ITR

[hunter164]

Just wondering if anyone was already planning on running in ITR next year? Time to size up the competition so I know how much this winter will cost me!

[ulfelder]

I plan to take a long hard look at ITR. I&#39;d be more enthused if the RX-8 was slated for the class, but I hear that for the moment, anyway, it is considered too potent <_< .

Steve U
05 ITS
Flatout Motorsports

[JoshS]

Isn&#39;t it also considered too new?

[JeffYoung]

Guys, I think the RX8 fits nicely in ITR. It is only one year away from eligibility. Its hp and torque (most importantly) are very close to the S2000 which is in.

It was left off because of fear of too much power, and also because it was new. I am adding it to the proposal for the second "wave" of cars based on a couple of points:

1. Lack of torque.

2. Dyno numbers I have from a Grand Am car that shows little gains for the motor. I&#39;m told (and I&#39;m sure there will be people who do not believe it) that the car&#39;s stock exhaust is nearly maximized.

3. Bolstering the facts that the car "fits" ITR is the fact that there is only a limited Mazda presence in ITR. RX8 should be there.

If anyone wants to participate in the proposal write up, e-mail me at [email protected]. It will take me a month or so, but I&#39;m going to talk to Speedsource and get them involved as well.

Thanks.

Jeff

[lateapex911]

The RX8 is NOT an RX-7! Look at the stock hp numbers from the same engine!! Think they got more out of it already??

The classic big HP maker on the rotary is the header...but in the RX8&#39;s case, the two rotors exhaust from the sides, which means the the header is a three tube unit, and the middle tube shares both rotors. The exhaust is siamesed in the housing. The GA guys are seeing some marginal gains from a header, but it&#39;s nothing like the old days.

Point being that applying the standard "rotary factor" when classing this car is totally wrong, IMO.

Lets look at the car when the class is on it&#39;s feet.

[mlytle]

3. Bolstering the facts that the car "fits" ITR is the fact that there is only a limited Mazda presence in ITR. RX8 should be there.
Thanks.

Jeff
[/b]

geeez, heaven forbid we have a class in scca(mcca?) anywhere that doesn&#39;t have enough mazda&#39;s in it.... :rolleyes:

[JeffYoung]

Marshal, I know you said it tongue in cheek, but trust me, I would say the same thing about ITR if it were devoid of BMWs (or Nissans, or Toyotas, or Acuras). There are some makes that just have to be there, and one of them is Mazda. BMW too. Triumph, no.

[anthony1k]

I was very disappointed to see that SCCA continues to shut out turbos. There are many turbocharged cars that could have found a home in ITR including my own. I’ve heard of the reason why and I just don’t buy it. Adherence to the rules is as easy or as difficult as with normally aspirated cars.
Anthony

[lateapex911]

I was very disappointed to see that SCCA continues to shut out turbos. There are many turbocharged cars that could have found a home in ITR including my own. I’ve heard of the reason why and I just don’t buy it. Adherence to the rules is as easy or as difficult as with normally aspirated cars.
Anthony
[/b]

Well, of course the pat answer is ITE....

But, lets forget that for the sake of discussion and run with this concept.

HOW is it easy? What methods would you use (with the existing regional tech budget..$0) to esure that the cars run legally?

I submit that it is not as simple as pulling a head and checking compression, displacement and so on.

But obviously I am missing something. Educate me, please.

[anthony1k]

Jake, ITE is the pat answer. I&#39;ve been running in that for the past couple of years and I&#39;m fine with it. My hope is that at some point SCCA will begin to consider ways to be more accommodating. It makes things more interesting and it helps the club grow.

On the point of enforcing the rules, I would argue with you that it is easier to catch cheaters in turbocharged cars. In most cases HP modifications are bolt-ons and are easily detectable to the trained eye. Also, the main source of higher HP is higher boost and that is easily detectable as well. In any case, other racing series accept turbos and have been able to police the rules (PCA comes to mind).
Anthony

[JoshS]

HOW is it easy? What methods would you use (with the existing regional tech budget..$0) to esure that the cars run legally?

I submit that it is not as simple as pulling a head and checking compression, displacement and so on.

But obviously I am missing something. Educate me, please.
[/b]
Well, the Touring and SS classes are now allowing AWD and turbochargers/superchargers. I haven&#39;t seen a lot of cheating there. There are no turbos in SS, just supers. In Touring, software is free inside the stock housing (just like IT) so a lot of boost could be legally made there, so classing has to take that into account.

But there really hasn&#39;t been an issue. I&#39;d argue that it&#39;s just as easy to determine that "hard parts" are still stock as it&#39;s ever been. We can check heads, we can check turbos, etc. Since software is free, there&#39;s no need to check it.

[seckerich]

I am also waiting for the RX8 to be classed. It is a perfect fit for the class and races most weekends against the same cars that are on the ITR list. The motor is close to maxed from the factory and SCCA has years of experience with this motor in Star Mazda to know the facts. If people are to build cars for a new class they need to be added as soon as possible. Looking forward to the RX8 proposal and searching for a donor! :cavallo:

[Andy Bettencourt]

I know an RX-8 will come out of our shop should they be allowed at some point. I was the driving force behind the &#39;conservativism&#39; on the car as I wanted to be wary of the Renisis and it&#39;s power potential. The more we learn about it, the more it is seeminly an easy fit.

As far as Turbo&#39;s are concerned, cheating is NOT the issue. The issue is that when you combine the IT ruleset (open ECU&#39;s and open exhaust), it becomes VERY difficult to estimate power potential. Not only can a car like yours make HUGE power, the potential between models is so varied that each car becomes an adventure (read potential overdog) of it&#39;s own. The only solution is to class VERY conservatively at first and then do a comp adjustment. 2 problems then stem from that - comp adjustments aren&#39;t done in IT as a rule and of course the chicken/egg issue. Who will build one if it is not going to be competitive and when can we see the true potential if nobody builds one?

I hear you...but I think the potential issues outweight the benefits at this time.

Anthony - given the IT rules, how much WHP would your car make? If you think it would be too much for the class, what limitations would you impose on it (or any turbo car) so they could be made to fit? Just because I don&#39;t see a solution on the horizon doesn&#39;t mean you don&#39;t have one.

AB

[anthony1k]

Andy,
My car has a dead stock motor running stock boost. In theory it has 220 HP or thereabouts. I run a straight exhaust that might be adding a couple of HP but not much. It is however fairly light compared to some others and that keeps it in the same stratosphere with the 400+ HP Vettes and Mustangs in ITE.

On the question on how would I achieve some sort of parity with other cars in the class? Requiring stock ECU’s on all turbocharged models is one option. PCA does that in all stock classes and so does the 44 Super Cup. That leaves weight as the only way address the issue of parity, same as with non-turbo IT cars.
Anthony

[Andy Bettencourt]

And part of the reason we are where we are on teh ECU stuff is because cheating is un-policable. So we really must take that out of the equation and allow the same mods as IT. Given that, these cars will make more power than the classes can hold...or are you supporting different rules for different car WITHIN the same class? That is most certainly not within the IT philosophy - and very tough to get close to accurate in any kind of &#39;process&#39;.

AB

[anthony1k]

Requiring stock ECU&#39;s on turbocharged models is not, in my opinion, any different than say...requiring a certain model to run an intake restrictor plate. Does this dilute the spirit of IT? I think not. Times change and I don&#39;t see why rules can&#39;t change as well.

[lateapex911]

This gets into big picture philisophical discussions..

Which is fine!

One of the things we&#39;ve tried to determine is what makes IT "IT", and what makes it popular. It&#39;s fair to say it&#39;s one of SCCA&#39;s most popular categories.

We think that the general prep level, and the basic "equality" for all are the major cornerstones.

By "Equality", I mean that line item exceptions are kept to an absolute minimum. Two come immediately to mind: The Olds rear bearing/brake exception, and the E36 restrictor plate/SIR. Once the exception for one is made, the case becomes "If you allow the widget for XX, why not this fridget for YY?" (We get a letter like that every other month or so) Often the reasons for exceptions are very sound, but it&#39;s a very slippery slope, and before you know it the rule book looks like the Prod category!

(Semi related comment: The Olds thing was before this ITAC&#39;s time, so knowledge of the exact reasoning is tough to come by, and the BMW thing was not a road anyone on the ITAC really wanted to go down, and many of us would like the car moved to ITR and then declassed from ITS after a reasonable period to remove the exception. Putting the genie back in the bottle is tricky business.)

So, our philisophical base is to minimize exceptions as much as possible.

Allowing turbos/non naturally aspirated cars gets tricky from a classing standpoint, as Andy mentioned. if they are classed, we have to either:
-Allow software mods which will basically allow free boost, or..
-Restrict boost to stock levels.

IF we choose A, then we need to class the car assuming that it will be run at dangerously high boost levels, with all the tricks possible, and the weight will reflect that. With free exhausts, I can see custom manifolds being made to ensure a fast boost build, along with the fuel and software to aid in that and run ragged edge boost and timing programs. The average guy won&#39;t...or can&#39;t do that, but the car needs to be classed for the guy who will. Maybe I&#39;m wrong on this, but I think the differences between the "Haves" and the "Have nots" are far greater with turbos than with other cars.

If we choose B, stock level boost, how can we police it? With manifold pressure recorders? They sound cool, but who administers and who pays for them?? It shouldn&#39;t be the average racer...it needs to come out of the pockets of those who benefit..the drivers of the turbo cars. So the administration and expense are big issues there. (Not to mention the quasi line item excetion of software being free as long as it fits in the box ....EXCEPT for boost. I say quasi because it really would be more categorical as it relates to all non naturally aspirated cars, not just one model)

So, given that, and that the philosophical base of IT isn&#39;t likely to change anytime soon, whats the best move?

[JoshS]

Allowing turbosnon naturally aspirated cars gets tricky from a classing standpoint, as Andy mentioned. if they are classed, we have to either:
-Allow software mods which will basically allow free boost, or..
-Restrict boost to stock levels.

IF we choose A, then we need to class the car assuming that it will be run at dangerously high boost levels, with all the tricks possible, and the weight will reflect that. With free exhausts, I can see custom manifolds being made to ensure a fast boost build, along with the fuel and software to aid in that and run ragged edge boost and timing programs. The average guy won&#39;t...or can&#39;t do that, but the car needs to be classed for the guy who will. Maybe I&#39;m wrong on this, but I think the differences between the "Haves" and the "Have nots" are far greater with turbos than with other cars.

If we choose B, stock level boost, how can we police it? With manifold pressure recorders? They sound cool, but who administers and who pays for them?? It shouldn&#39;t be the average racer...it needs to come out of the pockets of those who benefit..the drivers of the turbo cars. So the administration and expense are big issues there. (Not to mention the quasi line item excetion of software being free as long as it fits in the box ....EXCEPT for boost. I say quasi because it really would be more categorical as it relates to all non naturally aspirated cars, not just one model)

So, given that, and that the philosophical base of IT isn&#39;t likely to change anytime soon, whats the best move?
[/b]
Well, I don&#39;t understand the first quoted line there -- we&#39;re talking about cars with stock turbos, not normally-aspirated cars with turbos added, right?

Anyway, I think that the world is moving towards fancy technology in cars that interest the membership, and that includes turbos, AWD, ABS, etc, etc. 20 years from now, the only cars without this stuff are going to be REALLY OLD, and therefore, not very interesting to new members of that day. So, we can&#39;t all put our heads in the sand and hope this problem goes away. Even if it takes a while to implement the solution, it&#39;s in the club&#39;s best interest to figure out the plan sooner rather than later, before the club is irrelevant to younger members.

I think it&#39;s not policeable to make the rules require stock boost. It can&#39;t be measured, and that makes it a bad rule. So, you allow software (already allowed), which will allow crazy boost levels. Yes, it&#39;s true that this might make some cars, especially when combined with other allowable IT mods, MUCH quicker than their stock lookalikes. So, you have to class assuming this will happen. But just because the difference between the haves and the have-nots might be large, doesn&#39;t mean you shouldn&#39;t allow the cars in at all.

BTW, I am racing a turbo car in T2 right now. It has lots more boost than stock, and it&#39;s tuned for 100 octane. Of course, in Touring, we&#39;re not allowed to change headers or cats, so in IT trim, it would make even more power, and might require more money than a non-turbo car to convert. But so what? If there were an IT class fast enough for this car, I think it would be an interesting race car, and I think so would a lot of enthusiasts that we&#39;d like to get into the club.

We gotta find a way to allow turbos, AWD, ABS, and other technologies present in modern cars. I say, let &#39;em in, stick with the IT rules as written, and class conservatively.

[zchris]

I think what the boys are saying is that there is a place for turbo cars in IT, ITE. And without lots of difficult policing that the club is not able to do, its to hard to implement. I also wish there was an easy solution for policing turbo&#39;s as they are cheap HP. The club tried in the 1980&#39;s and failed. If my beloved GT classes fail in the next few years I will be turboing my Z and running in SPO. In mild trim the Nissan 3.5 puts out over 600hp. What a hoot that would be.

[lateapex911]

Well, I don&#39;t understand the first quoted line there -- we&#39;re talking about cars with stock turbos, not normally-aspirated cars with turbos added, right?

[/b]

Yes...turbos/non naturally aspirated cars...as in stock examples that are turbo or supercharged. (I left the "/" out on my fist post but your response was so fast it hit before I edited..sorry for the confusion)



We gotta find a way to allow turbos, AWD, ABS, and other technologies present in modern cars. I say, let &#39;em in, stick with the IT rules as written, and class conservatively.
[/b]

OK, one vote for classed conservatively. So, for ITR that would include the 944 turbo, right? 2.7 litres, turbo, free exhaust, free electronics (sort of), boost essentially limited to what the stock internal components can take, and the fuel capability of the stock injectors.
What would you suggest it weigh?? (The 944 S2 is listed in this months FASTRACK at 2810...essentially the same chassis)

(I would assume such and "IT turbo" build would include careful design of the preturbo ehaust system to help get the boost up fast and high, a Motec to maximize the contol and extract the most power, {and perhaps have a "overboost" throttle detent for the extra help for passing and qualifying} as well as shortening of intercooler plumbing, and creative "Airdams" to help feed copious amounts of cold air to the intercooler and intake. What am I missing?)

[JoshS]

(I would assume such and "IT turbo" build would include careful design of the preturbo ehaust system to help get the boost up fast and high, a Motec to maximize the contol and extract the most power, {and perhaps have a "overboost" throttle detent for the extra help for passing and qualifying} as well as shortening of intercooler plumbing, and creative "Airdams" to help feed copious amounts of cold air to the intercooler and intake. What am I missing?)[/b]
Good points there:

I&#39;d propose that maybe turbo cars cannot change the pre-turbo exhaust system, although I think there could be good discussion on that point.

I don&#39;t see how a Motec or a modified throttle control would be legal with current IT rules.

Basically, I see it this way (coming from running a Turbo car in T2 right now): the only additional under-hood allowances that are useful in the IT rules over the T rules are -- free exhaust (maybe only post-turbo for turbos), pre-throttle-body intake mods (what does this mean for turbos?)

Software rules are the same, throttle control rules are the same, etc.

As for your 944T questions -- I think that&#39;s a great example of a turbo car that could be in ITR. But I don&#39;t know enough about them to say what they should weigh. Older technology there, but only Porsche-philes know what the stock engine and injectors can handle in terms of boost levels. It&#39;s possible that it&#39;s just too fast and maybe the first foray into turbos should be something slower, say, a Ford Mustang SVO.

[Z3_GoCar]

But.... and this is a BIG but, Motec, Electromotive, or any other replacement system IS legal in IT as long as it can be packaged in the stock ECM housing and use the stock engine harness connector. This was due to the proprietary and smog nature of stock ecm&#39;s which are (intensionally) very difficult to hack. I&#39;ve been looking at a TEC 3 system with a stock connector conversion ~4k, then I&#39;ll need to add a new engine wire harness as mine is gone.

James

[JoshS]

But.... and this is a BIG but, Motec, Electromotive, or any other replacement system IS legal in IT as long as it can be packaged in the stock ECM housing and use the stock engine harness connector. This was due to the proprietary and smog nature of stock ecm&#39;s which are (intensionally) very difficult to hack. I&#39;ve been looking at a TEC 3 system with a stock connector conversion ~4k, then I&#39;ll need to add a new engine wire harness as mine is gone.[/b]
Sure, anything is legal if you can fit it in the stock housing, don&#39;t add sensors, and don&#39;t modify wiring. I wasn&#39;t aware that you could get these systems to operate without those things (i.e., use completely stock sensors and wiring.)

If you can, sure, then there could be more power out of that 944T. But in reality, I think that&#39;s not likely to occur unless the turbocharged car in question has a flashable ECU from the factory (i.e., the computer would be the factory hardware with custom software, as opposed to a hardware replacement to a Motec/Electromotive/etc). I&#39;m guessing that the 944T doesn&#39;t have a flashable ECU.

[lateapex911]

I&#39;d propose that maybe turbo cars cannot change the pre-turbo exhaust system, although I think there could be good discussion on that point.

[/b]

Well, thats a possibility. On one hand it goes against IT philosophy to have different rules for different cars, BUT, I think it would fit as there are lots of exceptions where the same benefits aren&#39;t afforded to all, as stock configurations create situations of inequality. Hopefully, thats all compensated for in the initial classification.



I don&#39;t see how a Motec or a modified throttle control would be legal with current IT rules.
[/b]

I can think of a method right now to use Motec or some other programmable system to create just such a scenario (driver selectabel overboost) in a perfectly legal way. And I&#39;m no wizard with this stuff. So I&#39;m sure thats just the tip of the iceberg.




...... but only Porsche-philes know what the stock engine and injectors can handle in terms of boost levels....
[/b]

Ahhhhhhhhh...thats the nut of it. Who knows?? Who REALLY knows?? Turbo cars are such a wild card. Where classing a normal car can be a tricky bit of business, adding a turbo squares it.

Also, IT is NOT about Comp Adjustments....it is VERY hard to know if that one really fast car out there is even legal...or just well prepped and driven. Guaging even a bunch of examples of a certain model is tricky, at best.

It boils down to a fear of an overdog, which leads to a conservative classification.

Which leads to nobody racing one.

It&#39;s a tough deal, for sure.

[JoshS]

Ahhhhhhhhh...thats the nut of it. Who knows?? Who REALLY knows?? Turbo cars are such a wild card. Where classing a normal car can be a tricky bit of business, adding a turbo squares it.

Also, IT is NOT about Comp Adjustments....it is VERY hard to know if that one really fast car out there is even legal...or just well prepped and driven. Guaging even a bunch of examples of a certain model is tricky, at best.
[/b]
I understand. The good news for Porsches, BMWs, and probably a few other cars is that their owners club&#39;s have their own racing series, and more than a couple of cars have been prepped. Sure, they aren&#39;t prepped to any SCCA ruleset, but there is certainly tribal knowledge in those communities about these questions.

In theory therefore, these cars could be initially classed with consultation from people with that knowledge, especially if they don&#39;t have a vested interest (i.e., plan to race one of these cars themselves.) In other words, it&#39;s not a complete WAG, it&#39;s an educated guess.

Still, one has to class conservatively, which leads to the dilemma above. I just don&#39;t think that dilemma is a good enough reason to throw up our hands and say it shouldn&#39;t be done. That decision would only further contribute to the "graying of the SCCA."

I guess we could start with a simpler technology than turbos -- how about starting small, and allowing ABS in IT?

[Z3_GoCar]

Sure, anything is legal if you can fit it in the stock housing, don&#39;t add sensors, and don&#39;t modify wiring. I wasn&#39;t aware that you could get these systems to operate without those things (i.e., use completely stock sensors and wiring.)

If you can, sure, then there could be more power out of that 944T. But in reality, I think that&#39;s not likely to occur unless the turbocharged car in question has a flashable ECU from the factory (i.e., the computer would be the factory hardware with custom software, as opposed to a hardware replacement to a Motec/Electromotive/etc). I&#39;m guessing that the 944T doesn&#39;t have a flashable ECU.
[/b]

When you remove the cat, what do you do with 2nd (and 4th) ox sensor, basically the post cat sensor? there&#39;s an extra channel or two for data into a Motec type ecm that you could use for whatever, just add an extra bit of wire and plub in your new sensor/relay to activate anything you want. More likely the sensors you need are already there, and just turn it into a new actuator, how about a boost dump valve so you can keep the turbine spinning while going slow through the corner, no more turbo lag and a big advantage on everyone else. Except for the big whoosh you&#39;d get.

James

[Andy Bettencourt]

Almost like &#39;limited prep&#39; in IT in order to make these cars fit? No thanks.

ABS is a competitive advantage. Unless we can all add it, it doesn&#39;t make sense for the competitive balance.

I hear the issues, but there are plenty of cars that can keep IT fresh should people want to run them. We will never be NASA and NASA will never be the SCCA.

[JoshS]

I hear the issues, but there are plenty of cars that can keep IT fresh should people want to run them. We will never be NASA and NASA will never be the SCCA.[/b]

And with all due respect Andy, I say you&#39;re sticking your head in the sand.

Today&#39;s new cars running in SS and T will be IT-eligible in 5 years. That is, as long as they don&#39;t have ABS, turbos, AWD, traction control, etc. And at that point in time, in 2011, I&#39;ll wager there will be not a single new car that doesn&#39;t have ABS. So in 10 years, 2016, when the 2011 models would otherwise be IT-eligible ... will they still have to disable their ABS system in order to allow the cars that are 20 years older than them (the ones that didn&#39;t come with ABS from the factory) to be relevant?

As I mentioned in e-mail a couple of weeks ago, there are more than a few modern cars for which disconnecting the wheel speed sensors causes tons of problems with their braking systems. On a modern Mazda3 with ABS, if you disable the wheel speed sensors, under threshold braking the pedal goes totally hard and you get no brakes. I know, we tried last year on one of our cars. The ABS system sucks (cheap car) but it&#39;s just not driveable when you disable it. There are similar problems in the Lexus IS300, which is one of the proposed ITR cars.

The point is that the club has some time to formulate a plan, as, for the most part, right now you can successfully disable ABS on cars that are 5 years old. But there&#39;d better be a different approach to ABS and other modern technologies in a few year&#39;s time, or else the only cars that will be able to compete in IT will feel really old.

You know what? This has been enough thread hijacking, although I&#39;ve enjoyed the philosophical debate. Heck, I don&#39;t even have an IT car, nor do I live in the Northeast Division where this thread seems to be located. So, sorry about the diversion, I&#39;ll sit back and watch. There&#39;s a good chance you&#39;ll see me in ITR next season, we&#39;ll see!

[anthony1k]

To the best of my knowledge, the only way to achieve substantial gains in HP in turbocharged engines is by increasing boost. There are several ways to do this, all of which have one thing in common: the ECU must be reprogrammed in order to allow for the higher boost (overboost protection) and in order to enrich mixture. Running anything other that stock ECU&#39;s, in my opinion, will open the door to creative approaches to boost management that could result in small but critical power increases. In terms of a starting point for turbos in IT here is what I propose:
1. Stock ECU (critical)
2. Stock turbocharger (goes without saying)
3. Stock waist gate (not critical without 1 and 2)
4. Stock fuel injectors (insurance for 1,2,3)
5. Stock intercooler (can make only a small difference without 1-4)
6. Factory revs limiter (extra insurance)

In my car (944T) all of the above are easily detectable to the trained eye. The bottom line is that turbo boost must remain stock by any means. Competitive parity can be achieved via weight reduction when warranted.

One more comment regarding policing boost levels. Boost can only be achieved under load. Therefore to measure boost there are only two options, at least on older cars without sophisticated OBCD:
Option A - Hook up a boost gauge, drive around the track under full throttle and somehow capture the highest boost reading. Interesting idea but probably not practical.
Option B - Same as above but on a dynamometer. Not practical at the track but certainly practical at a suitably equipped shop. It sounds complicated but if it came to that I not sure how it is any worse that a motor teardown.

Look, I know that some of the things that we are discussing are outside the current norm of IT and require adjustment in terms of the spirit and the letter of the rules. Nothing stays still and I don&#39;t know why IT rules should. Shutting the door on turbocharged cars (and AWD&#39;s for that matter) because simply we don&#39;t want be bothered, is not a good way to be positioned for growth into the future.

[Eagle7]

When you remove the cat, what do you do with 2nd (and 4th) ox sensor, basically the post cat sensor? there&#39;s an extra channel or two for data into a Motec type ecm that you could use for whatever, just add an extra bit of wire and plub in your new sensor/relay to activate anything you want. More likely the sensors you need are already there, and just turn it into a new actuator, how about a boost dump valve so you can keep the turbine spinning while going slow through the corner, no more turbo lag and a big advantage on everyone else. Except for the big whoosh you&#39;d get.

James
[/b]
I can&#39;t see how that would be legal. Nothing allows you to add those sensors or actuators, even if you don&#39;t have to modify the harness to do so.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I guess I just see more worms here than most.

I don&#39;t buy that you can police an ECU by just looking at it. With open Intake and exhaust rules, turbo cars will gain power, PLENTY of power. I am just not currently in support of segmenting rules within IT. Not yet. Besides, I am betting that if you limit turbo guys boost, they won&#39;t get excited about the classification. The whole &#39;spend money to go slower&#39; thing.

Josh, I respect you (I am a Charter member of the Sirota family fan club), you know that but the issue is that you have to look at these allowances very carefully. If a turbo&#39;d AWD car won it&#39;s class in the first year (like in T2 in 2005), the sh!t would hit the fan. To me, that is a failure for all the other drivers in the class.

ABS - do you think we just allow it? Is there a penalty for it&#39;s use? In SS and Touring, the cars that are being run successfully all have it so the playing ground is psudo-level. IT is a different animal. Maybe it&#39;s allowed in just ITR for now where is it more common than not...then again I ask what the &#39;compensation&#39;s is for being allowed to run it.

It ain&#39;t about not wanting to be bothered. I am all for new blood and increased car counts - but this stuff is not easy. You have to take into account the people who were here first. Unlike SS, Touring or Solo Stock classes, new does not replace old in IT, we try and coexist.

Prove to me we can make it work and I will champion the fight.

[anthony1k]

I don&#39;t buy that you can police an ECU by just looking at it.[/b]
Almost all of rule policing is done by visual inspection. At least in my car one can tell the difference between stock and aftermarket KLR and DME chips fairly easily. If that fails, a multimeter and a few lines of instructions will get to the truth.


With open Intake and exhaust rules, turbo cars will gain power, PLENTY of power.[/b]
I respectfully disagree Andy. Stock intake and only open exhaust will result in insignificant power increases without more boost. Keep in mind that turbocharged cars tend to come with rather unrestrictive stock exhaust system..


I am betting that if you limit turbo guys boost, they won&#39;t get excited about the classification. The whole &#39;spend money to go slower&#39; thing. [/b]
How would a stock motor cost more money? What am I missing?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Almost all of rule policing is done by visual inspection. At least in my car one can tell the difference between stock and aftermarket KLR and DME chips fairly easily. If that fails, a multimeter and a few lines of instructions will get to the truth.[/b]

I misunderstood your comment. I thought you meant without opening it up. The problem is you ahve to protest to open someones case. And what about cars that accept a flash?


I respectfully disagree Andy. Stock intake and only open exhaust will result in insignificant power increases without more boost. Keep in mind that turbocharged cars tend to come with rather unrestrictive stock exhaust system..[/b]

When I say open intake, I mean air intake. Take a look at the IT rules. Open until the AFM/MAF, then open again until the TB. Open ECU, open exhaust. Try and make these fit using the existing rules.



How would a stock motor cost more money? What am I missing?
[/b] There are a few types of cars out there now. ITE cars that are too powerful for ITR (and would have to trasition backward to fit) or cars that aren&#39;t built yet. Still spending the money to prep but wion&#39;t be allowed the cool go-fast stuff...will they be satisfied?

Again, I am all for turbos, AWD, ABS - just tell me how to integrate it, using our rules and I will push forward.

AB

[Z3_GoCar]

I can&#39;t see how that would be legal. Nothing allows you to add those sensors or actuators, even if you don&#39;t have to modify the harness to do so.
[/b]

It&#39;s not legal; however, how do you detect it?? When was the last time that tech examined the bundle of snakes that is a modern wire harness? Not to mention that by eliminating systems like abs or traction control, and adding switches and gauges opens the door for further modifications.

James

[JoshS]

Okay, I&#39;m back in (thanks for the kind words Andy, I&#39;ll pass them on to the rest of the family!).

I agree, you can&#39;t say that boost is stock just because the ECU is stock. I&#39;ll tell you, in Touring we have the same ECU rules but we use the stock one, we just reflash it to get more boost. So visually it would pass the test.

So for turbos, you just have to allow the boost gains that come from open software, and class accordingly. Yes, that&#39;s hard, but no, it&#39;s not intractable. It&#39;s happening in Touring now, and it&#39;s happening in the Solo world too.

My opinion about what to do abotu ABS: I say just allow factory ABS (in ITR sure, in all IT classes, I say yes too.) Give a 50lb. weight penalty in your initial weight estimates if you think it&#39;s necessary, and adjust existing cars with ABS up 50lb too. You could have a grandfather strategy for cars with existing logbooks if you really wanted to. For cars where ABS is an option as opposed to standard equipment, assume all cars have the option. (Although ironically, in the Mazda3, the brakes are way better without the ABS option than with it.) BTW, I&#39;m not aware of any factory traction control systems that would be worth leaving enabled -- any driver would press the button on the dash to disable it that way, no need to disable by removing the wheel sensors. Aftermarket race-oriented traction control is another deal, but that should never be allowed.

[Bill Miller]

I agree that the ABS issue is something that needs to be revisted w.r.t. IT. As has been pointed out, some cars will not function properly w/ it disabled. Banning it was a stop-gap measure.

As far as turbo cars in IT, as has been pointed out, you&#39;d have to spec them based on the potential output. For example, a car that makes &#39;normal&#39; ITA hp in stock trim, would make close to the upper end of ITR trim w/ an IT tune (won&#39;t necessarily be cheap, but certainly can be done). The car that I&#39;m thinking of, is the 1.8T VW/Audi. The early cars came stock w/ 150 hp, and it&#39;s easy to get them north of 200 hp w/ a chip and an exhaust system, and that&#39;s while maintaining the ability to pass emission tests. Do a full-tilt IT prep on it, or crank up the boost some more, and 250hp is certainly possible. That&#39;s just one example, and one that has a reasonably low displacement, what happens when you start looking a larger displacement motors that may have bigger turbos?

[ulfelder]

This has been a great thread. To me, it looks like there&#39;s a bit of a disconnect between 2 guys I know and respect. Josh says, essentially (paraphrasing - correct me if I&#39;m wrong), SCCA needs a big-picture plan for integrating modern production-car technology into IT rules, or else the cars of today (and especially tomorrow) will be shut out and/or crippled.

Andy&#39;s response is much more granular, going straight to details surrounding enforcement ("Prove to me we can make it work and I will champion the fight," he writes).

I say you can combine these into one statement that points to an urgent mission for Club Racing. Here&#39;s the statement: Today&#39;s IT rules and, especially, real-world enforcement practices are insufficient to police technology that is becoming commonplace in cars that merit a home in IT. If SCCA fails to address this problem, racers who wish to develop these cars may opt to run with other organizations, weakening the club.

Steve U
05 ITS
Flatout Motorsports

[lateapex911]

I say you can combine these into one statement that points to an urgent mission for Club Racing. Here&#39;s the statement: Today&#39;s IT rules and, especially, real-world enforcement practices are insufficient to police technology that is becoming commonplace in cars that merit a home in IT. If SCCA fails to address this problem, racers who wish to develop these cars may opt to run with other organizations, weakening the club.

Steve U
05 ITS
Flatout Motorsports
[/b]

Steve, I&#39;d say thats a very accurate statement.

I think my role in this thread has been to try and highlight the difficuties that result form the incorpration of such technologies, and to try to brainstorm and elicit response. In those responses can come solutions, as well as more problems.

Your statement is a long standing belief of mine, yet the solutions aren&#39;t simple.

But your statement also has a flipside. Currently, my informal polling and "take" on IT is that it&#39;s one of the most popular categories in the club, and that participant approval is very high. I think that the ITACs "approval rating" (if there was an official thing, LOL) would be as good or better than that of most or all of the Ad Hoc commitees.

So, in manyways, IT is healthy and we need to know WHY it is and respect those reasons.

The solution to the issues is, in my mind:

-Evaluate the actual size and possible benefits of the "issues". In other words, if we allow turbo cars, can we keep the overall balance that exists, (A risk), and how many turbo cars will actually show up?? (the reward) If the analysis shows the risk is great, but the reward small, then it&#39;s not a good direction. However, if the risk can be managed without hurting the reward, then we should pursue the option. Assuming the reward is there, we:

-Create an effective ruleset that eliminates to the greatest degree possible, the need for difficult enforcement. Here we are our own enemy. Nobody protests in IT, for a variety of reasons. Which makes the tech department rusty. When called to action, it can get scary...so nobody protests. From a rules writing persective, we need to either change that, or write easily enforcable rules. The smart solution is to write easily enforcable rules, so:

Taking that as the immediate solution, we can see that ECUs are effectively unpolicable, so we&#39;ll have to class turbos as worst case scenarios...as Bill points out the 1.8 VW/Audi turbo motor is the Chevy 350 of the current genre..with more tricks than you can shake a stick at. The result is that, just like the rest of the cars, only full tilt efforts will be competitive. There is more "inside knowlege" required for the proper classification, so the ITAC will be forced to be conservative. But will people actually build such cars that weigh enough to keep them in line on the straights, and cripple them in the corners? (The ITR committee wrestled with this over the ITR V8 issue. Strong off the corners, but boats IN the corners was said by some to be the making of a bad racer)


That 50 pound ABS penalty suggestion was nearly exactly what I was thinking of, although I might make it a percentage of total weight...50 pounds to a 1900 pound car is a big deal, but it&#39;s nothing to a 3400 pound car.

[mlytle]

Today&#39;s new cars running in SS and T will be IT-eligible in 5 years. That is, as long as they don&#39;t have ABS, turbos, AWD, traction control, etc. And at that point in time, in 2011, I&#39;ll wager there will be not a single new car that doesn&#39;t have ABS. So in 10 years, 2016, when the 2011 models would otherwise be IT-eligible ... will they still have to disable their ABS system in order to allow the cars that are 20 years older than them (the ones that didn&#39;t come with ABS from the factory) to be relevant?

As I mentioned in e-mail a couple of weeks ago, there are more than a few modern cars for which disconnecting the wheel speed sensors causes tons of problems with their braking systems. On a modern Mazda3 with ABS, if you disable the wheel speed sensors, under threshold braking the pedal goes totally hard and you get no brakes. I know, we tried last year on one of our cars. The ABS system sucks (cheap car) but it&#39;s just not driveable when you disable it. There are similar problems in the Lexus IS300, which is one of the proposed ITR cars.
[/b]

what you have described is precisely the condition we have TODAY. it will be nothing new in 2016. in its you have 30 year old 240z&#39;s with drum rear brakes....and newer cars like acrua&#39;s and bmw&#39;s that have to be dumbed down to keep the older cars relevant. the issue here is at what point do we just accept that technology has moved on and stop trying to drag the older cars along as "competitive". obselesence is a tough thing to deal with.

on the mazda/lexus abs problem...can&#39;t you just take out the abs pump, sensors and anything else abs related to make the brakes work? that&#39;s legal. just disconnecting the sensors isn&#39;t enough. i don&#39;t see how the brake system wouldn&#39;t work without the abs system there at all. abs gone(not just disconnected), problem gone.

[JoshS]

on the mazda/lexus abs problem...can&#39;t you just take out the abs pump, sensors and anything else abs related to make the brakes work? that&#39;s legal.
[/b]
I didn&#39;t realize that was legal. I just re-read the book. You&#39;re right!

It doesn&#39;t sound cheap, and I don&#39;t know that it&#39;s 100% possible (these systems are electronic these days, tied into other systems in the car), but it&#39;s certainly an approach I hadn&#39;t considered. I still think it&#39;s more appropriate to find a way to allow these cars to keep their systems. Give a weight penalty if you must (2% to get around the concern a couple posts back?).

It&#39;s before my time in IT, but how did the addition of fuel injection to the IT ruleset work? I vaguely recall that once upon a time, fuel-injected cars had to replace their systems with carbs, right? Removing all of the ABS stuff (which is on almost every new car from the factory now) strikes me as similar to replacing fuel injection with carburators. Was the change to allowing stock fuel injection systems well-received?

[mlytle]

I didn&#39;t realize that was legal. I just re-read the book. You&#39;re right!

It doesn&#39;t sound cheap, and I don&#39;t know that it&#39;s 100% possible (these systems are electronic these days, tied into other systems in the car), but it&#39;s certainly an approach I hadn&#39;t considered. I still think it&#39;s more appropriate to find a way to allow these cars to keep their systems. Give a weight penalty if you must (2% to get around the concern a couple posts back?).

It&#39;s before my time in IT, but how did the addition of fuel injection to the IT ruleset work? I vaguely recall that once upon a time, fuel-injected cars had to replace their systems with carbs, right? Removing all of the ABS stuff (which is on almost every new car from the factory now) strikes me as similar to replacing fuel injection with carburators. Was the change to allowing stock fuel injection systems well-received?
[/b]

pulling the abs out is not hard or expensive. bmw e36&#39;s have been doing it for years. pull the old parts, put in some hard brake lines to bridge the gaps and add a legal pressure limit valve if need be for balance.

it is actually a little advantage to take it out. most abs systems are HEAVY and the weight is in the already heavy left front. pulling it is a great way to lighten the car.