prepped within IT rules as far as bodywork is considered.That is incorrect...
There was a was a few years ago to specifically allow them into ITA, but it was shot down; there's just too many allowances in SM that contravene the regs in ITA (e.g., ride height, power steering rack looping, final drive housings, now specifically-allowed engine mods, etc.)
GA
Matt... Matt... don't get upset with Greg. If you do, please please please watch this video... it makes alllll better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JEYAcKdwmiw
Ok, strange. I learned something there. I was told by a local guy (a tech inspector at that) that any 90-99 SM was allowed to run in ITA and 00+ were ITS. no "if they add 30lbs and raise the ride height and have to run power steering and change this" or anything.. just "if it's SM, it can run IT. and since it can run IT, it can run STU too." I've just always gone under the assumption he was correct, and here I go making an arse out of meself.
Then again, for me it doesn't matter much-- I'm a Nissan guy and have no say with SM or IT so it ain't my dog..
HAHAHAH! Thanks. I needed that after the week I've had.
m. If equipped, the vent window and its supporting structure may
be removed.
The allowance doesn't require that the window be operational. I was on the ITAC, as was Andy and Josh and Jeff (IT.com posters) when the rule was written. I actually sponsored (requested) the allowance, and the idea was to allow the area available to the driver for egress to be increased, as "halo" seats were becoming the norm.
let's just say i don't need the extra room to get out of the car. wouldn't it hurt the aero of the car by making the window essentially bigger?