Rules Creep..

[Knestis]

I'm sorry if I'm taking a bigger view and not having much success explaining it but I'll be just as clear as possible here:

The simple fact that you want to remove your washer bottles or whatever - that you think it is a "good thing" - is PROOF that you believe that it will indeed give you SOME kind of advantage. If you thought it would make you slower, you wouldn't do it - ergo, you think it makes you faster.

If I told any given IT entrant, "You need to do (whatever) to your car for the 2007 season," he or she would absolutely, positively assess whether or not it provided a relative advantage. If it did not, they would oppose it. If it did - cool! "Heck, yeah - I'll do that."

I removed my passenger outside rear view mirror. It took about 15 minutes (remote cables, you know), and cost four pieces of black tape to cover up the hole. I KNOW that it did not result in a measurable, repeatable increase in performance but equally, I did it knowing that less mass is good, that it was a couple of pounds mounted above the CG, and it was poking out in the wind. I took it off because I thought it would, however infinitesimally, make ... the ... car ... faster.

K

 

[Knestis]

...and while I'm at it, PLEASE - let's not use GTI Cup as any kind of example in conversations about rules creep.

I don't remember if Tom A. was involved in the conversation I was in (I think it was on the Vortex? NASA Forums?), but the changes instituted for the NorCal rules are a primo example of the worst kind of creep.

"Hey - let's have different local rules, and add some real zoomy parts to make the cars faster and more fun to drive!" If everyone adds a G cam and header, what do they get? A few hundred bucks poorer and everyone goes 10hp faster. Everyone is still in the same relative position on the grid (except for those who didn't spend the money who are further behind) and what was now a not-so-well-subscribed national class becomes a splinter class with rules that don't align.

For how many cars? How much faster are they? Is it a heck of a lot more fun to drive one? What's on the wish list for next year?

Bull. Someone decided that "it would be cool" to have "free will" to buy a cam, header, and whatever else. It was not a strategic move for the good of the class in the long run and there WILL be more changes, when someone else decides something else would be cool...

K

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 15 2005, 06:03 PM
...and while I'm at it, PLEASE - let's not use GTI Cup as any kind of example in conversations about rules creep.

I don't remember if Tom A. was involved in the conversation I was in (I think it was on the Vortex? NASA Forums?), but the changes instituted for the NorCal rules are a primo example of the worst kind of creep.

"Hey - let's have different local rules, and add some real zoomy parts to make the cars faster and more fun to drive!" If everyone adds a G cam and header, what do they get? A few hundred bucks poorer and everyone goes 10hp faster. Everyone is still in the same relative position on the grid (except for those who didn't spend the money who are further behind) and what was now a not-so-well-subscribed national class becomes a splinter class with rules that don't align.

For how many cars? How much faster are they? Is it a heck of a lot more fun to drive one? What's on the wish list for next year?

Bull. Someone decided that "it would be cool" to have "free will" to buy a cam, header, and whatever else. It was not a strategic move for the good of the class in the long run and there WILL be more changes, when someone else decides something else would be cool...

K

[snapback]68409[/snapback]​

Ah you mean like the ICSCC club rabbit model.....35 to 40 cars every race. Now 2 cars and you couldn't give on away after the rules made it cost money to compete.

 

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 16 2005, 01:03 AM

Bull. Someone decided that "it would be cool" to have "free will" to buy a cam, header, and whatever else. It was not a strategic move for the good of the class in the long run and there WILL be more changes, when someone else decides something else would be cool...

K

[snapback]68409[/snapback]​

WOW,
Kirk you are a real purist!! And I do respect that!
But, I do think that you can clearly identify the difference between cam and header and a washer bottle in terms of performance potential. If eleminating the washer bottle is not a strategic move for the good of the class then what does the motec mumbo-jumbo do for the class?
If I wrinkle up my car then I have to add washer bottle to the parts list.....? Come on, how many guys are doing this? A purist would say this is creep, anyone else would say elimnating a rule designed to "haze" is class preservation. Eleminating the washerbottle or TS stalk does not make us production.....nor does it weigh 30lbs to now "strap to the floor thus giving me a performance advantage". Let's call a spade a spade. Were all smart and gentlemen...but let's be realistic.

Again, what you see as an advantage I may see as a disadvantage- see my heatercore reference.

Now I'll play Devils advocate..... I'll go to the dealer and put a bottle in my car. Then at the start of the season I'll spend the money and protest for lack of bottle in my competitors cars. I'll clearly win. Does this make me a rules purist, a competitor striving for equality? Or does it make me an a$$h*le?

OK, gotta go, my commodore 64 is too close to my Kerosene heater, which is in front of my rotary dial phone which is ringing......

Evolution is not always bad!!!!!

Rob

 

[Joe Harlan]

You know it is simple, If you want to take stuff of yer car go do it in a class where they allow it. There is a rule follow it. If you don't like it find a class where you fit. I think the Z3 1.9 is classed in prod and I know the rabbit is several times. It is just stupid to beat this to death and act like it's a bunch of old fogey's keeping you from the brass ring. I am not old I do believe in the concept of this class and I think it is being wrecked everytime we take one more little no harm step toward purpose built race cars.

 

[Tom A]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 15 2005, 05:03 PM
...and while I'm at it, PLEASE - let's not use GTI Cup as any kind of example in conversations about rules creep.

I don't remember if Tom A. was involved in the conversation I was in (I think it was on the Vortex? NASA Forums?), but the changes instituted for the NorCal rules are a primo example of the worst kind of creep.

[snapback]68409[/snapback]​

I wasn't involved in that discussion, and I only mentioned GTI Cup in reference to how my car is prepped. The decision to use suplimental rules in Norcal happened before I bought my car, but it seems to have worked really well. From a class that was dead, we had 6 regular competitors (7 in one race) this season, up from 5 regulars last year, and 2 in 2003. There are 2 more cars being built for the class for next season. For comparison, There were 3 regular ITB competitors last season.

As far as I can tell, we are the only guys running GTI cup in the country, so I don't see how us having our own rules makes any difference, as long as all of us agree to any proposed changes, which we have, including the changes for next year.

That being said, GTI Cup has nothing to do with this discussion, if you would like to go into things further, feel free to contact me offline.

Tom

 

[tom_sprecher]

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the SCCA Welterweight Tintop Rules Bout. In one corner we have the defending champ, who wants the rules to remain the same in order to avoid having to deal with them. Having fought the argument that removing turn signal stalks, washer bottles, heater cores and wiring harnesses can and will result in adding modified cams, programmable ECU’s and probably high compression pistons with fully ported heads, he tends to be a hot headed and a heavy hitter grasping at wild conclusions to make a point. Watch out, as he has had his way for a while and does not want to see that change.

Across the ring in the far corner is the challenger eager to fight for a change. His one mission is to allow the option to remove a number of non essential stock items which can be counted on the fingers in one of those gloves. This street brawler wants the chance to make a mark for himself and make it easier and cheaper for everyone who follows in his footsteps. He has a slight advantage over the champ tonight since he is not fighting with his head up his ass.

Christ, has this turned into a good fight, or what? I have to side with the “allow the option to get rid of the street legal remnants” contender. This is due to the fact that I have a hard time understanding some of the logic from the other corner used in this argument. For instance, take the following statement in particular.

“The simple fact that you want to remove your washer bottles or whatever - that you think it is a "good thing" - is PROOF that you believe that it will indeed give you SOME kind of advantage. If you thought it would make you slower, you wouldn't do it - ergo, you think it makes you faster.”

Wow! That’s a freaking stretch that maybe my children could make, but not me. Try ideas like it’s in the way, or it’s not used, or needed, or I don’t have one now and don’t want to spend a small fortune in time and money to find a 25 year old (insert either washer bottle, wiring harness, turn signal stalk, side markers, wipers, head liner, carpet, radio, etc.) That is logic I can follow, but I want to remove it so it makes me faster? Dude, give me a hit of what you’re smoking.

Does anybody besides me think there can be some kind of SIMPLE, LOGICAL compromise can be had that somehow will prevent the sky from falling or, God forbid, the leap from allowing the removal of items like turn signal stalks to the addition of things like hot cams. Who thinks like that anyway?

I will even volunteer to take on the task of submitting the request to change the rules. Please be warned that I don’t know squat about it, but unlike some folks on this forum, fear of the unknown was never one of my traits. Actually, quite the opposite is the case. Post suggestions of items that we should be permitted to remove and I’ll put something together.

I wonder if when the powers that be were contemplating the removal of the passenger seat if any of the claims of impending doom and destruction made here where made back then.

 

[Marcus Miller]

I can see the dangers of changing rulesets that Kirk alluded to from my first series, Pro7. AZ is different from TX, is different from Socal, is different form Norcal, all of which don't match the only national ruleset published.
That sucks.

That being said, with a ntional IT rule set, I see removing some of the BS items a good idea. I laugh looking at my ITA car and my Pro7.
ITA car has full harness, dash pieces, etc. The Pro7 is stripped., It nearly fits in as an EP car...

When it happens, the Pro7 will be cheaper to repair, was cheaper to build, easier to work on,etc. All pluses.


Marcus

edit: wow my tpying sucks.

 

[Knestis]

Originally posted by tom_sprecher@Dec 15 2005, 10:35 PM
... Wow!  That’s a freaking stretch that maybe my children could make, but not me.  Try ideas like it’s in the way, or it’s not used, or needed, or I don’t have one now and don’t want to spend a small fortune in time and money to find a 25 year old (insert either washer bottle, wiring harness, turn signal stalk, side markers, wipers, head liner, carpet, radio, etc.)  That is logic I can follow, but I want to remove it so it makes me faster?  Dude, give me a hit of what you’re smoking. ...

Ah - excellent. There's a glimmer here. You're getting closer.

Anything that makes working on the car easier frees up time to do other things that make it go faster. Right or wrong?

Money you don't have to spend replacing OE wiring harnesses can get spent making it go faster. Right or wrong?

Time = money and money = speed. Time = speed. A stretch?

You are a racer. Your goal is to go faster. You choose to do things that you think will further that goal. Heck - racers do things that at some level they rationally KNOW won't make them faster, but they HOPE will. Why is that such a stretch?

Would you elect to do something if you thought it made you less competitive? Think about how you think.

K

 

[tom_sprecher]

I'm not getting closer, you're getting farther away. You're missing the point of allowing the removal of previously mentioned items. Let me try to explain my situation and maybe you’ll understand the point. But before that, I’ll answer your questions.

Anything that makes working on the car easier frees up time to do other things that make it go faster. Right or wrong?

Wrong. Working on the car currently takes way too much time as it is. I need to spend freed up time with my wife and kids, friends, work, other interests, etc. I want to race, but I want a life too.

Money you don't have to spend replacing OE wiring harnesses can get spent making it go faster. Right or wrong?

Wrong. Money I don't have to spend replacing OE wiring harnesses can be spend on my wife and kids, friends, work, other interests, etc. I want to race, but I want a life too.

If you notice there is a pattern here. I happen to have a life outside of racing that is very demanding when it comes to time and money. Any savings of either time or money from one interest is almost immediately applied to the others.

Time = money and money = speed. Time = speed. A stretch?

Wrong again, except for the stretch part. Its time = money and time + money = speed. I know a lot of racers with a $hitload of time on their hands, but it ain't making them any faster. I've also know racers with a lot of money and speed was not in the equation.

My goal is to go through life and enjoy all the interests I can while using the least amount of any my resources. It is a blessing and a curse being multi-dimensional that way, but I try to make the best of it and so far it’s been a hell of a ride. With regard to resources the most precious commodity I have is time. Money I have, but it won't buy me any more time than what's left.

And no, I would not elect to do something if I thought it made me less competitive. How you derived that out of any of my statements is some more of that logic I find difficult to follow. If you take the time to explain it, I'll try to find the time to understand.

 

[Tom A]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 15 2005, 08:32 PM
Anything that makes working on the car easier frees up time to do other things that make it go faster. Right or wrong?

Wrong. Anything that makes working on the car easier, allows me to do other things, like spending time with my family.

Money you don't have to spend replacing OE wiring harnesses can get spent making it go faster. Right or wrong?

Wrong. Money not spent on replacing an OE harness (that is much more complex than necessary for my needs, and powers things I don't need or care about) is money that stays in the bank, or is spent on other things, which may or may not have anything to do with the race car.

Time = money and money = speed. Time = speed. A stretch?

A stretch. Money=speed I tend to agree with, but not the others. My time is free.

You are a racer. Your goal is to go faster. You choose to do things that you think will further that goal. Heck - racers do things that at some level they rationally KNOW won't make them faster, but they HOPE will. Why is that such a stretch?

Racers also do things that have nothing to do with how fast they are, but may make the car more reliable, or look better, or safer, or easier to work on.

Would you elect to do something if you thought it made you less competitive? Think about how you think.

Yes. I run on Toyo tires, rather than Hoosiers when I race with SCCA.

Tom

 

[tom_sprecher]

Daaaamn! Two responses within two minites of each other from opposie sides of the country both saying the same thing. It makes sense as every Tom I've every know was cool.

K, now do you get the point?

 

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by tom_sprecher@Dec 15 2005, 10:44 PM
Daaaamn! Two responses within two minites of each other from opposie sides of the country both saying the same thing.  It makes sense as every Tom I've every know was cool.

K, now do you get the point?

[snapback]68430[/snapback]​

The ultimate irony is that Kirk is the person who proposed the elimination of remote/auto door locks. Just because someone damages something stock, like a washer bottle now obligates them to find a replacement, priceless. I'm thinking back to another So-Cal newbie who can't find a fuel filler door for his Toyo, should he be banned because he can't find one?? I know of someone who's JUNKing their Z3 because of a burned wire harness, nothing else is wrong with it and it's a road car. Imagine trying to find one to replace for a race car, maybe it'd cost more than buying some other race car What's wrong with some aftermarket replacement, but then does it match the stock one, and is there a published standard for the stock one ala the piston debate? Just some food for thought

James

 

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by tom_sprecher@Dec 15 2005, 11:44 PM
K, now do you get the point?

[snapback]68430[/snapback]​

I don't think it's Kirk that's got a problem getting the point...

Wow! Two guys on this board agree on something! And within two minutes of each other! You two oughtta get together and pat each other on the back, drink beer, or something...we're so proud of you!!

Yeah, I pretty much think you're being an ass to Kirk.

Hey, guess what: there's two other guys all the way across the country that agree on something else: Joe Harlan, Kirk Knestis, and me. Oh, wait, that's three! Do we out vote you? I sincerely hope that doesn't make you feel irrelevant...

If you want to race a class where you can make any changes you want, go do it (Production comes to mind), but don't expect support for your illogical arguments to make IT a run-what-you-brung catch-all (see ITE rules thread for that). In fact, if you want the rules changed, I encourage you to submit your request, and I'll watch Fastrack expectantly for the "not within the philosophy of the class" bitch-slap from the CRB.

See "rules creep" thread if you want to argue incessantly about it. Oh, wait: this is the rules creep thread. Hah! - GA

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Tom A@Dec 15 2005, 06:18 PM
It is different in that nothing I am talking about would improve the performance of the car.   You start monkeying with camshafts, you need to rebalance all the cars, in every class, and that is not what anyone is talking about.  I am talking about (and Rob and David) are making it optional to remove things that have nothing to do with performance, but are artifacts of the old "dual use" intent of IT, and serve no purpose in a car that isn't street driven..   

Nobody here is suggesting making the removal of this stuff mandatory, and without changing the minimum weights, this will have zero effect on performance of any given car.

Andy says to avoid mayhem, "you then have to define what you can or can't do."   Ok, then make a list of parts that can be removed, without penalty.  Here is a start:

G:  OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT
      Reflecting the change in the Statement Of Intent of the Improved
      Touring Category away from "Dual Purpose" cars, the following
      equipment may be removed, at the competitors discresion: 
      Turn Signal/wiper stalks, Windshiled/headlight washer bottles
      Rear wipersand mechanism, parking brake lever, horns, the nifty
      little light that comes on when you open the trunk......

  Etc.

Tom

[snapback]68404[/snapback]​

I hear you. The issue I have is the "etc." part. You must list everything that is ok to remove or else someone will trample all over the rule taking everything out.

BTW: parking brakes levers and trunk dome lights are already legal to be removed, and specifically say so in the GCR.

AB

 

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 16 2005, 03:03 AM
You know it is simple, If you want to take stuff of yer car go do it in a class where they allow it.  There is a rule follow it. If you don't like it find a class where you fit. I think the Z3 1.9 is classed in prod and I know the rabbit is several times.  It is just stupid to beat this to death and act like it's a bunch of old fogey's keeping you from the brass ring. I am not old I do believe in the concept of this class and I think it is being wrecked everytime we take one more little no harm step toward purpose built race cars.

[snapback]68417[/snapback]​

Joe I agree with you totally (and Kirk and my friend Greg).....with one caveat......no motec.

If Motec doesn't head this class toward production then what does? A washerbottle?

Removing useless parts--okay I'll play into it.......but MOTEC ---give me a break.

Fact of the matter is MOTEC, based on your arguements is not within the "original intent" of the (20 yr old) rulebook.

If you think I can gain 30lbs of floorboard ballast by removing a washerbottle and turn signal stalk I will mail you mine so you can weigh them .

See my post above about heater cores....what you see as an advantage I may see as a disadvantage.

What is the HUGE beef with putting ".....may be removed...." in the rules?

And by the way.....

Telling us "new guys" to live within your rules or go somewhere else is exactly the problem with IT. Have you read the posts about other regions #'s?

This reminds me of when I was in Dental schhol...Some instructors only wanted you to place amalgam (silver) fillings in patients.....others said resin based composite (white) is better. Both had VERY valid points, and would passsionately argue their point. If I went with the tried and true, blue-blooded, resist change approach and placed only amalgam in my practice I'd be in trouble.....CT has a bill in front of the House to ban the use of amalgam in Dentistry in CT- setting a National precedent for this type of legislation......

Progress and evolution is unstoppable....it may not be what you want to hear, but it's true.

If we as a group cannot agree to evolve we will face extinction (like dinosaurs!). We must pick where and how we evolve......it is my contention that MOTEC is more of a step in the wrong direction according to the "original intent" of the rulebook then washerbottle elimination.

Rob

ps....should we eliminate open exhaust for fear of our cars sounding too racy?

 

[RacerBill]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 16 2005, 12:32 AM
Ah - excellent. There's a glimmer here. You're getting closer.

Anything that makes working on the car easier frees up time to do other things that make it go faster. Right or wrong?

Money you don't have to spend replacing OE wiring harnesses can get spent making it go faster. Right or wrong?

Time = money and money = speed. Time = speed. A stretch?

You are a racer. Your goal is to go faster. You choose to do things that you think will further that goal. Heck - racers do things that at some level they rationally KNOW won't make them faster, but they HOPE will. Why is that such a stretch?

Would you elect to do something if you thought it made you less competitive? Think about how you think.

K

[snapback]68425[/snapback]​

K - I think you are generalizing here. Just like 'spending money on the car will make it go faster' Only if you spend it on the right stuff!

Saved time could also be spent with the other part of the race team. Keeping the family happy rates just above racing in our house.

Not having to pay for that OEM wiring harness might also be the difference between a 'No Tell Motel' and a clean, comfortable place where the team can relax.

In either case, it gives us more choices.

I agreee that a lot of us would make the cars faster, more reliable, etc. but not all.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Doc Bro@Dec 16 2005, 08:13 AM

What is the HUGE beef with putting  ".....may be removed...." in the rules?

Nothing - but you have to list the allowable items...and I will say it again, turn stalks and washer bottles may seem simple to you, but there are hundreds of un-race-related items that other people think mean nothing.

I understand the issue with some of the anti-change mentality, but you have to look at the big picture first. Why is it so hard to have a washer bottle in your car? It's easier to not have it, I understand - but where does it end.

If you want to put some specifics together for review, so be it - but it CAN'T be open-ended...you need to define what is allowable. See my earlier post...we can bitch about what we want removed but some of us don't even know you already can.

AB

 

[Greg Amy]

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

 

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 16 2005, 02:52 PM
.  Why is it so hard to have a washer bottle in your car?  It's easier to not have it, I understand - but where does it end.

AB

[snapback]68452[/snapback]​

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.

Besides if I whoop someone on the track I can guarantee I'd do the same with OR without my washerbottle or TS stalk!!!

I'll start the list:

washerbotttle
turn signal stalk
cruise control stalk

Rob