PDA

View Full Version : Trial Balloon - Retaining ABS?



Knestis
07-10-2004, 04:56 PM
I'm planning on writing to request a rule change allowing IT cars to keep ABS sytems intact.

Having used it all year on the SSC Golf, I've only had reinforced my belief that it is indeed true that anti-lock systems do not shorten braking distances, compared to a skilled foot.

Call this an inherent disadvantage of ABS over a correctly - if manually - balanced system. In addition VW's programming goes into what is called "ice mode" if it senses a prolonged lock-up, at which point the scale shifts down to something like 20% of the nominal brakin force. THAT'S fun, I can tell you...

ABS brakes DO however, (a) make it possible to put your right side tires in the wet grass under braking when a Spec Miata moves over on you without looking, (B) keep you from flatspotting expensive tires due to driver error, and © modulate heel-toe downshifts with crappy pedal placement. Call these advantages in the real world.

Given the option, I'd prefer a correct non-ABS system with proper proportioning valves but that is a real engineering job. Simply disconnecting the sensors to meet the rule is rumored to leave the Golf with a really awful balance, although I won't know until August what really happens and I don't have any information on which to base statements about IT cars in general.

At the end of the day, the most valuable aspect of a rule allowing drivers to keep ABS might be a practical one: One less thing to have to screw up during a beginner's IT build.

I'm tempted to write my proposed rule change such that it deletes the rule requiring ABS to be removed; and amends the existing language about proportioning valves to (a) allow ABS removal/disabling, and (B) allow prop valves ONLY if on cars without functional ABS - whether it has been removed or was never there in the first place.

This is an example of the kind of challenge that we are going to be facing as more cars come with what used to be considered exotic and forbidden technology. ABS has found its way onto the cheapest of hatchcraps so maybe it's time for a rethink.

Opinions?

K

Geo
07-10-2004, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Opinions?

I think everyone who has pulled out their ABS is going to think it's rules creep and unfair to them because they already had to pull out their ABS. But I could be wrong.


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

lateapex911
07-11-2004, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
......, keep you from flatspotting expensive tires due to driver error, and ........Opinions?

K

Or another different, but equal statement could be, "...let you maximize traction without consideration of driver error"....

Interesting points, but anything that takes a skill set away is, IMHO, to a degree "dumbing down" the sport to the lowest common denominator.

Geo makes a good point, as well.

And lastly, unplanned consequences could include changes in a cars behavior that would affect the final performance potential, post classification, which is always a bad thing....

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited July 11, 2004).]

Banzai240
07-11-2004, 01:24 AM
One thing to consider is that, as long as the ABS is connected, and with open ECUs, it is possible to use the ABS as a form of Traction Control... As a matter of fact, I believe that there are several newer models out there that work exactly this way...

I DO think that ABS adds some advantage to the car, especially in the rain... I've totally removed mine, including the wheel-speed sensors, mostly because it adds over 20lbs to the car...

Not sure how I feel about allowing it to remain in IT, because I haven't given it much thought... It's not legal now, and I don't really see any need to change that...

Sounds like something that could be made to work well, however, in the new class that our club is thinking of implementing... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

dickita15
07-11-2004, 06:06 AM
darin has a good idea about trying it out in the new faster high tech IT class. we need to be very carefull about unintended consequences.
dick patullo

Knestis
07-11-2004, 12:36 PM
Okay - valid points all. But speaking theoretically for a moment, what happens down the road a few years when every newly classified car in IT comes only with ABS?

It's also interesting how many of the arguments against ABS are predicated on the first principle that it is going to be faster. I've learned that it's a relatively common SS cheat to disable ABS systems - the belief being the opposite.

Thanks for the input.

K

ITSRX7
07-11-2004, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Okay - valid points all. But speaking theoretically for a moment, what happens down the road a few years when every newly classified car in IT comes only with ABS?

It's also interesting how many of the arguments against ABS are predicated on the first principle that it is going to be faster. I've learned that it's a relatively common SS cheat to disable ABS systems - the belief being the opposite.

Thanks for the input.

K

Then they can remove the systems too! IMHO, ABS is only an advantage in the wet. They last thing I want to do as an ITAC member is have to deal with a weather-specific factor when classing a car. This is why AWD is such a red-hearing - ABS is much more so.

Currently, like on the Neon, the systems are a performance disadvantage in certain situations. If the system doesn't have enough 'channels', the car can sense lock-up on a lifted wheel and engage the ABS when it isn't needed, adding a TON of feet to stopping distance.

AB

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

Banzai240
07-12-2004, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Okay - valid points all. But speaking theoretically for a moment, what happens down the road a few years when every newly classified car in IT comes only with ABS?


That's simple... they can remove the fuse and learn to threshold brake like the rest of us have had to do! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

As for the comment on ABS making you "faster"... What I believe is that it makes an average "braker" better... allowing them to be "better" with less actual skill involved...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Greg Amy
07-12-2004, 09:48 AM
There is one serious safety factor that the ITAC and the Comp Board will have to consider in regards to disabling ABS, especially as we move into classifying later model cars.

This is that today's cars are not designed to run *without* ABS. Prior to the widespread use of ABS engineers would design the braking system with brake system components sized appropriate to the vehicle. Then, to make sure that the bias was maintained, a mechanical bias system was added to keep the cars from swapping ends under varying loads and braking conditions (remember the Chevy Citation rear wheel lockup fiasco?)

Today, however, there is not *near* as much engineering going into making sure the systems are tuned as well. Manufacturers are tossing in larger components that are somewhat matched but then rely on the electronics of ABS to accomodate for any major issues. Now, don't take that to mean that there's no design going on, but they are doing away with things such as mechanical brake bias adjustments, especially in cars where ABS is not an optional component.

The ramifications of that to Improved Touring is that by disabling ABS (e.g., pulling the fuse) you are adding a significant unknown to the equation. In some cases an ABS fault will result in a significant reduction in rear braking pressures, and thus in braking performance (tilting the tables on a performance value that was considered when classifying the car); or it could result in a significant imbalance of the braking system resulting in an ill-handling car.

Granted, the IT regs allow you to add manual brake bias adjusters, but I'd hate to get into a situation where we are *requiring* drivers to install a modification in order to be safe and/or match the original performance, especially when such a modification can be a engineering nightmare for the uninitiated. Modern ABS uses separate lines to all four corners, with only two outputs from the master cylinder. Do you tee one line out one side of the MC and put in a single line to both rear wheels? If you do that, which port of the master cylinder do you come out of? Are the two ports of the MC the same size? What do you do about the front; tee that too? Again, which side? We're talking about completing re-lining a modern vehicle's hydraulic brake system.

As you can see, it's a potential hornet's nest. I don't necessarily condone the idea of allowing ABS, but nor do I reject it. However, I strongly urge the club to consider the effects of disabling ABS in modern vehicles, and consider alternatives to requiring disabling modern electronic ABS systems in Improved Touring cars.

GregA

Banzai240
07-12-2004, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by grega:
This is that today's cars are not designed to run *without* ABS.

I can appreciate what you are saying, having dealt with this myself, but these same cars aren't designed to run with Hawk Blues either... We all understand that we will be throwing off the balance of our brake systems in preparing them for racing... Finding that balance again is one of those performance parameters that separates the winner from the rest of the pack...

Basically what I am saying is that what you descibe is no different than if someone put Hawk Blues on the rear and stock organics on the front (or something to that effect)... I don't see either as inherrently "dangerous", and when you swap ends or experience premature brake fade, you know you got it wrong... Either system, however, WILL stop the car just fine... just not as efficiently as it could have...

In my opinion, at this moment, I think we have a lot of changes happening in the SCCA in regards to Safety requirements. I'd hate to see us start manufacturing reasons to create more... I'll keep an eye out for more information concerning this to see if it truely needs attentions, but right now, I just don't see it...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Greg Gauper
07-12-2004, 10:53 AM
Any thoughts on this idea.....

Since 'racing' master cylinders i.e. Tilton, AP, Wilwood, etc. are relatively inexpensive, maybe we could allow these to be fitted in place of the OEM ABS master cylinder. The racing units are about 1/3 to 1/5 the price of the OEM units in some cases, and are a lot cheaper to rebuild.

Allow the pedal assembly to be modified to allow racing M/C's to be fitted with balance bars. To be fair, the mod should be allowed for all cars, not just those with ABS.

Banzai240
07-12-2004, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by Greg Gauper:
...maybe we could allow these to be fitted in place of the OEM ABS master cylinder... Allow the pedal assembly to be modified to allow racing M/C's to be fitted with balance bars. To be fair, the mod should be allowed for all cars, not just those with ABS.

Let's seeee.... where is that "fingers sticking out in front of me in the sign of a cross" emoticon... ( http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif )

I would really hate to go down this road... Would be a great idea for "Club Challenge Touring/GT"... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Eric Parham
07-12-2004, 02:25 PM
Hey, how about an IT class with *no* computers allowed (either by not including cars that came with any computers, or *requiring* removal of all)... Seriously http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Banzai240
07-12-2004, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Eric Parham:
Hey, how about an IT class with *no* computers allowed (either by not including cars that came with any computers, or *requiring* removal of all)... Seriously http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Already exists... It's called "Vintage"... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Knestis
07-12-2004, 03:09 PM
Greg does a great job elaborating on the concern that got me thinking down this road.

Generally, I am Mr. Anti Rulescreep but allowing technology that comes on cars that can be classified in IT just doesn't seem to fall into that catgory. Club racing finally got past the idea of requiring all Production cars to run carbs, after all.

Other thoughts?

K

handfulz28
07-12-2004, 04:10 PM
Is there a possibility of talking with the ABS system designers and various manufacturers' engineers to see what REALLY happens when you pull the fuse, or otherwise hack a perfectly good brake system?
I don't know what the current state of SCCA's relationship with manufacturers is, especially when we start talking about 5-year old models.
Just a thought.
Michael

dickita15
07-12-2004, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Already exists... It's called "Vintage"... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif
already exists... It's called nascar.

Greg Gauper
07-12-2004, 04:25 PM
A quick glance thru the Pegasus catalog shows the cost of a M/C to be $70-99 each (Tilton vs Girling) and a balance bar can be had for another $60. So you are talking roughly $200 for race hardware. Heck, I just spent $150 on a new set of brake pads for my Civic because 'good' race brake pads are getting harder to find for 20 year old cars, despite their popularity.....

Rebuild kits are about $20.

Originally posted by Knestis:
Greg does a great job elaborating on the concern that got me thinking down this road.

Generally, I am Mr. Anti Rulescreep but allowing technology that comes on cars that can be classified in IT just doesn't seem to fall into that catgory. Club racing finally got past the idea of requiring all Production cars to run carbs, after all.

Other thoughts?

K



[This message has been edited by Greg Gauper (edited July 12, 2004).]

GKR_17
07-12-2004, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
One thing to consider is that, as long as the ABS is connected, and with open ECUs, it is possible to use the ABS as a form of Traction Control... As a matter of fact, I believe that there are several newer models out there that work exactly this way...


If that is true, then they can argue that they should be able to leave it on, since traction control is allowed.

Grafton

gsbaker
07-12-2004, 05:44 PM
Where's Vaughan? He works with ABS and should be all over this.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

Banzai240
07-12-2004, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by GKR_17:
If that is true, then they can argue that they should be able to leave it on, since traction control is allowed.

Grafton



2003 GCR, Page 85, section 11.2.1.DD:
Traction control systems, as installed by the automobile manufacturer and unmodified, are allowed only in Touring, Showroom Stock and Improved Touring.

It says nothing there about allowing you to modify your system to obtain traction control... It's only allowed if it is factory stock...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited July 12, 2004).]

GKR_17
07-12-2004, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:

It says nothing there about allowing you to modify your system to obtain traction control... It's only allowed if it is factory stock...


The "they" I was referring to were the cars you said came with TC as stock.

Knestis
07-12-2004, 06:03 PM
There's an interesting question. Is there a rule in the ITCS that requires traction control to be disabled? I honestly have no clue.

K

shwah
07-12-2004, 06:20 PM
All the new cars have airbags too, so somehow the argument that all the new cars will have ABS does not hold water for me. I can understand several of the other points, but IMO no cars come from the factory with a braking system that is properly balance for IT racing.

So what's the difference if I have to replumb the brakes on my 1986 Golf using a design that allows me to use what I think is appropriate brake balance, and someone else doing this on a newer car, and losing 20# of ABS components? Seems to me that the 20# is the biggest difference.

Of course, I do acknowledge that the cost is different. I would expect that someone pulling ABS from a newer car will end up spending more than I did, but the cost for just about everything on an 18 year old car will be lower than that of a 10 or 8 year old car. Not a huge surprise there.

Finally, watching the rate at which changes take place in IT, and how much howling goes on before during and after changes - I just don't realistically expect that this would be a successful endeavor (petitioning for the change).

tderonne
07-12-2004, 09:45 PM
It's called dynamic proportioning, electronic brake force distribution, or a couple other names.

Ford Focus is a perfect example. Pull the ABS fuse, or disable enough stuff (wheel speed sensors, brake pedal switch, couple others) and you get no proportioning. There is some base/default proportioning built in via hydraulic sizing of components, but chances are you ain't gonna like it. I've got the pictures of the rear wheels locked up to prove it.

And it gets worse. Knock out the right stuff in a yet to be released car, and the ABS module thinks you're driving a different car (brakes/powertrain info coming over a data bus).

And that snow/ice mode sounds just plain dangerous on a racetrack, yikes!

Vaughan would definitely have further thoughts, Vaughan?

Banzai240
07-12-2004, 11:04 PM
Kirk,

I'd go ahead and write your letter. I think enough talking has taken place to warrent an investigation into the future of this rule and the ramifications of not addressing it...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

GKR_17
07-13-2004, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
There's an interesting question. Is there a rule in the ITCS that requires traction control to be disabled? I honestly have no clue.
K

Per the GCR, traction control is allowed in IT. Under strict interpretation of the ITCS it must NOT be disabled...

Grafton

edit: Except of course if there was a model on the spec line without it.


[This message has been edited by GKR_17 (edited July 13, 2004).]

Knestis
07-13-2004, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
... I think enough talking has taken place to warrent an investigation into the future of this rule and the ramifications of not addressing it...


That's a little different than "we'll consider the proposed rule change" but I'll get that put together and send it off. Thanks everyone for the input.

K

MMiskoe
07-13-2004, 08:33 PM
Hang guys, one thing that has not been mentioned here is the dangers of running WITH ABS. While doing some instructing with COM (a north east based time trial club) which has a majority of its cars as daily drivers, most have ABS, I have seen some spectacular crashes as a result of the ABS getting involved.

When you spin and stamp the brake to keep the thing from sling-shotting back across the track to collect oncoming traffic, it fights back & allows the wheels to continue rolling. Not good. Also some cars have an "ice mode" which when it senses instant wheel stop, it tries to back off the brake force to get the wheel(s) rolling again, assuming you just hit a patch of ice, or something equally slipery. Again, not good.

I'd rather flat spot tires than body work any day.

Geo
07-13-2004, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
That's a little different than "we'll consider the proposed rule change" but I'll get that put together and send it off. Thanks everyone for the input.

K

I think that is what Darin meant Kirk. We discuss every letter received by the CRB regarding rules affecting IT.


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

Knestis
07-14-2004, 10:23 AM
I believe you Geo but I work in a discipline that understands the importance of the words that people choose when they say things...

K

Banzai240
07-14-2004, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
I believe you Geo but I work in a discipline that understands the importance of the words that people choose when they say things...

K

Exactly what are you implying Kirk? I said exactly what I meant... We've talked about it enough that it warrents further action... I'm convinced that there may be an issue... Enough information has been presented to make me believe that there may truely be an issue that needs to be discussed officially...

Why is it everything has to be assumed to be of an evil nature??? I'm a pretty level headed guy who has proven, or has been trying to prove, that I have the best interests of the IT community at heart, and I've always been open to listening to concerns... Why would you assume that I meant anything other than what I said in this case?

Write you letter, because I think that <we've discussed this enough and brought further information to light> to warrent <an official> investigation to consider the future of this rule and the ramifications of NOT addressing it...

I think there could really be an issue here and it helps when there is an official CRB letter to document the case and get it on the agenda...

There... is that clear enough?? Sheesh... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

The black helicopter has landed...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited July 14, 2004).]

Knestis
07-14-2004, 04:11 PM
I obviously need to use more smilies and winkies. I know that you said exactly what you meant - that was my point. It just struck me that it was just a somewhat sideways way to respond.

Why is it assumed that I am assuming that it is of some evil nature? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

K

Banzai240
07-14-2004, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
It just struck me that it was just a somewhat sideways way to respond.

Why is it assumed that I am assuming that it is of some evil nature? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

K


Because you didn't use enough smilies, and you admit that you thought it was a sideways way to resond...

I don't always have time to sugar-coat my posts, and I simply and very generally encouraged you to send in a letter so we could officially respond to the issue at hand...

That's the best way to assure that it gets on the agenda...

Now... go forth and begin removing that ABS system so you can get your butt into IT trim!

http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

ChrisCamadella
07-19-2004, 02:07 PM
I'd love to weigh in on this one... But I won't.

Go ahead and write your letter - I can certainly see both sides of the coin, especially the points that Greg A pointed out. As Darin already pointed out, if we get a letter, we discuss it, and usually at much greater length than you can imagine.

Just for my edification, however, can anyone cite an IT car that's currently classified of which NO non-ABS examples were produced, i.e., ALL of them came with ABS?

Thanks in advance,

Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944S

JoelG
07-19-2004, 02:36 PM
All BMWs 325's classified in ITS had ABS. This includes both the E30s (87-91) and the E36s (92-95).

Knestis
07-19-2004, 03:43 PM
It's my understanding that all Integra GSRs came only w/ABS. The ITA-eligible Civic (the EX) started coming only with ABS at some point before the current generation which is not available with old-school brakes.

K

Banzai240
07-19-2004, 05:26 PM
I'll again bring up a simple point...

Our ABS brake systems were NOT designed to work with mix-n-match racing brake pads, other-than-stock rotors, or any number of other currently allowed modifications that we are allowed to do to our cars... All of these items can throw off the proportioning of the system, therefore, any argument concerning removing/disabling the ABS causing the system to not proportion correctly really needs to consider that we are, in fact, already having this effect on our brake systems through other allowed modifications.

We ARE currently allowed to add a brake proportioning valve, should we deem it necessary. Many of us have done this in order to maximize our selected brake pads' effectiveness.

It is currently my opinion that if disabling the ABS causes the system to not propotion itself correctly, then we have several means of correcting this problem that are currently quite legal. Prop valves and Pads are the first two things that come to mind...

I'm not saying that I don't think that this rule doesn't need to be evaluated, but I am saying that we should do that without trying to concocked arguements that try to show that the current rule is in some way causing danger or an unsafe condition, when if fact it is not contributing to this any more than we already are by other means...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Knestis
07-19-2004, 06:02 PM
So, the guy with the GSR asking questions about this issue on honda-tech.com wants to know which of the four lines that come off of his master cylinder should have the prop valve - or valves - in them. He can't use any other master cylinder because none of the cars on his spec line came without ABS.

Since Darin gets to restate his point, I'll do the same: The whole purpose of IT was to create a relatively easy route to road racing, with minimal bolt-on modifications to stock vehicles.

Technology of "stock vehicles" has advanced so we are faced with a situation where the current brake requirements demand that the original philosophy gets bent to adhere to the letter of rules that didn't anticipate the future.

It seems like a new IT entrant should have the OPTION of re-engineering things (e.g., diff choice, suspension bushings, roll bars) if he or she wants to, or as funds allow. The current ABS rule REQUIRES the newbie to essentially re-engineer - or at least dick with - a system that the manufacturer has spent millions on.

K

ChrisCamadella
07-19-2004, 06:38 PM
I can certainly see your point on this one - the rule certainly needs to be reevaluated. I, for one, will be bummed if we eventually allow ABS, since I took all of that stuff off my car and threw it away...

I completely understand your point about one having to re-plumb the braking system even if you're a newbie to racing - This seems like a lot of work, not to mention the fact that brake plumbing requires a certain amount of mechanical finesse to get right.

I used to race a '93 Camaro in World Challenge, and we ran the ABS - It was incredibly better in the rain, not to mention the rear wheel hop that it helped to eliminate. But I do recall that the ABS master cylinder was a different part than the non-ABS version - I've got to go back and look at my notes and see if I wrote down what the difference was - but Mr. Chevrolet doesn't make two different parts if he doesn't have to - there must have been a reason that the ABS cars had a different MC than the non-ABS ones. It really could be that the MC piston and port sizes were different in ABS cars because it was not expected that the MC would ever be connected directly to the brake calipers, and the piston and/or port sizes are in some way inappropriate together. But then again, I could be completely wrong about that.

I will certainly at least admit that we are creating a braking system other than the one that the manufacturer had in mind. But, as Darin already pointed out, we are doing that anyway by changing pads, adding ducting, changing the weight distribution, springs, shocks, and a host of other items, so this might be a small difference in the grand scheme of things.

If we were to allow ABS in IT cars, it would completely change the competitiveness of those cars that don't have it, at least in the rain, IMO. So this is sort of a big deal compared to, say, allowing a different pulley size on the crankshaft.

All I can say is, write your letter....

Cheers,

Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944S

Banzai240
07-19-2004, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Since Darin gets to restate his point, I'll do the same: The whole purpose of IT was to create a relatively easy route to road racing, with minimal bolt-on modifications to stock vehicles.

Kirk, Like I stated, I'm NOT saying that the rule doesn't need to be reconsidered. But let's be realistic about WHY we are looking at it...

What you just described above is actually Showroom Stock. The purpose of IT is to:

"...provide the membership with the opportunity to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition".

As some have stated, stock ABS may NOT be suitable for racing... I believe it's allowed in Touring and SS, so this probably isn't really the case.

I can promise you that, if ABS were allowed to be installed, it wouldn't be the newby that you guys would be worried about... It would be guys like me, who have the means and know how to take advantage of:

"Brake system circuitry may be revised..."

...to make the system work MUCH better, creating a serious competitive advantage in the process...

When people enter these classes, the do so with the knowledge that a certain level of modifications are going to be required to meet the rules. If they want no-mods, the SS is the place to start. After all, we ARE talking primarily about cars that are still SS legal, and will be for quite some time. As they decide to further develop the car, then at that time they would have the option of deciding as to whether or not they want to do the required modifications to be legal for the class...

I assure you that this isn't the only way that I'm looking at this, and I'm still VERY interested in considering other arguments, so please don't take this conversation as a personal attack, but rather a good hearted discussion exploring all angles of the issue at hand.

If we don't keep pushing each other this way, we might not get all angles of the discussion out there for consideration...

Tag... You're it!! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited July 19, 2004).]

lateapex911
07-19-2004, 07:12 PM
When you make the decision to build a racecar, you need to educate yourself as to what will be needed skillwise.....indeed, you may or may not have the capability to do some or all of the required modifications yourself.

It takes a certain degree of skill to modify high pressure brake components to be sure, but welding a cage isn't for everyone either. In comparision to the requirement to add a cage, the future competitor has the option NOT to modify an ABS equiped car by choosing a car that doesn't have it. Caveat emptor, so to speak....

I feel the two biggest issues are:

1- Any change that reduces or eliminates driving skill sets needs to be considered veerrry carefully. The bottom line is the fact that we are racing, and racing skills are major part of the equation. Diluting the need for skills must be avoided.

2- The second issue, and this is huge, is that it would be a post classification adjustment which will result in competition potential changes within each class, much as the ECU rule did. Very bad, IMHO.

I think the reasons NOT to allow ABS are big, and the reasons TO allow ABS are not as convincing....

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited July 19, 2004).]

Greg Amy
07-19-2004, 08:55 PM
With respect, equating switching pad material with a complete re-design and re-plumbing of a vehicle's hydraulic braking system indicates either a serious lapse in logic or a complete misunderstanding of the engineering involved.

Think of it this way: would you want to be in front of (pick your worst car-hacker's name here) going into Turn One, Lap One, after he self-engineers and completely re-plumbs the brakes on his (pick your worst-hacked car here)?

I don't.

Knestis
07-19-2004, 09:51 PM
In the spirit of Darin's point above...


Originally posted by lateapex911:
1- Any change that reduces or eliminates driving skill sets needs to be considered [b] veerrry carefully. The bottom line is the fact that we are racing, and racing skills are major part of the equation. Diluting the need for skills must be avoided.

Power steering, aftermarket pedal pads, supportive seats, mirrors that actually allow rearward vision, predictable tires that don't go off in five laps, brake pads that don't fade, gearboxes with synchros, Centerforce clutches, dampers that damp effectively, 600* brake fluid. What else makes the driver's job easier than it once was? Why draw the line at ABS?


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">2- The second issue, and this is huge, is that it would be a post classification adjustment which will result in competition potential changes within each class, much as the ECU rule did. Very bad, IMHO.</font>

This presumes that ABS is a competitive advantage. Remembering that I'm advocating for stock, unmodified systems in lieu of the addition of prop valves, do you REALLY believe that an unskilled driver with ABS is going to be faster than a good shoe who can control threshold lock-up himself?

If so, what happens to the argument that ABS system balance will be messed up by adding racing pads, to the degree that we may as well chuck them completely?

Someone who is pissed off because someone might get to run ABS while he "tore his out" is telling me that he believes the former is the case. Is he not confident enough in his skills to believe that he can outbrake a system that is designed to limit braking power to keep Aunt Martha from understeering off of an offramp in the rain if a raccoon runs out in front of her?

Is this ALL about rain races? What proportion of the average season (not in Portland) gets run in the wet? Shouldn't I maybe get to choose whether I want my system optimized for rain rather than dry weather?

The "we can't police traction control" rationale doesn't sway me. We DON'T police a LOT of stuff that we CAN so that excuse sounds a lot like a red herring to me.

K


[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited July 19, 2004).]

Geo
07-19-2004, 11:09 PM
As usually, I agree with Jake completely. He said it more eloquently than I would have.

I also have a hard time believing OEMs would engineer systems so bad that they cannot operate safely with the ABS disconnected. Come on. Especially in this litigeous society in the US. They HAVE to design in some sort of fail safe that will not endanger the driver and the passengers if the ABS fails as does actually happen. They simply MUST plan for this contingency.

Short of clear data from OEM engineers I'm going to be an extremely difficult sell here.


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

Banzai240
07-20-2004, 01:49 AM
Originally posted by grega:
With respect, equating switching pad material with a complete re-design and re-plumbing of a vehicle's hydraulic braking system indicates either a serious lapse in logic or a complete misunderstanding of the engineering involved.


With all due respect, Greg, thinking that removing ABS and making the vehicle brake properly without it takes a "Complete replumbing of a vehicle's hydraulic braking system" is hardly a complete understanding of the situation...

I've removed the ABS from my car, and, it's NOT that big of a deal... It's pretty simple really... send fluid to the front brakes and send fluid to the rear brakes...

Mine happens to have a bias valve plumbed in for an extra measure, but even this hardly took a rocket scientist...

It doesn't take any more skill than picking out the correct brake pad combination.

I just don't happen to agree with the notion that this is that complex an issue.

Oh, and I happen to agree with Jake's line of reasoning...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

ChrisCamadella
07-20-2004, 05:55 AM
Originally posted by Geo:

I also have a hard time believing OEMs would engineer systems so bad that they cannot operate safely with the ABS disconnected. Come on. Especially in this litigeous society in the US. They HAVE to design in some sort of fail safe that will not endanger the driver and the passengers if the ABS fails as does actually happen. They simply MUST plan for this contingency.


I don't disagree. I am sure that the OEM engineers designed the ABS system so that the car will stop just fine with the ABS inoperative.

But we're not talking about 'inoperative' here, we're talking about 'replumbmed'. And no, I don't think any OEM car manufacturer or its engineers thought, "Hmmm, let's see. If the owner of the car happens to disconnect the lines from the ABS controller, adds two tee fittings, a proportioning valve, and some new hoses, we have to make sure the system still works as designed, or we'll be liable for damages."

Again, I'm sure that all of the systems work fine when the fuse blows. But once you get out the wrenches, all bets are pretty much off.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily saying that we should run right out and allow folks to leave the ABS brakes connected, I'm just stating the other side of the argument...

Cheers,

Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944S

Geo
07-20-2004, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by ChrisCamadella:
I don't disagree. I am sure that the OEM engineers designed the ABS system so that the car will stop just fine with the ABS inoperative.

But we're not talking about 'inoperative' here, we're talking about 'replumbmed'. And no, I don't think any OEM car manufacturer or its engineers thought, "Hmmm, let's see. If the owner of the car happens to disconnect the lines from the ABS controller, adds two tee fittings, a proportioning valve, and some new hoses, we have to make sure the system still works as designed, or we'll be liable for damages."

Again, I'm sure that all of the systems work fine when the fuse blows. But once you get out the wrenches, all bets are pretty much off.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily saying that we should run right out and allow folks to leave the ABS brakes connected, I'm just stating the other side of the argument...

Cheers,

Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944S



Unless there are proportioning valves inside the ABS controller, I don't see the issue. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I just don't see it. Furthermore, if there are proportioning valves in the ABS controller, then it should be a simple matter of putting them in a replumbed car.



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

Banzai240
07-20-2004, 10:49 AM
OK, after thinking of this last night from a few different angles, I've come up with a couple of questions for you guys...

1) How much weight or how much of a "competitive adjustment" would you expect on a car that retains it's ABS system?

2) If it were an option to remove it, and a car were spec'd with an "ABS weight", and a "non-ABS weight"... HOW would you be able to confirm the ABS is enabled/disabled???


Thus far, there has been VERY little evidence presented that is compelling enough to get one to believe that ABS would NOT be an advantage... (if that were the case, then Nissan would have removed it from my former WC car, instead of doing the work they did to improve it...)

Considering that this IS a pertinent technology that is going to be used more and more as newer models get classified, I'd suggest that the price of technology is added classification weight.

Would it be fair, for instance for an ABS equiped car to be classified at, say 50lbs heavier? 75lbs heavier??? What's the cost of this technology??

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Knestis
07-20-2004, 12:01 PM
1. None. Setting different weights for different prep levels sets a dangerous precedent that is probably bad for the longer term than just sticking with the current ABS rule.

2. By the presence of connected ABS sensors.

What is the cost of building a new braking system? Remember that I'm talking about the new guy not wanting to tear into it since I THINK that ultimately the fast guys will want to take it out if they can.

K

Greg Amy
07-20-2004, 12:40 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...Nissan would have removed (the ABS) from my former WC car, instead of doing the work they did to improve it...</font>

That's not a valid point, Darin.

At the time your car was in World Challenge, there were two options to preparers: stock brakes with ABS, or aftermaket four-piston brakes with ABS disabled. While most teams initially tried to go the ABS route, in the end they all ended up with bigger aftermarket brakes and no ABS. The WC rules were changed shortly thereafter to reflect that reality, and today they all run 13" rotors, 4-piston brakes, and racing master cylinders, pedals, you name it, but with ABS disabled.

Remember, everything has a context...

GregA

Banzai240
07-20-2004, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by grega:
Remember, everything has a context...

GregA

Yes it does, and you left out one option... Stock brakes without ABS... which was also available on this model... (different master cylinder part number, otherwise the same calipers/rotors/pads...)

They tried to work with the ABS because they believed that it offered an advantage over the stock brakes without it... The allowances for full-tilt aftermarket brakes offer such a huge advantage over the stock stuff, that THIS is why they abandoned the ABS and stock stuff...

ABS offers an advantage over NON-ABS, everything else being equal... that is what I was trying to get at... On the 240SX ('97-'98)... there is no difference in the factory caliper and rotor between the ABS and non-ABS stuff, so the only differences were in the ABS-controller and the master cylinder...

But, rather that arguing about the validity of my points, I'd like to hear discussion concerning my previous post, and I've still yet to hear a convincing argument to negate the perceived/real performance advantage offered by ABS brake systems...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited July 20, 2004).]

Greg Amy
07-20-2004, 02:42 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...they believed that it offered an advantage over the stock brakes without it...</font>

I disagree.

I can't speak to Nissan's motivations, but everyone else I knew at that time in WC never considered stock brakes without ABS; they were evaluating the value of ABS over bigger aftermarket brakes. ABS lost.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">ABS offers an advantage over NON-ABS, everything else being equal...</font>

I would tend to agree, but is that advantage so great that we effectively mandate a competitor to re-plumb all their brake lines if their car was never available without ABS?


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...there is no difference in the factory caliper and rotor between the ABS and non-ABS stuff...</font>

That is not always true. My NX2000 "supposedly" used different front rotors and calipers for a car equipped with ABS (I say "supposedly" because in reality all US-market NXs came with the bigger brakes. Thus is the error in using specific examples as supporting evidence). It is very common to offer different components with and without ABS.

However, my non-ABS car - fortunately - came with the same plumbing system, with a firewall-mounted distribution block to accomodate the lack of an ABS pump. If my car had been delivered with ABS it would have been a simple replacement of the ABS pump with distribution block, and replacement of the master cylinder.

Today's newer cars are not so fortunate. There are more and more cars that are not available without ABS. What are these owners going to do? They can't go to the dealer and buy a distribution block and master cylinder that never existed, so we're telling them, "hey, you're a racer, figure it out (or go race somewhere else.)"


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...rather that arguing about the validity of my points...</font>

When you provide those points as supporting evidence they become fair game for rebuttal.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...yet to hear a convincing argument to negate the perceived/real performance advantage offered by ABS brake systems...</font>

Well, you won't get it, Darin, simply because any student of basic logic knows that it's impossible to prove a negative. Therefore, I turn the tables on you: show evidence that proves ABS is a significant performance advantage. Provide evidence that will convince this group that by allowing ABS brakes you will overcome any perceived or real driver advantages over those without and will therefore be an unfair advantage.

Greg

Banzai240
07-20-2004, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by grega:
Provide evidence that will convince this group that by allowing ABS brakes you will overcome any perceived or real driver advantages over those without and will therefore be an unfair advantage.

Greg

Judge for yourself:

ABS FAQs (http://www.abs-education.org/faqs/faqindex.htm)


If it makes a medicre driver better, it's a competitive advantage. If it takes less skill to slow the car, it's a competitive advantage. ETC. ETC...

Oh, and you can't go pulling pieces of conversations out and then claiming that I don't get it... I was giving a specific example, that obviously does not always apply, but was a good point of illustration.

Additionally, I think I've given more than enough examples to this point to show the competitive advantages of ABS, short of supplying actual test data. The rule is in place that requires ABS to be disabled... If you want the rule changed, you guys are going to have to make a convincing agrument as to why it needs to be changed. I'm not sure that the arguments that ABS is NOT a performance benefit are anything more than speculative and presumption, while the true benefits of ABS are pretty clearly defined.

So, again, I'm thick skulled... summarize for me again just how ABS is NOT a competitive advantage. I say it is, in part because it does the following:

1) Makes an average driver better by increasing his/her ability to threshold brake without having to rely on "feel", "skill", or whatever you want to call that which defines a really good driver.

2) Increases car control in wet or non-ideal conditions and makes the car more stable under braking

3) Can be programmed to react differently to different situations

4) Typically stops a car in dry conditions in a shorter distance than a car without it

5) Can be programmed to act as "traction control" even for those cars that were not orginally equiped with such features



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Knestis
07-20-2004, 05:47 PM
Innocent until proven guilty, right? If we are talking about skilled drivers on dry pavement, I don't buy #4 at this point - at least not until someone shows me the data. Your other points vary in their strength.

Since your car is a handy case study, Darin did you replace the MC with the non-ABS part? If so, how would the job have been different if that part weren't available?

(Note that I will just use an entire non-ABS system out of a donor Golf when I do mine: I don't really argue this point out of personal gain.)

I think it might be useful to make the distinction - for the purpose of analyzing the pro-ABS documentation at that link - between improving the average street-driving bonehead's skills and making up the difference between the lowest and highest ends of the continuum of club racer's skill level.

I guess that I presume that an Auberlen can maintain threshold braking at a level higher than the average wanker (say, me). Safe assumption? Further, I'd like to think that my skills in that area are greater than, say, my mother's. ABS is designed to save her butt on the street - a point that should be borne in mind when reading how great it is.

Understanding that ABS works by LIMITING braking - shutting it the hell off - is it going to out-perform Auberlen (assuming all of the other hardware is the same)? I have a VERY hard time believing that it will. The question is then whether ABS will help the wanker get unreasonably closer to those with real talent. If it does, is that a terrible thing? At the end of the day, it might end up being an inhibiting factor if the wankers aren't required to learn how to get the last couple of percent of stopping power out of their cars.

Again, the traction control issue is a red herring since tricking my ABS into that kind of system is no less legal than would be building the entire TC package from scratch. That's an enforcement issue.

HOWEVER, the question of "chipping" an ABS sytem to perform more optimal to specific race conditions may be closer to being a real issue. If I can remap my ABS depending on the Cf of the track surface, then the advantage might shift in favor of an antilock system. That's a fair concern.

You need to hear that this conversation has indeed surfaced issues that I hadn't considered...

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited July 20, 2004).]

Banzai240
07-20-2004, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Since your car is a handy case study, Darin did you replace the MC with the non-ABS part? If so, how would the job have been different if that part weren't available?

No, I used the ABS cylinder, mostly because it was there, and because I liked the bore diameter better than the Non-ABS piece. It's also legal to do so (use the ABS one, that is...) The job would have been only slightly simpler with the stock piece, as it has two outlets for the front brake lines, where the ABS only had a single out line. I had to "T" the front lines together at the master to accomodate this.



<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">I think it might be useful to make the distinction - for the purpose of analyzing the pro-ABS documentation at that link - between improving the average street-driving bonehead's skills and making up the difference between the lowest and highest ends of the continuum of club racer's skill level.</font>

Fair enough, but I was presenting the advantages of ABS, and that's what this information does. Have you tried looking for Cons of ABS on Google??? I find all kinds of info on what not to take to get firm "Abs"... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

If you find something, please post it here...



<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">HOWEVER, the question of \"chipping\" an ABS sytem to perform more optimal to specific race conditions may be closer to being a real issue. If I can remap my ABS depending on the Cf of the track surface, then the advantage might shift in favor of an antilock system. That's a fair concern.</font>

There is nothing stopping someone from doing this, and since we've started this conversation, I've read several pieces of information concerning doing just this...



<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">You need to hear that this conversation has indeed surfaced issues that I hadn't considered...</font>

That's great... that's why I'm in this discussion. It goes both ways, so please keep contributing and let's all remember that we are here for the same thing...

Only 10 more days until the race weekend is here again!! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited July 20, 2004).]

lateapex911
07-20-2004, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
I guess that I presume that an Auberlen can maintain threshold braking at a level higher than the average wanker (say, me). Safe assumption? Further, I'd like to think that my skills in that area are greater than, say, my mother's. ABS is designed to save her butt on the street - a point that should be borne in mind when reading how great it is.

I'm not so sure about this. I was under the impression that different car models came with differing ABS systems and settings. My Sierra pickup acts much differently than my old BMW when the ABS fires. It would be grevious to assume that all ABS systems are the same as technology has improved, nor that they are all aimed at the lowest common denominator, especially since the cars that we race are often more sport oriented.



<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> Understanding that ABS works by LIMITING braking - shutting it the hell off - is it going to out-perform Auberlen (assuming all of the other hardware is the same)? I have a VERY hard time believing that it will. The question is then whether ABS will help the wanker get unreasonably closer to those with real talent. </font>

Again, I may be incorrect here, but I don't think that ALL ABS systems work in the way you describe. Some use the data from wheel sensors, and other speed sensors, and limit brake force to those wheels with traction issues. The other wheels without tration issues continue to get full pressure.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> If it does, is that a terrible thing? At the end of the day, it might end up being an inhibiting factor if the wankers aren't required to learn how to get the last couple of percent of stopping power out of their cars.</font>

If ABS does add performance gains while simultaneously removing needed talent, it DOES matter at the end of the day. Lets face it, the wanker you describe might love the chance to shove it in deep, two wheels in the dirt while braking at full force to get inside a talented driver who needs all his wheels on good pavement. I would bet that the same car with ABS will stop better on a varied traction situation than a non ABS car. No rain needed...we have lots of corners with room to the inside where you would never think of driving and braking in a non ABS car.





K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited July 20, 2004).]

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited July 20, 2004).]

VTECAcuraGSR
07-20-2004, 09:50 PM
Knestis - I am the one on Honda-Tech that has the Integra GSR and trying to figure out how to proceed. At this point, I have established that I can re-run my own new hardlines, but when I remove the ABS I think I would have to change out my master cylinder in order for it to work properly...

What to do?

Knestis
07-20-2004, 09:52 PM
Sorry - I should have been a little more specific.

All ABS systems work by shutting off braking force to one or more wheels. There is NO way that it can achieve its function by INCREASING braking force in any way - only by decreasing it selectively.

I will concede the point about having a wheel or two in the dirt. I used that capacity to avoid getting clobbered a couple of times when lapping cars at the Roebling school. I'm not brave - stupid? - enough to try that kind of tactic as an overtaking move on a car turning similar lap times but that doesn't mean that someone else might not be.

K

Geo
07-21-2004, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
So, again, I'm thick skulled... summarize for me again just how ABS is NOT a competitive advantage. I say it is, in part because it does the following:

1) Makes an average driver better by increasing his/her ability to threshold brake without having to rely on "feel", "skill", or whatever you want to call that which defines a really good driver.

2) Increases car control in wet or non-ideal conditions and makes the car more stable under braking

3) Can be programmed to react differently to different situations

4) Typically stops a car in dry conditions in a shorter distance than a car without it

5) Can be programmed to act as "traction control" even for those cars that were not orginally equiped with such features



It seems everyone is forgetting that ABS will prevent wheel lock-up. So, Ricky Racer will never lock up his brakes and miss the turn.

Safety issues aside, there is zero doubt this is a competitive advantage.


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

Geo
07-21-2004, 02:55 AM
Originally posted by grega:
That is not always true. My NX2000 "supposedly" used different front rotors and calipers for a car equipped with ABS (I say "supposedly" because in reality all US-market NXs came with the bigger brakes. Thus is the error in using specific examples as supporting evidence). It is very common to offer different components with and without ABS.

This is not a valid point. I have very specific knowledge of this situation and it is in error.

First of all, not all NX2000s came with the larger AD22VF brakes. There are NX2000s delievered to the US market with the smaller AD18V brakes. This has nothing to do with ABS. The larger brakes were part of a "sport package" that either all NXen came with in 91 and 92 or was offered in 93 as an optional package. The only thing I am unsure of here is whether in 91 and 92 the package was an option all cars came with or if it was standard equipment. I'm 100% certain of 93.

Furthermore, the issue of different brakes for ABS is simply a cataloging error. As Inventory Accounting Manager for Big A Auto Parts I saw a lot of brake catalogs. I also know that there are only a very few (<5 IIRC) companies that provide cataloging for replacement parts. They are all wrong. Just where this error started is unknown, but it is an error none the less.

Because of this, these points are not valid in this discussion.

That said, I'm sure there are examples of different brake set-ups on ABS vs non-ABS versions of other cars. But, we don't know the engineering reasons why, i.e., we don't know if brake were upgraded to accomodate a heavier car with a particular option package or some similar issue. We cannot hold this up as an example either because the reasons for different brake set-ups between ABS/non-ABS could be many.


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

Greg Amy
07-21-2004, 08:41 AM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...not all NX2000s came with the larger AD22VF brakes...</font>

I know it's way off topic, but...

Remember, George, while you may have worked for Big A, I personally ordered my car brandy-new from the factory specifically to turn it into a Showroom Stock B car. The only options I had at that time in regards to brakes were ABS or no ABS, nuttin' else.

And I have never, ever personally seen a US-spec NX2000 with anything other than ADV22F brakes. Canadian ones, yes, but not delivered to the good-ole-USA. I heard rumors and read on forums about others seeing it, but I'm certain you can determine for yourself the trustworthiness of information pulled off Internet forums.

I suspect the ones you saw (or read about) were either improper crash repairs (very common: "let's pull the front suspension parts off of a Sentra SE-R, they're all the same!"), production anomolies (which Nissan is infamous for), or possibly Canada-delivered cars.

Regardless, that's beside the point of this thread...

Knestis
07-21-2004, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
... Ricky Racer will never lock up his brakes and miss the turn.

That's not entirely true since Rick could still easily run out of front bite and understeer off of the corner. If he DOESN'T then he wasn't going as fast as the tires would let him in the first place.

It's like C. Smith's story about the famous driver who came in and hollered at him because, "the brakes faded at the end of the straight and scared the hell out of me!" Smith asked him if he went off: No. "Well then you weren't going fast enough."

Assuming for a minute that ABS WILL save Rick's ass in that situation, keeping him on the road: Who here honestly believes that he will be FASTER exiting that corner than even a reasonbly skilled driver w/o ABS who threshold brakes, gets the car turned in efficiently, and is on the gas early?

K

JoelG
07-21-2004, 10:36 AM
My experience with my 87 BMW (I'm allowed to use ABS in BMW Club Racing) has been that if ABS actuates my stopping distances are increased and understeering off the end of the straight is a good possibility. The only difference I've noticed between using it and not is that if I make a mistake when I have ABS enabled is I don't get a flat spot. Given my experience I'd say its primary benefit is that it is a money saver. Since budget is my #1 priority I'd like to be able to use it all the time.

I also instruct at a lot of BMW Club Drivers Ed events and I can say that every generation of BMW ABS has been better than the one before. The ABS in the current generation BMWs (E46) is very, very good. Even so, given the choice, all the WC BMW teams still chose to go with a 'real' race brake setup.

Banzai240
07-21-2004, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
That's not entirely true since Rick could still easily run out of front bite and understeer off of the corner.

I actually have some in-car video of me locking up the front brakes WITH ABS enabled entering turn 8 at SIR (now Pacific Raceways) when I first began racing this car... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Geo
07-21-2004, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by grega:
Remember, George, while you may have worked for Big A, I personally ordered my car brandy-new from the factory specifically to turn it into a Showroom Stock B car. The only options I had at that time in regards to brakes were ABS or no ABS, nuttin' else.

My mention of Big A was meant in reference to the cataloging being wrong and how it gets perpetuated. There are so few cataloging companies that if they make mistakes they just keep getting perpetuated. That is the case here. An error.

As for the brakes, I did say I was unsure of the option package, but I have verified that in 93 the smaller brakes were on some cars. It even shows up that way in the factory fiche.


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

Geo
07-21-2004, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
That's not entirely true since Rick could still easily run out of front bite and understeer off of the corner. If he DOESN'T then he wasn't going as fast as the tires would let him in the first place.

<snip>

Assuming for a minute that ABS WILL save Rick's ass in that situation, keeping him on the road: Who here honestly believes that he will be FASTER exiting that corner than even a reasonbly skilled driver w/o ABS who threshold brakes, gets the car turned in efficiently, and is on the gas early?


All well and good, but it still does not change the fact that this constitutes a competitive advantage.


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

OTLimit
07-21-2004, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
It seems everyone is forgetting that ABS will prevent wheel lock-up. So, Ricky Racer will never lock up his brakes and miss the turn.


Actually, what I see is Ricky Racer (aka Mr. Wanker) diving inside of a couple of more talented (okay, an assumption) drivers because he KNOWS he has ABS and it will stop, right? No. The car doesn't stop, doesn't turn, and takes out the cars he was trying to dive under. All it does is make him feel like a better driver until he really over drives the system.


------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers

[This message has been edited by OTLimit (edited July 21, 2004).]

Knestis
07-21-2004, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by VTECAcuraGSR:
Knestis - I am the one on Honda-Tech that has the Integra GSR... What to do?

Sorry - I missed your post. I'm trying to figure out what your solution is...

K

zracer22
07-21-2004, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Okay - valid points all. But speaking theoretically for a moment, what happens down the road a few years when every newly classified car in IT comes only with ABS?
K

Every car in IT has a steering wheel lock that must be disabled!

Knestis
07-21-2004, 10:18 PM
Hmm. Good try but safety-mandated. (Setting aside that it's a little silly since SS cars don't seem to be crashing at any great rate with the locks still operating.)

This is more like back in the day when cars were first coming with disc brakes in the front. Did SCCA require that they backdate to drums? There probably WAS some consideration in classification but...

K

VTECAcuraGSR
07-23-2004, 08:34 AM
GregA sent me this

"This is a good topic for the Rules SEction. I suggest you re-post there.
Short answer: got a GCR? 11.2.1.E says sensors must be disconnect *or* removed. ITCS 17.1.4.D.6.c says brake lines are free, and you must use the factory master cylinder (even though it may be different for the non-ABS car.) All other ABS components may be removed.

See ABS discussion in the Rules Forum. Also contact Phil Phillips, as he's currently running a GSR in ITS and Honda Challenge, and I'm sure he's already gone through all this rigamarole."

With that said, I believe I should be ok. What I would have to do is get RS hardlines (easier then bending my own) as hard lines are open game. I would obviously need to remove all the abs garbage and then plumb in an aftermarket proporting valave using the stock GSR MC. I am not sure the dirrences between a non-abs GSR and abs GSR, but I would imagine they must be close.

What does everyone think about this?

Thanks!
-Jeremy Billiel

Banzai240
07-23-2004, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by VTECAcuraGSR:
ITCS 17.1.4.D.6.c says brake lines are free, and you must use the factory master cylinder (even though it may be different for the non-ABS car.)

Guys.... Unless I've missed something along the way, if you are converting an ABS car to a non-ABS car (in other words, if the car was available either way...), then you should be free to replace the ABS master with the non-ABS unit...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Greg Amy
07-23-2004, 10:23 AM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...then you should be free to replace the ABS master with the non-ABS unit...</font>

I disagree, therein lies the crux of my concerns from above. I'm open-minded: show me where the rules allow it? Remember, this car never came without ABS...

Edit: Darin, I read your post again, and I agree with you on your point that *if* the car/model was available without ABS, then you can swap master cylinders from the car without. However, the disagreements you and I have had within the thread above have been limited to - at least in my case - cars that did NOT come without ABS. AFAIK, the Acura GSR was an ABS-only model and the comments I sent to him were within the context of the legality of swapping in Acura RS brake parts. If this is incorrect, that the GSR was availabel without ABS, then let's tell Jeremy he can swap MCs and limit our rules debate to ABS-only cars - Greg

[This message has been edited by grega (edited July 23, 2004).]

VTECAcuraGSR
07-23-2004, 01:32 PM
Greg - You are absolutley correct. The Acura Integra GSR NEVER came without ABS and there are also no siblings classed in ITS, so I can not update/backdate. Therefore, I think I am stuck with using the stoch ABS MC.

***I think....

-Jeremy

Banzai240
07-23-2004, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by VTECAcuraGSR:
Therefore, I think I am stuck with using the stoch ABS MC.
-Jeremy

You speak of this as if it were a bad thing... What specifically are the differences between your stock ABS MC and, let's say, an RS non-ABS MC???

I can tell you from a Nissan Perspective, that the only difference between the ABS and non-ABS for the 240SX in 1998 was that the ABS has a slightly larger bore diameter and a single front brake line outlet. The bore diameter was not an issue, and the single front outlet was simply a matter of adding a "T" to separate the front brake fluid...

All I'm trying to get you guys to do is take an analytical look at the actual pieces BEFORE you start saying there is a real issue here... Your Factory Workshop Manual should have enough detailed information to at least give you the general specifications for comparison... It is only from this real information that we can make logical decisions... So, I am genuinely asking... WHAT are the differences?

Thanks,




------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

jlucas
07-24-2004, 07:06 PM
I don't want to inflame the discussion further but I do have a few items to add. I've read all the above posts and there are good points on both sides.

1) The in house driver training at work includes braking drills with ABS and without. Successfully passing this drill involves beating the ABS in a 5th wheel instrumented car. A majority of drivers have no problem accomplishing this on dry pavement, myself included.
2) ABS is different from car to car, and from one manufacturer to the next. Any arguement based on a specific example, is not very valid. Some systems go into absolute fits with race tires and pads. New systems are incredibly complex and tied into multiple systems and features and ECU's --> when these cars make it to IT age, I sure don't want to be trying to re-engineer them. Remember IT is supposed to be an affordable class (compared to Production).
3) Almost all cars come with ABS now. How long should we hold back the gates of change? Does it make any more sense to mandante 14" wheels for some of the new IT cars next year? I think "allow" is the key word. Let those that want to run ABS keep it and allow converstion to non-ABS for those with initiative and braking skill.
4) AFAIK at Honda, there are no flash programable ABS ECU's. ECU reprograming is not easily done but it is possible for say Nismo to come out with a part to sell that is better suited for track use than the stock part.
5) Yes, ABS helps a poor driver brake more effectively.

I'd be happy to dig up some more specific braking system information if the advisory board needs it.

Jeremy Lucas
Team Honda Research

[This message has been edited by jlucas (edited July 24, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by jlucas (edited July 25, 2004).]

Knestis
07-24-2004, 10:15 PM
Jeremy is in a position to know about this stuff. Thanks for the input, J.

K

cherokee
07-26-2004, 03:22 PM
Why not just do this.

1) currently classified cars stay where they are.

2) NEW (cars/model years that need a new line, or just make new years a different spec line) must keep ABS and class them how you seem fit.

Seems like a simple thing to me, the older cars don't have to look through the trash for all of the ABS stuff they just ripped out and new cars must leave it on. Even if they disable it they will still be toting around the extra 20 odd lbs. No adjustment for already classed cars (we all agree very bad) and the new cars will have had ABS from day one.

just an idea

pfcs
07-26-2004, 10:07 PM
.

pfcs
07-26-2004, 10:20 PM
get off it guys! KISS! (keep it simple stupid) ABS doesn't belong in IT. It is simple and sensible to remove. Every ABS master cylinder has 2 circuits that control the brakes in normal fashion should a sensor(s) fail. Standard, simple, sensible race prep is to split system front to rear with a bias valve in the rear circuit, which is plumbing 101-if you can install aeroquipt brake hoses, you can certainly deal with ABS removal, If you can't, maybe you should consider a spec racer.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Phil

Knestis
07-26-2004, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by pfcs:
get off it guys! KISS! (keep it simple stupid) ... If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I guess I wonder how it could possibly be any simpler - and cheaper - to just leave a system alone, that a bunch of people spent a lot of energy figuring out. They took 500-level Plumbing classes.

I wonder too about the broad rationale that "ABS doesn't belong in IT." Can you share your thinking as to why?

How about this for a thought experiment: If in fact data were to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a proficient racer could stop faster without ABS than the system could on its own, would that change perceptions of "competitive advantage?"

K

x-ring
07-27-2004, 09:02 AM
I've been following this topic pretty closely and don't have too much to add except that I feel like the Comp Board* screwed me over pretty bad with the E36 thing and now you want to give the bimmer boys ABS too?

If in fact data were to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a proficient racer could stop faster without ABS than the system could on its own, would that change perceptions of "competitive advantage?"

I'm sure you could contrive a set of conditions (probably reasonably common conditions) to support this, but under all conditions? I doubt it, unless your definition of 'proficient racer' only includes the top few percent of club racers.

One final thought: In Mark Donohue's book, in the IROC chapter, Mark refers to ABS as the ultimate unfair advantage (or words to that effect).

*NOT the current CRB. I'm cautiously optimistic about the current board; time will tell.



------------------
Ty Till
#16 ITS
Rocky Mountain Division

pfcs
07-27-2004, 10:10 PM
My reasons for not wanting ABS in IT: 1/
keeping the class simple and straighfoward-kind of a racecar 101 for people who want cars that are entry level but respond to basic engine and chassis tuning. And please, RX-7 guys, don't start in about free ECUs!
They don't get any more AIR into the engine, do they?
2/ keeping the question of or possibility of a competetive advantage off the table-pfiiff! presto! gone! No one can argue or wonder about it any more. What a relief.

jlucas
07-28-2004, 07:21 AM
More food for thought. Grand Am Cup allows ABS or non-ABS at the same weight. World Challange has a 100lb ABS penalty weight.

E36 ITS situation has nothing to do with this. I'm not happy about it either (Integra).

The question is this: Is there a rule that could be implemented that keeps things fair, costs down, and allow newly eligible cars to be added to IT with less modification? If cars are classed properly by the comp board there is no reason why ABS could not be allowed.

Again for some cars, ABS works well at the track; others it's junk.

As I mentioned this issue is only going to get more complex as time goes on. Sooner or later this should be addressed.

VTECAcuraGSR
07-31-2004, 11:51 AM
Update**

I removed the four wheel sensors so I am technically legal now, but in my quest to do this right I found a problem. It appears as though most Honda/Acuras do not have the brakes plumbed as Front and Rear. Rather LF/RR and RF/LR. So If I wanted to use the stock lines I would actually need two aftermarket proportioning valves. Or redo the hardlines to Front/Rear. Does anyone have any experience with this?

-Jeremy

pfcs
07-31-2004, 03:59 PM
yes; plumb 1/2 mastr cyl to frt, 1/2 to rear via prop valve.

924Guy
08-01-2004, 11:57 AM
In spite of racing a car built in the very first days of ABS, I know far more about ABS functioning (along with TCS and ESP/ESC/VSA/VDC/VSC/PSM/whatever you want to all stability control) - I'm an ABS/TCS/ESP engineer at Bosch. Hate to sound full of myself, but there are few others on this forum quite as knowledgeable on the inner workings of the system (a number of my co-workers race IT and occasionally stop in on this forum too).

I state that just to give background and weight to my opinions. If we were racing Showroom Stock cars with stock (original as-delivered) tires, there is no question in my mind that the car with a modern ABS system would have a competitive advantage over older systems or cars without ABS. That's without even going into the subject of electronically-controlled brake proportioning (DRP, EBS, HAB, etc) and what it can do in corners on a modern 4-channel 4-sensor car. It's pretty slick.

But we're not racing SS cars; our cars are modified, with completely different suspension setups, brakes, and tires. I hate to admit it, but all the benefits of ABS and EBD/DRP are pretty much gone with most systems at that point - you've gone way too far from the car on which they were designed to be used. At this point, ABS is only really going to provide a real benefit to the rank rookie who doesn't really know how to use his brakes in all situations. He's not going to become an Auberlen (or Scott http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif just by turning ABS on. The only rare exceptions where ABS is even going to reall help would be on a Porsche race car or the like, delivered with ABS calibrate for race tires, etc. The weight transfer and tire slip characteristics are just too far out of the normal range of tolerances.

So, I have trouble getting that worried about newer cars showing up in the grid with ABS. I know I can still out-brake them. I would recommend making sure that they're allowed to run with it disabled, in fact, for their sake. Now I just have to get off my butt and send in my feedback to the comp board.

Oh, not to get embroiled in an unimportant semantic discussion, but ABS will (or should) optimize the braking force at each and every wheel, given proper input (sufficient pressure at the MC). FWIW, I'd run screaming from any "chipped" ABS-equipped car; knowing how hard it is for us to do the job, I most certainly wouldn't trust code hackers to get it right after the fact, and I'd give any such car a wide berth on track, as I don't think I'd count on them to avoid spearing me at an inoportune time!

------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITA/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com

Knestis
08-01-2004, 04:58 PM
Thanks for the informed perspective!

K

Knestis
08-08-2004, 09:54 AM
One more data point...

I ran yesterday at VIR with the ABS sensors disconnected but otherwise with the system exactly as I've been using it. They were not gawd-awful.

I did have one major lock-up when I got boxed in by a pair of Miati that should have been WAY faster than me into T1 - RR, probably - and I seemed to get a feeling like pad fade late in the 45-min. race. That seems unlikely given that I was running my 100% American Iron pads (they really are pure Fe) so I wonder if I had a pick-up problem from switching them in for my HP+ street/rain pads run in the short morning session...

I still believe that we've got to address this issue applying a paradigm that accepts ABS as the norm rather than an exotic exception on IT-eligible models but newb Golf racers won't be in too deep with the bonehead solution of just unplugging things.

K


[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited August 09, 2004).]