Wonder how many ITS customers these have been sold to

George,

It keeps the honest people honest. VARA does it for certain classes. Formula Ford was one of them. At annual tech they CC'd the motor, checked compression ratio, valve lift, duration and profile. They also verified that the transaxle had an open differential. If all passed they gave you a "VARA Verified legal" sticker. If it failed you were told to get it right and resubmit for tech inspection. If you refused for cost reasons or whatever to bring it into compliance you ran in class "FFX"--no points, no awards.

Like I said this kept the honest people honest. No way (with that system) to make certain that people with legal motors/cams at annual tech didn't change something before/between races.

However, it is better than doing nothing.

Ideally it would be like they do it in national level karting.

All karts get weighed after every timed/scored session. This does absolutely nothing to slow down the run group progression. 1# too light and you are DQ'd from that session.

At the end of a scored heat, in addition to the weight, fuel is checked on the top 5 karts.

At the end of the main: Fuel and weight +

1st place gets motor cc'd, compression ratio checked, port heights and timing checked, no-go gauges in ports, exhaust and carb.

2nd place gets compression ratio, no go gauges in carb and exhaust.

3rd-5th gets compression ratio checked.

6th is in impound in case any others get DQ'd.

if someone gets DQ'd everyone moves up in the finishing order and is subjected to the more thorough inspection.

For the most part, the DQ's were mainly in the junior classes where a kid's parents would try to give the kid an advantage. A real pisser to see little Johnny's or Jane's heart break after their first win gets taken away because Daddy cheated. Must make Dad feel like a real ass.

It wouldn't work in IT racing because the variety of cars/specs to deal with. The lack of known legal parts being available for comparison is also a major problem.

So, I don't know how you 'fix' it.

I think the last thing we need is a competitor deciding what the teardown bond is going to be. Perhaps teardown bonds should be $50/hr for whatever time is specified in those 'books' the shops use.

It is easier to police in classes where everyone has very similar equipment.

------------------
Daryl DeArman



[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited September 19, 2004).]
 
Originally posted by Geo:
If I were building race cars and/or race engines, I wouldn't want to knowingly build something illegal. I think it's bad form. But I may be rare in thinking that.

I agree it is bad form, and unfortunately you probably are rare in your thinking.

Here is how I see it:

Big shop/teams are going to make very certain that their team/house cars are developed to the full extent of the rules. They may choose to explore and get creative in their interpretation of rules but they won't blatantly cheat.

Now, you get a shop that deals in BMW's, they need to sell to more than just the IT world to prosper. The fact that they carry parts that aren't legal in certain classes is no problem in my book. The fact that they sell them to people who race BMW's isn't a problem either. Maybe they really do have a street car that it is for.

Where I feel they cross the morality line is when they install that part, or sell to someone who has every intention of installing that part. Even if that racer isn't a contender, he is still racing/beating someone. That someone is getting cheated...even if it is for 21st place.

------------------
Daryl DeArman

[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited September 19, 2004).]
 
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
...Where I feel they cross the morality line is when they install that part, or sell to someone who has every intention of installing that part. Even if that racer isn't a contender, he is still racing/beating someone. That someone is getting cheated...even if it is for 21st place.
Well said.

------------------
Marty Doane
ITS RX-7 #13
CenDiv WMR
 
Originally posted by Geo:
If the engine is only "poked and prodded" when someone files papers, I don't see what is gained. Not trying to be difficult. Perhaps I've missed something.

Poor wording on my part, George. Sorry.

I meant that, in addition to the current method of competitors filing protests, the sanctioning body also has the authority to inspect anyone's car for anything at any time.

With the present protest-only system, a cheater figures he can influence the bond value to a level so high no one would risk the $ to protest. With the sanctioning body performing inspections, all the risk is on the cheater.

Gregg
 
Originally posted by gsbaker:
Poor wording on my part, George. Sorry.

I meant that, in addition to the current method of competitors filing protests, the sanctioning body also has the authority to inspect anyone's car for anything at any time.

Bear with me Gregg. But doesn't the sanctioning body already have the authority to inspect anyone's car for anything at any time now? Just because it tends not to doesn't mean it can't.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
Originally posted by grega:
Nope, I'm with Andy on this.

Business is business, ...... The onus is most decisively on the entrant and competitor to verify the legality of their vehicle (and I believe this is also codified in the regulations.)


Fair enough....But in my book there are situations where morality outweighs a little profit. I have zero respect for a firm that sells or installs a product or creates situation that is known to be illegal.


What about the above example? Where a firm has designed and tooled and advertises ways to screw the sanctioning body, and every other competitor?

Thes crimes DO have victims...it's not as harmless as so may things that hurt nobody....unless the guy comes in last...or better yet, blows his motor because the ramp speed threw his valves into his pistons...but rarely does such justice come full circle.....

I am sure I am alone here, and I know that this is the naive high ground, but no firm that participates in such a manner gets anything but disgust from me.

(Look, I know that a firm can strive to build a killer engine on the edge of the rules...the legal edge, and screw up. Or can read a rule differently...and wind up on the wrong side....but firms that are installing cams into cars that are known to be illegal for the class the car will run, or illegal pistons and so on..well, that's just way over the line.)

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
Originally posted by lateapex911:
I am sure I am alone here, and I know that this is the naive high ground, but no firm that participates in such a manner gets anything but disgust from me.

Nah. I'm with you.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
While I'm with you guys in principal, I don't hold any contempt for Turner. The idea that having a part like that 'spun' in a certain way from a marketing perspective actually pushes somebody to the 'dark side' is ludicrous to me.

Cheaters are cheaters. It doesn't take a half-joking ad on a non-IT builders website to turn them into one.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited September 23, 2004).]
 
Originally posted by Geo:
Bear with me Gregg. But doesn't the sanctioning body already have the authority to inspect anyone's car for anything at any time now? Just because it tends not to doesn't mean it can't.

I have no idea if that is the case. If so, then we have a solution to the problem.

We have a continuum. On one extreme is "We can but we don't." On the other is, "Here is your sealed motor. Don't screw with it." The question is, at what point is the cheater deterred? I don't propose to have the flawless answer, but it seems that an annual check by an inspector having significant latitude would put a stop to most cheating.

Gregg
 
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
While I'm with you guys in principal, I don't hold any contempt for Turner. The idea that having a part like that 'spun' in a certain way from a marketing perspective actually pushes somebody to the 'dark side' is ludicrous to me.

Cheaters are cheaters. It doesn't take a half-joking ad on a non-IT builders website to turn them into one.

AB



Perhaps I should clarify Andy...My comment about the "above example" wasn't aimed at Will Turner....it was aimed at the guy selling "ITB Stealth cheater cams". That kind of crap just isn't helping anyone. It implies that "it's OK, ALL the kids are doing it!" and while yes, cheaters are cheaters, a newbie can be convinced that if everybody is, then they are schmucks for not...

My impression of Will Turner is that he is a very sharp guy, who was either born with a silver spoon, or has crafted a very enviable situation for himself. I supect the latter, and his "cam ad" is to me an "inside joke", that I don't entirely understand because I am not "inside"...

Now if Will is knowingly building cars for ITS customers that are running illegal cams or displacement or other blatant cheats, my respect goes out the window, but I have NO reason to think that he, or our friend Mr. Clay are doing any such thing.


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