Rules Creep..

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Dec 16 2005, 03:01 PM
Hey, Rob, it's not that I disagree with your (collective "your") logic; on the face of it, it makes sense. It's also not that I'm an old fogey trying to keep the class as it was in 1984 or stop "progress." What you're (collective) missing is the big picture of the matter, and the unintended consequences of what you're asking, and this is what Kirk is trying to say.

Let's take that MoTec as an example. Does anyone believe that the intent of the ECU rule was to allow MoTec? Of course not. However, by opening up that rule we effectively opened up a Pandora's Box that de facto allowed MoTec into Improved Touring. Intended? Nope. Foreseen? Nope. Allowed? Yep.

So what would be the unintended consequences of allowing all that extra stuff to be removed? That's the point: we don't know. Don't you think someone (me) would try to parlay that into a competitive advantage? You bet your ass I would! You want to remove your washer bottle so that you won't have to buy a replacement and will be able to spend more time with your wife and kids? Good for you! While you're at the soccor field, I'm going to be in my garage designing and fabricating a brand-new cold air box that I've been wanting to build except for the #%^$% washer bottle that's in the way of that nice cool stream of air coming around the headlamps. You want to be able to remove your old unused wiring harness so that you can go on vacation with the money you saved? Bee-ewty! While you're at Magic Kingdom riding the Pirates of the Caribbean, I'm at Matt's shop welding in some additional rollcage tubes that are snug up against my flexible rocker panel, which I can't do now because of that $%$& wiring harness!

You want to remove XX pounds of stuff you don't need for racing? Perfect; that's XX pounds of stuff I can put in a more-strategic location (and trust me, it ain't gonna be held in with a bolt in the passenger footwell area.)  Sure, it's just some almost-weightless items that have no "significant" impact on performance. But, it does have an effect: things weigh something and are almost invariably located in the worse places. It's only an ounce, but a lot of ounces equals pounds.

Even better, all that stuff that I remove (remember, we're doing this reportedly because this stuff is rare) is gonna be placed on eBay, giving me that much more cashola to spend on serious performance items.

Then there's the rules creep argument. You're asking for an inch; why be so concerned; it's only an inch! Then the next guy wants an inch (hey, it's only an inch!) and then the next guy, and then the nexy guy, and then suddenly you look back and you're 10 feet from where you started. You may think it's only an inch, but that "inch argument" has been used for 20 years to basically transform the class from its original intent. In fact, I believe I may be able to effectively argue that the IT of today closely resembles the Production of 20 or so years ago; is Production where we want to be in 20 years? If so, why do it incrementally; we can go there now. Maybe overly dramatic, but I think you understand...?

So while on the face of it this seems like a silly argument, there's a lot more to it than simply removing the washer bottle and tossing it in the can... - GA

[snapback]68455[/snapback]​

Finally....A well thought out and written response.....I love it Greg!!! And your point makes perfect sense. I totally agree. BUT, why are we having this discussion then? We should be arguing to put things back then...no? Let's do away with MOTEC! It would have no affect on the majority. I feel sometimes like we're guarding a bank that's already been robbed!!!

See my point is if someone goes to the ITAC or CRB and says my car is classed wrongly and say it's a 95% car (no MOTEC) the CRB or ITAC will say "Yes we see your data, we see your modifications....however you don't have MOTEC". We've all seen this senario on this BB. What is the likely hood of the ITAC or CRB given the same senario saying " yes but you still have your washerbottle, you haven't explored the performance advantages gained by its removal"....highly unlikely!

There is such a huge push to bring equality to IT (which I stongly support and applaud the ITAC's efforts for) why not work also on putting some of the genies back that came out as unforseen consequences of rules creep (MOTEC). On the one hand the group is saying "NO CHANGE" and on the other hand "RESTRUCTURE IT TO BRING EQUALITY". Sounds like the fable of the man who blows hot and cold. (I'll explain it if necessary)


Rob

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Understand that the current make-up of the ITAC is not the same group that have written some of the rules that we are taking issue with.

I would love to stuff the progammable fuel management (PFM) genie back in the bottle. It would cost (more than you think) some people some serious money. Maybe we need to put it out for member comment.

AB

 

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Doc Bro@Dec 16 2005, 10:14 AM
Very simple...with new cars the washer bottle has become tucked in and integrated into the vehicle in such a way that if you "injure" the car you will ruin the bottle...thus making it somewhat of a consumable and less of a durable product.  That being said to satisfy the criteria of the rules you must add (insult to injury) a bottle to the list of parts that need replacing.  Why?

Sorry Kirk,  the money spent on the bottle will not go to racier parts....it may go to the LRP food stand or the package store for "coping" with a balled up race car.....replacing the bottle after an incident is "hazing" and a waste of our talent, intellect and resources.

[snapback]68461[/snapback]​

Okay, so a washer bottle is guaranteed to be injured when a new car crashes. You know my battery tray is pretty much guaranteed to break in a front end collision. So i guess that can be replaced. And while we are at we might as well allow the battery to relocate. See in 30 seconds we just lost another few inches all based on the same argument and this one someone will even play the safety card on to justify.


Next, yes the MOTEC situation sucks. It's wrong it should have never happened it flies in the face of everything we say IT should be about. I think we can all agree to that right? So can everyone stop using it as an excuse to make more changes. If anything it's evidence of how minor well intentioned rule changes can be a disaster, not a justification for why some little thing shoudl be changed because it doesn't make a performance difference.

Don't be so sure Kirk won't spend that washer bottle money on something to make his car go faster. I don't know him personally but I know a lot of racers that give up a lot of things in there life to get to the track and make there car as fast as legally possible. Trying to argue how you think somone is going to spend there money is a lost cause. You can't prove it either way and there is always someone with more money to spend anyway.

Originally posted by Doc Bro@Dec 16 2005, 10:14 AM
I'll start the list:

washerbotttle
turn signal stalk
cruise control stalk

[snapback]68461[/snapback]​

Okay, let's to add to your list:

Battery tray and the inevitable battery relocation
Unneeded wires in the harness (fire hazard)
lexan windows (for Safety right? easier and cheaper than a new windshield)
Rear hatch, hood, fenders (fiberglass is cheaper than finding a used part)


And that's just a short list of things I would like to do with MY car. It all sounds well and good but nothing mentioned is something I NEED in order to race the car. Now take the new list and have every driver/car builder add what they would like to do. You know what happens, you end up with cars several hundred pounds lighter that resemble GT cars. Now you're thinking something along the lines of "but obviously part xxx crosses the line and provides an advantage." Unfortunately there is nothing obvious about where that line should be. As Kirk says it's arbitray so why draw the line at a point other than where it is currently drawn.

The idea that people here are trying to hold back "progress" is a little ridiculous in this context. The automotive industry hasn't made any real progress on washer bottles or turn signal stalks in 20 years. Trying to remove them now isn't progress it's uneccesary change. As has been stated several times, the type of things many people want are already available in production. Why should we change one class to move it closer to another? That's does more to harm the membership by widening the gap between SS/Touring and IT.

 

[bldn10]

"Understand that the current make-up of the ITAC is not the same group that have written some of the rules that we are taking issue with."

Andy, and isn't it true that some of those changes were not instigated by the ITAC or even run past it? I don't want to sound like a conspiracy nut and that's not what I'm saying but I sometimes wonder if there aren't 2 separate tracks to rules changes. The one we prefer is member - class advisory comm. - CRB but sometimes changes show up out of the blue in Fastrack - where did they come from? Isn't that the case w/ the recent passenger door rule change?

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by bldn10@Dec 16 2005, 10:06 AM
"Understand that the current make-up of the ITAC is not the same group that have written some of the rules that we are taking issue with."

Andy, and isn't it true that some of those changes were not instigated by the ITAC or even run past it? I don't want to sound like a conspiracy nut and that's not what I'm saying but I sometimes wonder if there aren't 2 separate tracks to rules changes. The one we prefer is member - class advisory comm. - CRB but sometimes changes show up out of the blue in Fastrack - where did they come from? Isn't that the case w/ the recent passenger door rule change?

[snapback]68471[/snapback]​

I can't speak to everything but the safety related stuff isn't really our domain. It can come from the CRB - or us - should we bring it to them.

AB

 

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 16 2005, 03:40 PM
Understand that the current make-up of the ITAC is not the same group that have written some of the rules that we are taking issue with.

I would love to stuff the progammable fuel management (PFM) genie back in the bottle.  It would cost (more than you think) some people some serious money.  Maybe we need to put it out for member comment.

AB

[snapback]68466[/snapback]​

Andy,
I totally understand the open can of worms you guys have in front of you.

The group is really totally polarized on these issues because at the very heart of the issue is "are we a group that resists change or are we a group that understands and embraces it?" I don't have this answer. I support my answer and my friend Greg's...and I could argue vehemently for both. As I see it though we are not dealing with a static equation. Automobiles, society, laws, etc. are ever changing....so must we...it is immutable. How is it possible to control these things? The very premise of racing is ever changing and dynamic!!

So if we are to be "Renaissance men" then let's do away with the things that are not within the "spirit of the original intent" ie Motec. If we cannot do that then why split hairs on a lousy washer bottle? We're already so far down that [evolution]road anyway.....(Devil's advocate).

Rob

 

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by bldn10@Dec 16 2005, 11:06 AM
"Understand that the current make-up of the ITAC is not the same group that have written some of the rules that we are taking issue with."

Andy, and isn't it true that some of those changes were not instigated by the ITAC or even run past it? I don't want to sound like a conspiracy nut and that's not what I'm saying but I sometimes wonder if there aren't 2 separate tracks to rules changes. The one we prefer is member - class advisory comm. - CRB but sometimes changes show up out of the blue in Fastrack - where did they come from? Isn't that the case w/ the recent passenger door rule change?

[snapback]68471[/snapback]​

The same could be said of the window net change. Where did that come from and if the nets are still good past two years why the need to change the rule?

But Bill has a great point about the ITAC only being in an advisory role. They really can't change anything, only make recommendations and rely on the CRB to make the right calls and hope the CRB doesn't propose something on their own that isn't a good fit for IT. I honestly think the ITAC (and the other AC's) should have more direct control over the classes with the CRB acting as oversight and focusing on longer range issues. For example, let the ITAC decide on MOTEC's and washer bottles and where the new VW whatever gets classed. Meanwhile the CRB can focuses on where Touring cars should go once there 10 years are up or if we need another class for modified AWD and Turbo cars and providing a sanity check for major class changes like the releveling of the IT field that has been proposed.

 

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 16 2005, 03:40 PM
I would love to stuff the progammable fuel management (PFM) genie back in the bottle.  It would cost (more than you think) some people some serious money.  Maybe we need to put it out for member comment.

AB

[snapback]68466[/snapback]​

So is that a reason to not stuff it back in? See if we go there people will argue to leave it alone, and bring up good reasons to do so. Many people use MOTEC as the gold standard example of an abusive unforseen consequence of rules creep. So I say let's just get it out there now. Let's start that dialogue as MOTEC is the BIGGEST culprit when addressing rules creep.

I say you can't resist change within IT and still argue for MOTEC!

There, I said it!

Rob

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Doc Bro@Dec 16 2005, 09:16 AM
So if we are to be "Renaissance men" then let's do away with the things that are not within the "spirit of the original intent" ie Motec. If we cannot do that then why split hairs on a lousy washer bottle?  We're already so far down that [evolution]road anyway.....(Devil's advocate).

Rob

[snapback]68473[/snapback]​

So because your kid is playiing matches and burns a hole in the carpet you should hand him a gas can to finish the house.

Rob,
Putting the genie back as far as the Motec goes should be done will take the will of the group to get it done. Claiming investment as my friend Andy has done is a false argument on why not to do it. It goes back to this those that have them may keep them by moving on the a class that accepts them with open arms. Those that want to stay IT may do so by coming back to the IT rule set. I know it sounds pretty black and white and it is. Write rules and people follow them(break them if you like) If it is a bad rule then get enough folks together to change them There are some rules that should never be changed if they change the complete philosophy of a stable and popular class.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Rob,

I see it the exact opposite. Semi-free PFM is here. How is got here was unintended. Use that example of why we should be VERY careful with ANY change - for the sake of change. There is NO REASON we need to allow the removal of washer bottles except to make things easy - and like Grag pointed out - what about the one or two cars where it free's up a space for a unique intake design that makes more power? Whatever.

You can't use that as an arguement. We are talking about FUTURE changes, not using a past one as the context to allow new ones.

My stance is simple:

- Be very careful what you ask for - it could happen
- Think about all the ramifications of a change
- Propose all 'reversals' and see what the members say

AB

 

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar+Dec 16 2005, 01:15 AM-->

The ultimate irony is that Kirk is the person who proposed the elimination of remote/auto door lock... [/b]

Ooh - got me there.

I did that TOTALLY and PUBLICLY confessing to selfish reasons for doing so. To my recollection, that is the one and only time I've played typical SCCA entrant and made a rule change request based on my own little perspective.

Toms (apparently identical twins separated at birth) - I absolutely DO get your point. It's not a hard one. The fact that I would make the central lock delete request should be evidence of the fact that I understand precisely where you are coming from. I agree with you that no one, little rule change or allowance is a bad thing, in and of itself.

You want to make the issue JUST about washer bottles - I concede. Touche. You win. Allowing the removal of washer bottles won't kill IT, just like allowing removal of central locking won't. I'd like to think that I wouldn't have requested the change if I believed that it WOULD.

You, however, do not get my point - but I'm OK with that. It won't be the first time someone didn't understand a complex concept I was trying to explain and certainly won't be the last. I deal with that dynamic for a living. I'm just trying to raise the conversation to the level of the topic at hand - rules creep - rather than looking at just one tiny issue. I won't repeat it again, partially because Greg did a good job with his Pirates of the Carribean example but also because it's kind of a waste of bandwidth at this point.

For the record, I agree that the ECU rule is a freakin' mess, too.

Finally, regarding this...

<!--QuoteBegin-One of the Toms@ somewhere up yonder
...he has had his way for a while and does not want to see that change.

With respect, you haven't been in this community anything like long enough to know of what you speak on this front. I find myself in the position of playing conservative on this issue to preserve some things that *I think* are important to the category but there are some "long time readers" who are busting a gut at your writing me off as simply an IT Luddite.

K

 

[DavidM]

I think the IT rules as they are now govern the go fast aspects of a car very well (except for that ECU thing). I chose to race IT because I liked the fairly limited level of prep allowed. I have no desire to race prod. Telling me to race prod because I'd like to remove the turn signal and windshield wiper stalks is ridiculous. My windshield wiper bottle serves as my radiator overflow so I'll be keeping that.

This is really a pretty minor issue to me. I'd like to remove this crap, but no big deal if I can't. It's there so I'll just leave it. Now, if I break one of those damn stalks while fumbling around inside the car I sure as hell ain't gonna replace it. If I get good enough to actually beat somebody and they protest me because I don't have a wiper stalk so be it. They'll know I beat them, which is what counts. It's not like we're winning money or getting paid to do this.

As to the bigger issue of rules creep, I agree with using caution when implementing change. There's a big difference between being cautious about change and resisting change, though. Just because you can't anticipate every little aspect of a change doesn't mean something evil will happen. I think you do the best you can of looking at all the aspects and then move forward. If something unintended happens then you deal with it. Elimination of change is stagnation. I get the impression the current ITAC has this philosophy and they seem to be doing a good job of balancing things.

Now I have to go see if I can find a new factory wiring harness to replace the splice special, PoS one currently in the car.

David

 

[tom_sprecher]

Sorry I have not responded to some of these posts but I have been busy with work and my family. Before I start please be aware that any use of pronouns is aimed at the collective.

First, I want to say that went I wrote the "boxing match" intro I did not intend to single out any one individual. Instead it was supposed to be an analogy of the two sides of this argument. If anyone or their good friend was offended I apologize as that was not my intent. When I want to offend someone I come right out and write something like, “Greg, I don’t know if you are partially illiterate, but if you took the time to read and understand what everyone else is writing, and wrote posts that contain substance and material pertinent to the subject at hand instead of belittling comments about like minds or how a husband and father spends time with his family, more people, including myself, might take you more seriously.” That’s how I would offend someone if I chose to do so.

Second, with respect to the logic, I still can’t see how the elimination of unnecessary street legal items can result in the addition of hot cams and performance engine mods. Or how if I want to change anything on my car the only motivation I must have is to make it faster and give me an unfair advantage. I painted the car soon after I bought it. If there are those out there that presume to know me so well please enlighten me as to how I came to the conclusion that by going from silver to red/yellow/black subconsciously I felt I would go faster. That was the basis for my response on some of the comments of Kirk’s posts. I understand what he is saying but due to the generalities used can not agree.

I can see the Motec incident, which due to the number of references to it, apparently is the basis of many of your concerns. I understand and agree with that argument do not want to see IT turn into a “run what you brung” class. You gotta leave those SP boys something. On the other hand, unlike some on this forum, I can’t see the option to remove vestigial street legal items causing that to happen. Maybe I do not have as vivid of an imagination as some, but if I did I would not be discussing my ideas here.

And last I would like to see what the numbers for a vote on a list of items to be removed. Maybe a simple poll or check list type of thing. Several members seem to have a short list they agree on that is then blown out of proportion by the “zero tolerance” crowd. If there is some consensus it should be presented to the ITAC through the proper channels. The request may be “bitch-slapped”, but not me, and not in writing. I am in business for myself and regularly travel up and down the East coast and occasionally out West and if there is going to be any bitch slapping I prefer to do it face to face when necessary.

 

[ryotko]

I completely agree that it can't be open ended. So make a list of things that can be removed. Start with 5 items, tell the membership that it's on a trial basis (hint - don't sell the stuff yet) and reassess in a year or 2. I guarantee washer bottles, turn signal stalks, rear wiper assemblies or central locking systems will not upset the balance of IT. If it does, refer back to the trial basis clause. This completely negates "the sky is falling" threat.

Really who cares if the fast end of the field gets a little faster? They're going to be faster than those of us who have budget constrains anyway. And I'm fine with that. Those who have the means and talent to run at the front would most likely love the opportunity to fab a cold air box in the place of their washer bottle. I on the other hand would prefer to not spend half a day getting one from a junk yard. Either way, given the diversity of cars and talent in IT a cold air box isn't going to change who won a given race. Again if it does, refer back to the trial basis clause.

As for Motec. Everyone seems to agree that isn't bad for the class. So fix it. For very Motec owner that might leave IT if they had to remove it how many have already left because of it. There's 2 sides to this argument.

There's always talk about attracting new members and how to get more folks involved in IT. Well I think the best way is to make it easier and yes, less costly. There's no way to limit how much someone spends on a car but there are ways to make the initial cost of entry less for those at the other end of the spectrum. Will it add to IT numbers? Who knows but how can lowering the cost to get in hurt?

-Bob
Who thinks it funny that when I first found this site 3 or 4 years ago washer bottles were the center of a great debate and they still are.

 

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by ryotko@Dec 16 2005, 04:08 PM
There's always talk about attracting new members and how to get more folks involved in IT. Well I think the best way is to make it easier and yes, less costly. There's no way to limit how much someone spends on a car but there are ways to make the initial cost of entry less for those at the other end of the spectrum. Will it add to IT numbers? Who knows but how can lowering the cost to get in hurt?

[snapback]68507[/snapback]​

I'm curious how you think removing a washer bottle and a turn signal stalk would lower the cost to get into racing. First, almost everyone will tell you if cost is a concern than buy a used racecar. Second even if you are building one how many people start with a bare frame and start buying parts to add from there? The majority take a used up street car and start removing items. So typically it's break even, until you put a price on the time required to remove.

Oh, one last thought. Has anyone seen the new ads for some car that uses heated washer fluid? I bet that system weighs more your average 20 year old washer bottle. I hope the ITAC factors that difference into the car classifications if the washer bottle rule does get changed.

But we definitely agree on one thing, the washer bottle debate will probably outlive all of us. Even the crusty, stuck in the mud purists.

 

[Doc Bro]

No one has mentioned Greg's point that the IT of late is the Prod of old. It would be my contention that if that is true and they have evolved at the same rate then the gap between them should have remained the same. Thus indicating that rules creep effects all classes equally and universally and trying to vehemently guard against as such is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic- the inevitable is coming.

If my premise is true that the two have evolved equally and the gap has remained fairly constant then we should stop belly aching over MOTEC and embrace it. It's the normal evolution. Get rid of bottles and stalks too.

On the counterpoint....If my premise is wrong and IT is closing the gap on prod and the two are not on the same pace then we should get rid of MOTEC once and for all as it is clearly one of the chief culprits. In this senario we keep the cars as close to dual purpose and "original intent" as possible.

Neither one of these senarios is bad don't misunderstand my point. I'm in favor of either. I just want the two to fit more harmoniously together. 5-10K engine management and a washer bottle.....HUH? No engine mangement and a stock bottle, stock stalks.....AHHH...tranquility!!

Rob

 

[ryotko]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Dec 16 2005, 04:53 PM
I'm curious how you think removing a washer bottle and a turn signal stalk would lower the cost to get into racing. First, almost everyone will tell you if cost is a concern than buy a used racecar. Second even if you are building one how many people start with a bare frame and start buying parts to add from there? The majority take a used up street car and start removing items. So typically it's break even, until you put a price on the time required to remove.

Oh, one last thought. Has anyone seen the new ads for some car that uses heated washer fluid? I bet that system weighs more your average 20 year old washer bottle. I hope the ITAC factors that difference into the car classifications if the washer bottle rule does get changed. 

But we definitely agree on one thing, the washer bottle debate will probably outlive all of us. Even the crusty, stuck in the mud purists.

[snapback]68512[/snapback]​

It's interesting that this is the only point that you chose to quote.

First I said easier and less costly. You can't escape the fact that replacing a lost, broken or missing washer bottle costs something. I agree that if the cost of a washer bottle alone keeps you out of racing then you may want to look into a different activity but there's another aspect to it - time.

Personally I did buy a completed car. Beyond that it's an A2 VW, so used and discount OEM parts aren't a problem. I chose an IT car because it allows me some flexibility in the future. I'm 36, married and have 3 small kids. I have a good enough career that I can afford to run a few hillclimbs and some autocrosses a year. I am by no means able to write checks for development stuff but with 3 little kids my biggest hurdle is time. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't change my situation one bit, I'm ecstatic to be able to do the racing that I can. But the time spent poking around a pick and pull for an 18 year old washer bottle is time I'd rather spend keeping everyone happy at home so when I want to disappear for a weekend in Reading a few times a year, to drive up a hill, I can. Again, I'm not complaining, just stating the issues that a lot of us have to balance.

The $$ amounts that some folks are reported to be spending in IT is huge. The folks that are putting out 10's of thousands for cars and a few grand per weekend in travel and consumables are going to spend the money anyway. All I'm saying is allowing the removal of a set list of nonessential items could make it easier for some people. Again make it a trial basis, and fix it if the sky falls.

-Bob

Using the washer bottle as an example because the irony makes me laugh.

 

[ddewhurst]

Popsted by Rob

***On the counterpoint....If my premise is wrong and IT is closing the gap on prod and the two are not on the same pace then we should get rid of MOTEC once and for all as it is clearly one of the chief culprits.***

Posted by Bob

***Again make it a trial basis, and fix it if the sky falls.***

Guys, the sky fell on Production IIRC back in the early 90's when Limited Preparation/Restricted Suspension was implemented mainly because the costs of Production racing was out of control. IMHU the CRB is attempting to reel Production back towards it's roots in that the RULES CREEP had been going on for 40 plus years. The ugly part of the reel in is that the CRB has implemented rules in the LP/RS process that are made just like the Production rules of the past. Loosley written such as the alternate control arm rule. With the word alternate they opened the gate & let the cows out. We should all be able to learn from the Production errors of past.

 

[dickita15]

You know I am one of the guys that would like to get rid of the signal stalk, vulnerable marker lights and replace the rotting wiring harness on my old carbureted car, but I understand that there are people who want to hold the line an any of these changes so the class will not get out of hand. I just wish these nay sayers were more vocal when thing like the motec deal came along.

 

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by dickita15@Dec 16 2005, 11:55 PM
I just wish these nay sayers were more vocal when thing like the motec deal came along.

[snapback]68527[/snapback]​

Alleliua, brother !!! And can I get an Amen!!

R