Rules NERDs - RIP

I'm afraid that the tide of opinion has well and truly turned in the last few weeks. We conservative rules literalists - Rules NERDs - are pretty much extinct.
...

I'm officially old. I'm losing enthusiasm for fighting to keep people from helping to make a mistake that they collectively just have to make. You all think I'm a crotchety old bahstahd for suggesting that a spot weld holding a spherical bearing in an A arm spells doom for the category. You don't get it, you won't get it, I can't help you get it, and sadly - ONCE YOU DO GET IT - it will be too late. If you stay in this category long enough, each of you will reach a tipping point where all of a sudden, you don't recognize the cars you are racing against.

You will want to become a rules NERD, and you may. Because I'm turning in my card.[/b]
Click to expand...

I can't reconcile the camp you claim to be in with this:

Eliminate the "create a model" prohibition and "two VIN number" requirement clauses from the ITCS (Knestis).[/b]
Click to expand...

Isn't that the type of creep you wouldn't want being from the described camp? I actually agree with it as I would love to triple the number of S13 shells available for ITA - but at the same time you know somehow somewhere there is the unintended consequence of there being some improvement to be gained in allowing this. Heck it could even be that unbeknownest to anyone that some design/manufacturing line change due to weld location or improved technology or a different alloy could have made the 1992 S13 chassis stiffer than the 1989 S13 chassis - though I look at them as identical.

Also there are three VIN numbers on the S13, 1 stamped and 2 plated. I could pretty easily put two 89 plates on a 92 shell. Would that be legal? I think it might but I couldn't in good faith push it there myself as I think that it would be completely against the intent.
 
I thought SB's were allowed. I thought no modification to implement them wasn't.

I am glad for the clarification. I am surprised at the welding part - though I understand the explanations given.

[/b]
Click to expand...

Well, the jury is out on whether they were, or were not legal. One camp says, "Of course" while the other camp says "no way!, and if the CRB tells us so, they're peddling BS", LOL. Literalists see the fallacy that the rule actually allowed nothing as any material would change the effect of the component mounted to it which constituts a design changer which was not listed as allowable.......

(Either way, legal workarounds existed that resulted in the same performance)

But none of us ever felt that you could get a welder out, thats for sure.

And while the SB as been clarified as being okay, it may only be used in certain situations. I can not see, for example, how it could be used on an RX-7s lower "drag link" from the frame to the A arm. But within the A arm pickup, or now "pivot" point, it could do nicely.....if tack welded only.
 
TurboICE nailed this one exactly,

Everyone should just take a deep breath, just because your ideas didn't become allowed doesn't mean you should turn your back and run away, worse yet why are you throwing back a bomb at us.... The Imprved Touring Catagory is improving and becoming better if you like it or not.

This is the BEST racing, it's not like they are making us all run the same exact body shell (NASCAR next year)

If you can't afford to run ITS don't. Run in ITB or ITC.
If your smart you can win for under 10 grand in those classes, i have done it, I know. Maybe not all the time but you can and most importatnly you can go out there and have fun at the very least.

STOP TRASH TALKING OUR CATAGORY. A LOT of people have worked very hard to make it what it is. Much Much Better. You and I both no things are much better than a year ago.

Stephen
PS: No I don't have SB and I don't plan on getting them.
 
I can't reconcile the camp you claim to be in with this...[/b]
Click to expand...

I've thought about it a hundred times and can't - based on the wording that I proposed - think of a way that it can go wrong. If it turned out that the 1992 Whatsit S shell was different than the 1990 Whatsit L (from a different spec line), then it wouldn't be legal to USE one to build the other. All I proposed was that we treat the body shell like any other piece on the car. Would you have any qualms about using a hood off of a 240sx from a different spec-line car, if they were the same? Why should a bigger piece of sheetmetal be any different.

Not all rule changes are creep but y'know what? It's no big deal.

... just because your ideas didn't become allowed doesn't mean you should turn your back and run away, worse yet why are you throwing back a bomb at us.... STOP TRASH TALKING OUR CATAGORY. [/b]
Click to expand...
If that's for me, Stephen - with all due respect...

1. You are taking a blindingly shallow view of my point. This is NOT about my proposal being denied. It's about a few very significant shifts in first principal that seem to have taken place hot on the heels of some very good, and very important improvements having been made. The difference between a good artist and a great one is knowing when to quit messing with one's medium and the point at which "good" change becomes dangerous change is RIGHT NOW. Look back at the last couple FasTracks and the accompanying discussion here (accepting that this is just a snapshot of opinion, not the sum of it).

You'll see a re-emergence of the idea it might be OK to fudge on the written rule if a change "doesn't improve performance." You'll see codification of exceptions to the IIDSYCYC law. You'll see expanding interpretations that changes to one part not specifically allowed by the rules is OK, to facilitate making an allowed change. You'll see a surprising number of people agreeing to the proposition that interpreting the written rules as scrupulously as possible amounts to "tortured interpretation." This is happening WAY too fast and at this point, I don't think that very many people want to slow it down and I've decided to go along with the prevailing mood.

2. I'm not TRASH TALKING a category, and "OUR" sure as hell includes MINE. I ran my first IT race in 1986. I've earned the right to have opinions about it because I care about the longterm health of the category. I'm just going to care differently from here on out. I don't know why you are complaining because you - those of you who think all of this is progress or think it's cool that you will get to remove your wiper stalks, OE wiring harnesses, and marker lights - you have convinced me that you are right! I'm not going to worry about interpretations, I'm not going to call folks on illegal stuff (not on the boards, anyway), I'm not going to try to convince you that we should try to contain creep.

I'm going to start reading the book with an open mind, build the best car that I can afford, work on my mad skilz and try to win some races. I have some ideas that revolve around what an "assembly" is, and how they might be maximized to good effect. I think that there's room for some interesting developments around the definition of "sway bar," where the rear beam of a Golf is concerned. I'm some really groovy bearings in my front A-arms. I want to explore chip tuning based on on-track data collection from a wideband O2 sensor.

It's all good...

K
 
You'll see a re-emergence of the idea it might be OK to fudge on the written rule if a change "doesn't improve performance." ......
K
[/b]
Click to expand...

Kirk, it is always interesting and enlightening to read your posts, and I only wish I could retain all that they contain.

This particular line is one I would like you to expand upon, perhaps with an example.

(I have long been troubled by the term "assembly" as well.....)
 
Absolutely agree that all rule changes are not creep, but those from your prior camp have told me many times on these board that yes in fact they are.

I still think there is a disconnect from the way you used to want it to be and your request - within the wording of your request there could be a difference in a chasis between spec lines or classes that isn't known and it would be permitted.

And of course joining us on the dark side you have the overall intent to rely on:

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, or removed for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage.[/b]
Click to expand...

Your focus should now be on the part with the emphasis - if the purpose of doing xyz isn't to obtain a competitive advantage doing xyz isn't illegal even if isn't specifically allowed. ;)

Of course you will have to face people from your old camp - the presumption is it was done for a competitive advantage or it wouldn't have been done...

Be well.
 
Absolutely agree that all rule changes are not creep, but those from your prior camp have told me many times on these board that yes in fact they are.

I still think there is a disconnect from the way you used to want it to be and your request - within the wording of your request there could be a difference in a chasis between spec lines or classes that isn't known and it would be permitted.

And of course joining us on the dark side you have the overall intent to rely on:
Your focus should now be on the part with the emphasis - if the purpose of doing xyz isn't to obtain a competitive advantage doing xyz isn't illegal even if isn't specifically allowed. ;)

Of course you will have to face people from your old camp - the presumption is it was done for a competitive advantage or it wouldn't have been done...

Be well.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Well Ed, part of the flaw in your logic lies in the fact that you've already got cases where there are differences in chassis on the same spec line that are different, yet run at the same weight. Do you think those differences were taken into account when the car was classified? Not likely. It's more a case of not being able to differentiate the different chassis by VIN #. I'll give you a great example. You can take an '89 VW Golf tub, and build either an ITA 16v car or an ITB 8v car out of it, regardless as to which one it started life as, because there's no way to tell them apart, via the VIN #. But on the flip side, you can't take an '83 VW Rabbit tub and build an ITB Rabbit GTI out of it, because there's a digit in the VIN# that indicates engine size. You want to talk intent, let's talk intent. Oh, and let's not even go into the cases where people have swapped VIN tags.

Now, let's talked about the clause that you cited. That's been on the books for a while, and should have been all that was necessary to keep us from ending up w/ Motecs. So, " ...for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage" really reads " ...for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage unless we decide it's too much work to police". Interestingly enough, a couple of years back (and I forget the details, but I thought it had to do w/ a Mustang), there was a response to a request that essentially said that a modification that increased part longevity (in this case, the engine), was considered to be a competitiive advantage. Maybe 'competitive advantage' needs to find its way into the glossary? :119:

BTW, I think you can make the case that if you remove something, that has no direct effect on the performance of the car, it can be considered a competitive advantage, as now you don't have to worry about it, and can focus more time on other parts of the car. It would be a whole lot different if the language said "performance enhancement" rather than "competitive advantage". (Kirk should appreciate the policy implications of that difference)
 
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, or removed for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage.[/b]
Click to expand...
Ed did my homework for me, Jake. For EVER, the common standard has been exactly the opposite - that it is not necessary to demonstrate that a change not specifically allowed by the rules, for it to be considered illegal. Ed's right, though - if my purpose is something other than to "obtain a competitive advantage," I can do all kinds of things in the name of making the car quicker to work on or easier to keep clean, keeping sponsors happy, saving money, or doing things that look cool.

Yeah - it's clear that the CRB made the SB decision based only on political expedience (unless someone can tell me which of the current members participated in drafting the first IT rulebook), but that's OK - 'cause I got 'em now.

Expand your mind and the ITCS will set you free. B)

K

PS - spray urethane foam is a "paint or coating."
 
***Yeah - it's clear that the CRB made the SB decision based only on political expedience (unless someone can tell me which of the current members participated in drafting the first IT rulebook), but that's OK - 'cause I got 'em now.***

Jake, there are others that ain't afraid to use the word political relative to CRB responses.


To all, as Jeff posted & the thing that is going to keep me away from reading all the great posts is the people bashing. :018: That will divide the FUN people on this site.
 
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, or removed for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage.

[/b]
Click to expand...

I've always wondered, for you steward types out there, how does that apply to this

In the event a car is found in non-compliance, a claim that the noncompliant item(s) offer no performance advantage shall have no influence on any ruling.

[/b]
Click to expand...

from GCR 13.4?

Personally, I think that the "for the purpose..." part should be struck from the ITCS.
 
Wouldn't the ITCS trump the GCR? I mean the GCR is the broad default, unless the class rule is in conflict and then the class rule is applied - or am I mistaken?

I think it probably should be struck as well. It would seem to have the potential to pretty much open a lot. I can understand why it is there so that something that is reasonably done out of some necessity that does not result in a competitive advantage can be done without being jumped on unreasonably. Not that there is anyone in IT that would be unreasonable in either direction...

And I disagree that solely making a car more reliable or adding to a part's longevity is a competitive advantage - it has no bearing on sprint race competition it only reduces prep time off the track. I know most disagree with me which is why I follow the IIDSYCYC - but it sure would be nice to be able to reasonably improve reliability and longevity when lap times aren't affected as a result.

For instance I think having a gear that performs identically should not be disallowed when all it does is prolong the gear's life. (i.e. fewer tear downs)

Whereas better material pistons and valves while prolonging life, can also actually permit more agressive tuning and result in faster lap times, than OEM materials and reasonably shouldn't be allowed except if and as explicitly allowed by a rule.
 
Ed,

I'm not saying that I agree that increased longevity is a competitive advantage, just that I've heard it described as such, in a somewhat official context.

And guys, one clause says "performance advantage" the other says "competitive advantage". Not entirely the same thing.
 
To all, as Jeff posted & the thing that is going to keep me away from reading all the great posts is the people bashing. :018: That will divide the FUN people on this site.
[/quote]


yes you are correct, and I apologize for doing this. I was not trying ot personally attack Kirk (Eventhough I think this thread is inappropriate for a website that is here to help our race group) I was however attacking the changing mood of the "old Timers" on this website.


This is what I should have said:
I came to this site 4 years ago and got a ton of advice. This site has always had 2 sides of the debate but that is what made it informative. Rules Nerds shouldn't back down from your knowledge and thaughts. It is what makes this website great. I also don't think that the people that like to stretch the rules should go away. they should keep antagonizing you :) that is also what makes this website so informative even if you don't agree with everything.

I do think this website can be informative and a great resource. If you look at the past few months it has become more and more less resourcefull yet if you look through this carbage like wht I am righting right now it still is great. I do remember the bashing that others took here a few years ago and they stuck around. I hope you all do the same and you change back to how you may have been before. I liked your point of view and truely thaught it made this site what it is. If you give in and change to the dark side we will all suffer and loose a great perspective.

Live on Rules NERDS! don't give in.
Stephen
 
I'm going to start reading the book with an open mind, build the best car that I can afford, work on my mad skilz and try to win some races. [/b]
Click to expand...

Now thats what I'm talking about.
Welcome to ScottLand Dr. K. The weather is always sunny here and the rides are fun.

Look, we are amatuer club racers. This means two things...
1. We do this for fun
2. Someone is always going to try to cheat, torture rules, and "read" things a little funny.

It doesn't matter what you do or how you write the rules. Someone who reads the current rules in bad faith will find a way to do the same with any new rules you write.
Bad Faith? "Hey Scott, what's bad faith rule reading?"
How about a 40lb kill switch plate. Yeah... Thats reading the rules in bad faith. You KNOW the rules don't intend that to be allowable.

So, I won't ever protest anyone. Right?
I just wanna have fun. Right?

Wrong.

Start bump drafting frontrunning ITS cars in your ITA BMW at Daytona... I care.
Put your 90lbs of ballast in the right rear instead of the passenger footwell... I care.
Use a 40lb kill switch plate... I care.
Put Integra brakes on your CRX... I care.

Gut your passenger side door and run the "NASCAR" bars in 1 inch instead of 3 inches... I really don't care.

Sorry guys, I just don't see myself being that weenie that protests a autocross Stock class guy because he forgot to put the 1oz plastic covers back on his rear shock tower trim panels (yes, this actually happened). Sure, thats a violation of the rules... But who cares?

The best thing that could happen to IT nationwide is for all the rules nerds to quit picking nits on the interweb and start actually protesting guys who are bump drafting ITS cars in ITB cars. Those guys are out there, lets pick that low fruit before we worry about how far into a door frame bars need to be to be called "NASCAR" bars.

Fire up the grill and hand me a beer. :birra:
This shit is supposed to be for fun.
 
So probably this isn't the place to ask for a definition of what/how big a tack weld is then, right?

:cavallo:

:D

Jarrod
 
So probably this isn't the place to ask for a definition of what/how big a tack weld is then, right?

:cavallo:

:D

Jarrod
[/b]
Click to expand...
:018: Probably a good thing there isn't a groin kick emoticon! LOL

I suspect at some point you have added enough material that it either becomes a modification to the suspension component or would be considered to serve another purpose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top