What about these rules?

[ddewhurst]

George, thanks for responding. Just for yourself read my question to the Comp Board & then read the system of head restraint rule 18.1.2, read their response & you will see that there is zero misscommunication. My memo is real clear & suggests that if they do not understand please contact me. After your analysis private e-mail if you desire to [email protected]. They knew dam well what I was talking about because previously I had sent them a picture of a production car with a system of head restraint 6 inches behind the trailing edge of the main hoop of the roll cage.

Have Fun

David

 

[ddewhurst]

Don, what is your personal body weight & what year, make & model is your ITC car.

Have Fun

David

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
George, thanks for responding. Just for yourself read my question to the Comp Board & then read the system of head restraint rule 18.1.2, read their response & you will see that there is zero misscommunication.

Actually, I meant a miscommunication on the part of the CB, not you.

We can have a private discussion if you like. I'm not sure what else I might be able to add however.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

 

[Don]

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Don, what is your personal body weight & what year, make & model is your ITC car.

Have Fun

David

I weight 169 now; Actually I'm gaining weight, with the new gym program I'm on. Like I said before Its not all about me! Its addressing some absurd outdated rules. Why should you have to weight 150-180 and drive a (insert “the car “ for your particular IT class here) to get any attention. Is it any wonder that ICSCC, and NASA are starting to take large chunks of the road racers over the last few years.

I think allot of people are giving up on the old dinosaur, its a pity. Not to say that the other organizations are perfect, but they are more open to change. Incase you have not noticed I’m not usually a quiet or shy person

. One of the most important lessons I have learned in running a successful business is to listen to my customers suggestions. If more than one person has the same or similar complaint and I do not try to address it then I WILL lose customer base. Think market share! If I was the only one raising these issues then ignore me but I'm not! There are allot of people pushing for some type of change and for the most part put out to pasture and told to either build a new car or go to another org. (crazy!)
What if I all of a sudden said I was only going to work on CRX’s , Integra’s and VW’s and only provide customers weighing between 150-180 with priority service? I would be run out of business and loose about 60% of my current customer base!
I have heard stories about ITs beginnings that the SCCA tried to ignore it and it was individual regions that ran it in the beginning. I was not there but the same thing is happening now but its not within SCCA.


[This message has been edited by Don (edited November 30, 2003).]

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Don:
That's just being ignorant, ...

Well, that's a first for me here! Ignorant? Hmmm...........

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> ...Using your logic in the early days of  IT, IT would have never existed ?  You would have told early IT racers to just continue with SS and build / buy new cars? Or stop debating (whining) That SCCA officials have more to do than be bothered with the new IT class rules?  Perspective changes quite rapidly does it not? </font>

No, the perspective is the same...in the early days, SCCA did ignore IT! As is the procedure in SCCA, regions champion new clesses. If they gain momentum and subscription, then they become nationally recognized, either as National, or Regional classes. Once IT acheived critical mass, the CB invested the time, along with some advisory people, and wrote the IT rule book. (That leaves a lot out, but is the Cliff notes version for the sake of the point at hand)

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> That's not as awful or self serving as you may think .... What are you afraid of ? Its not going to cost anything , well maybe 20 bucks if you need a wrench. Its not going reduce the spec weight; it will just get some people closer to it. </font>

Perhaps, I hope, you misread me. I didn't intend my statements to infer that you were "awful and self serving". But I do restate that if you (the general, or plural you) are within the 35 pounds or so (max!) that the core and window represent, your return will be marginal when everybody pulls them and then "reballasts".
That, in and of itself, will do next to nothing to change the relative order of things . And I have to assume that no-one would do this unless they wanted to move up the relative order.

Let me try to restate this as clearly as I can.
1-IT isn't a broken, or failing category
2-There ARE issues in IT that need attention
3-The biggest single issue, IMHO, is parity and the distruibution of potential 'speed' among the 4 IT classes.
4-The second biggest issue is cheating.

I said in my first post that I agreed with you, that the rules you mentioned don't make as much sense as they used to, but I think that we should concentrate on other issues before we worry about these lesser items.

I think we all, youself included, have far more to gain from work that has been done both publicly and behind the scenes, aimed at item #2.


------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited November 30, 2003).]

 

[Don]

911,I guess I did miss read you,sorry.
Cant say I never missunder stood any one either

There are allot of people (SCCA members) especialy the larger ones who wish they were 35 LBS away from the GCR weight. This means for some people the weight listed in the GCR is only a dream. Letting them remove a few items may not move them from mid pack to the front but its a start in the right directon.
Each one of those racers are customers so to speak, If SCCA doesnt try to provide them with some type of perceived value; then they may stop racing or go to another org. Thats bad! Its a loose/loose situation.
Geo was right too you cant have new rules every month.
Like I said before I never heard anyone crying to put the carpet and headliner back in. A few months ago there was a story In GRM about a ITS Civic racer that now races with NASA in Honda challenge because he had no where to run. How many people is SCCA going to loose before they wake up! In the north west a Conference race I went to had about twice he turn out of the Scca a few weeks later, makes you go hhhm!
I read that a guy from NHRA was brought in to revamp SCCA. Well? I'm not bashing the SCCA its the oposite I think the original Sports car club should start getting with the program and get some of those guys back!




[This message has been edited by Don (edited November 30, 2003).]

 

[ITSRX7]

These type of allowances have other ramafications. Yes, it may seem that allowing blower motors, window glass, (insert your favorite un-needed part) to be removed will help some, when in reality all it does is make a path for cheaters.

The 2nd gen RX-7 can get to minimum weight easily. If I removed all of that stuff, I would have to put in 100lbs of ballast AND I would still be under - with a full tank. So what is to stop me from hiding weight in strategic and undetectible places AND helping the performance of my racecar? Corner weighting - weight REAL low (inside the frame rails) is the result...

Then what? The gap between the haves and the have nots gets BIGGER.

It's a very grey area when rules creep starts to set in. I have talked with some people who think that if their car can get below minimum weight, the minimum weight was set too high!

I agree 100% that there are bigger fish to fry. The SCCA is not losing drivers to NASA because you can't remove passenger side door glass in IT. NASA has created a structure that is very limited in it's scope - and is popular to some but could never be popular to many based purely on what they have to offer for classes. The SCCA is trying to do a lot for many and some people think they are failing (I am not one of those people). There are issues, no doubt.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

 

[itafiero]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
These type of allowances have other ramafications. Yes, it may seem that allowing blower motors, window glass, (insert your favorite un-needed part) to be removed will help some, when in reality all it does is make a path for cheaters.

The 2nd gen RX-7 can get to minimum weight easily. If I removed all of that stuff, I would have to put in 100lbs of ballast AND I would still be under - with a full tank. So what is to stop me from hiding weight in strategic and undetectible places AND helping the performance of my racecar? Corner weighting - weight REAL low (inside the frame rails) is the result...

Then what? The gap between the haves and the have nots gets BIGGER.

It's a very grey area when rules creep starts to set in. I have talked with some people who think that if their car can get below minimum weight, the minimum weight was set too high!

I agree 100% that there are bigger fish to fry. The SCCA is not losing drivers to NASA because you can't remove passenger side door glass in IT. NASA has created a structure that is very limited in it's scope - and is popular to some but could never be popular to many based purely on what they have to offer for classes. The SCCA is trying to do a lot for many and some people think they are failing (I am not one of those people). There are issues, no doubt.

AB

Actually I don't agree. Their Pro Sedan class mimics SCCA IT with a few exceptions. Those exceptions include my car, '88 Fiero V6, that at the time that Pro Sedan started was included in PS-2 (ITA like) years before the CB moved it form ITS to ITA. So the club does need to pay attention to the competition and make changes that are appropriate for it's members that are inclusive and not exclusive.

 

[ITSRX7]

I would never intentially imply that the SCCA doesn't need to watch, learn and react to it's competition. That is a must.

I know little about NASA but from what I can tell, Pro Sedan is IT but with one less class! And where is the NASA rule set that contradicts the issues first brought up in this forum? Seems PS is the same as IT, issues and all - so why would the SCCA's IT class lose drivers to NASA PS?

Trying to understand...

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

 

[itafiero]

I should have stated more clearly where I disagreed with your earlier statement. I don't think I can make a solid argument with SCCA losing members to NASA. I was just pointing out that they offer a fairly complete set of classes to run.

Although I can't argue that the club is losing members to NASA I can say that it's possible and depending on how the rules change in IT NASA's class structure may become more attractive to club members. I recognize that NASA offered my car a more competitive location from the get go. That shows they can take initiative in order to make their offering attractive to club members.

 

[grjones1]

Sorry guys, all the philosophizing and proselytizing in the world will not cloud the pure logic of removing passenger-side door glass. It's easy; it's cost-free; the glass must be rolled down anyway; and what's most important, it would increase safety.
I am continually astounded that the danger of leaving a glass "bomb" in my passenger door for no apparent reason has not alarmed more people- and for what reason does the glass remain? Because of a hard-headed adherence to the outdated original intent to provide "dual-purpose" cars. That idea is long past its usefulness.
No reason remains for retaining glass in the passenger-side front door other than someone just doesn't want to be bothered with making a decision.
And I'm sorry again guys but you can take out your blower motors if you install a through-dash horizontal bar for the driver's protection (you are allowed to make room for such a bar).
And I still say that the writers' intent when they said "gauges and instruments may be replaced, altered, or removed" meant that you could get rid of old switches and components as well as read-outs. (VW and a number of other manufacturers, for example, list horns under Instruments.
Why would the rule writers say "gauges and 'instruments,'" if instrument simply meant gauge as many have demanded by GCR definition. An instrument can be a great deal more than a gauge. The GCR is in error obviously because the GCR definition is far too limited, by anyone's understanding of the word "instrument." Surgeons use "instruments" to carve people up and I guarantee the instruments they use do not all have numbers and pointers. The GCR definition was written after the ITCS use of the word and they don't agree, and the ITCS use of the word takes precedence. That should be apparent to any reasonable individual.
Thank you for your indulgence.

G. Robert Jones

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited December 01, 2003).]

 

[Knestis]

By this logic (applied to the window question only - I'll leave the others alone), IT entrants should remove ALL glass windows and replace them with polycarbonate. And showroom stock cars should do the same.

This is the same kind of rationale that got GT cars to where they are now, from the "Sedan" classes of the '70s. Yes, it is a little arbitrary to define where IT ends and Production starts but it does not make big-picture sense to be making constant incremental allowances in the rules. Not even if they are based on "safety," in as much as "unsafe" conditions are accepted in ANY club racing class.

Fuel cells are not required in IT but are in other categories. Arm restraints are required in formula cars and sports racers but not IT. Where do we draw the line?

And I will argue strongly that the ONLY cost-free modification is the one that is NOT allowed. Time is money or time not spent doing something else.

K

 

[Don]

Originally posted by Knestis:


And I will argue strongly that the ONLY cost-free modification is the one that is NOT allowed. Time is money or time not spent doing something else.

You could apply that logic even further if you wish.... Think of all the money and time you would save if you didn't build an IT race car at all

. Disconected heater cores and passenger only glass is one foot in and one foot out. Choose one or the other, otherwise its foolishness.

 

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Knestis:
By this logic (applied to the window question only - I'll leave the others alone), IT entrants should remove ALL glass windows and replace them with polycarbonate. And showroom stock cars should do the same.

ANS
K, your "logic" never ceases to amaze me- I don't remember seeing too many race cars T-boned in their windshields or even their rear windows, but I 've seen quite a few hit perpendicularly and otherwise in their sides (where the rolled-down window resides). And windshields and rear glass must remain to serve a purpose, they shield the driver and enclose the car. Door windows rolled down in the door serve absolutely no purpose except added weight.
In more than twenty years of racing, I've never seen a showroom, or otherwise, driver cut by broken glass from a broken windshield or rear window, but I've seen plenty of broken glass on the track from sidewindows shattered on the pavement.
The only real reason GT uses polycarbonates is that it is lighter, not safer. _____

This is the same kind of rationale that got GT cars to where they are now, from the "Sedan" classes of the '70s. Yes, it is a little arbitrary to define where IT ends and Production starts but it does not make big-picture sense to be making constant incremental allowances in the rules. Not even if they are based on "safety," in as much as "unsafe" conditions are accepted in ANY club racing class.

ANS:
This is about as weak an argument as it gets: "Lets not be safer because we might be incrementing."
__________
Fuel cells are not required in IT but are in other categories. Arm restraints are required in formula cars and sports racers but not IT. Where do we draw the line?
_____
ANS:
Most IT cars are sedans or otherwise enclosed, arm restraints would be superfluous. Fuel cells are less necessary because IT cars go considerably slower than GT, formula, and Production.

And I will argue strongly that the ONLY cost-free modification is the one that is NOT allowed. Time is money or time not spent doing something else.
___________
ANS: Sounds like you really don't have time to race.
K, you are making excuses not good sense. This is exactly what I mean about people not wanting to go to the trouble to make good decisions, and these really are the weakest arguments I ve heard you present.

Here's another "illogical" one for you to wrestle with: If we took the bumpers off there would be fewer metal-to-metals for obvious reasons.

G. Robert Jones

K

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited December 01, 2003).]

 

[Knestis]

Even when prepared to IT rules, my car will have both side windows installed and in working order and the door cards in to contain any broken glass.

The heater hoses will be in there, pushing water through the core to keep mist off of the windshield. The air will be moved around by the OEM blower - although the outboard vents and a hunk of each side's duct gave their all for the rollcage A-pillar tubes.

I wear arm restraints even in closed cars, except in enduros where the time-cost of buckling them isn't warranted by the marginal return in safety.

ITS lap records are as quick or quicker than F, G, and H Production, and GT5 cars around the US. That alone doesn't make the decision to require fuel cells.

I am neither unsafe nor illogical: I just don't have the same priorities as others. I am also consistent where others are less so - and (usually) more interested in arguing positions rather than bashing individuals.

K

 

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by grjones1:
I've never seen a showroom, or otherwise, driver cut by broken glass from a broken windshield or rear window, but I've seen plenty of broken glass on the track from sidewindows shattered on the pavement.

What class might you be talking about? In IT, the passenger glass is contained by wither the factory door panel or an aluminum skin as per the rules. Drivers door glass is typically gone due to NASCAR style roll bars and when that style of cage isn't used, removing the door panel isn't legal. How does the glass escape?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

 

[Don]

I now see why nothing ever gets done in IT ...........

I am thinking live with ITC for now, next race car will not be ITA. DSR.... no window glass or heaters allowed and minumum weight is just that!

If you add up what a competive ITA/S car costs its not that much more.
My ITC Car has a fuel cell. I value my life and others too much. Just another rule that is out dated!

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
How does the glass escape?

AB

Well, Andy, I'm guessing the answer will be something to the effect of, " In a crash severe enough to break the glass, the door skin will often be torn, spreading glass all over the racing surface."

Suddenly it's all so obvious! That fear I get when I'm spinning sideways into something isn't the fear of impact...No! It's the fear of flying glass! Of course!

Doesn't automotive safety glass break into a gazillionbabilion bits the size and shape of little pebbles? Granted, I wouldn't walk on it barefoot but hey...those pebbles smart too! Bottom line is, I sure don't spend as much time worrying about this as others, I guess.

And I'd like to address one thing without getting too tangled in this other silliness.

Nobody is going to run to NASA because the SCCA won't let them remove their window glass or heater core, or whatever 5 pound item that they want to remove...that's patently ridiculous! They WILL go to NASA for ONE reason...they think they can win. Period. IF the Oswald Gofast that Bobby Racer races is classed more favorably over there, then Bobby will be pretty darn temped to go there.

If we are worried about the pull of the "dark side", then the best thing we can do is give all racers a fair shot, and have as many cars in a reasonable number of clesses be classed with parity.

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> ...nothing ever gets done in IT .... </font>

???..

We sit on the eve of the single biggest change in philosophy since the inception of IT...the PCAs. The mere fact that they are being considered speaks heavily as to the fact that IT, as a category, is getting some attention from the CB. IT has always been the ugly stepchild of categories, and that has been no secret. Buyer beware!

Write to them if you like, requesting the change so that some cars that have a difficult time getting to min. weight will have more options, and behind doors, I guarantee you will get rolled eyes. Why??? Because the entire category is potentially about to undergo a major change. If I were them, I'd 'table' it pending PCA activity too.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited December 01, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited December 01, 2003).]

 

[Knestis]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">The mere fact that they are being considered speaks heavily as to the fact that IT, as a category, is getting some attention from the CB.</font>

As dubious as I may be, this is in fact something we should remember.

K

 

[ddewhurst]

***Because the entire category is potentially about to undergo a major change.***

& the time frame would be??????????

Jake, don't be specific about a month or day. How about what year?

Continue the Fun

David