Can someone tell me why triangulated strut tower braces are not allowed in IT? Please don't say that they go against the "philosophy" of IT!
In my view, these braces are essential in maintaining front-end handling predictability. Ask anybody who has a deep understanding of chassis engineering and they will tell you that a simple strut-to-strut brace is almost worthless... So why would the GCR not allow you to firm up your car in the name of predictability, hence safety?
I wish to take my Mustang into ITR, and really do not relish the idea of having to remove the cowl bolts from the strut brace, because I remember how flimsy the front of the car was before the brace was installed. It was like a Ramen noodle, and no wonder! The platform architecture dates back to the friggin' 1970s.
You've received some interesting responses....
The IT rules were written in the dark ages, essentially, and the category has been operating under those rules for a long time. Which is to say that a lot of cars have been built, and are being raced based on those rules.
From a rulesmaker's perspective, new rules need to be addressed while keeping several constants in mind. One, it is well known that one of the cornerstones of the IT philosophy is the
stable ruleset. Competitors often remark that they choose IT because of the stability of the ruleset.
Second, any rule that is a change for every car needs to be made very carefully, as there is significant cost to the rule change.
You've stated that lacking a triangulation brace in the car is a safety concern. This is often termed "the safety card"..but honestly, it's a bit of a stretch, and a cloaked argument in most cases.
In this case, lacking the rigidity won't collapse the car, it will add "Spring" to the chassis. This is not uncommon, and has been dealt with for years. Perhaps it doesn't "feel" good, but lacking one won't lead to a catastrophic failure.
Each car has it's issues, and when considering a car to race, those issues need to be addressed. Triumphs are noted for brakes that are, well, not up to the task in instances. Those desiring to race a Triumph need to attend to the issue, or learn how to drive around it. Rabbits have known strut weaknesses. First generation RX-7 have weak front brakes if not set up properly. Other cars have transmissions known for failure, and so on.
There are two choices in a case like this, other than denial of a request:
!- Grant an exception on a case by case basis. We can all see the issues that arise in such cases.
2- Grant category wide permission.
Many have requested that they prefer to mount their battery in the rear of the car. Curiously, it's owners of FWD cars with high placed batteries who suggest this most often, and it's nearly always preceded by, "Safety is being compromised by the requirement to run my battery in it's stock location". Well, the manufacturer has decided that it's not all that unsafe to start with, but....
....the main reason requests like that are denied is the cost of such a change to the entire category. If allowed, the bar has been raised, and everyone must do it to remain in place. A second, less obvious reason is the competitive balance aspect, where certain cars could benefit greatly from such a change, while others will not.
In the end, requests like that need to be considered very carefully, as there are many costs to bear.