ITR Competition [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

Doc Bro

08-09-2006, 10:17 AM

So I was curious about the ITR hooplah. Is ITR something that will pull drivers from A, B, C or is it designed primarily to inject parity into S and attract new unclassed cars?

I guess what I'm asking is:

1) Are any of the current guys (other than e36 ITS) considering ITR as the "place to be"?

2) Is this a class that has had a flood of cars waiting for a place to race, that will populate it from go?

3) I'm curious to know what guys who are at the top of their game (like Greg Amy) think of ITR. Is it new, uncharted territory (a stepping stone, or another rung to climb) or is it a whole other entity?

I'm not interested in arguing cars, only interested in people's opinions regarding ITR's position in the IT food chain.

R

zracre

08-09-2006, 10:33 AM

I dont think a huge amount of A drivers are going to jump ship for R but I'd bet more than a few S drivers would. I'm in A because of the cars and competition. I'm not saying I wouldn't build an R car but one never knows!

JeffYoung

08-09-2006, 10:35 AM

As one of the guys that wrote the proposal, I can say the intent was:

1. To get newer, higher hp cars classed in IT that will attract new members to the class.

2. To give the 325is a place to run unrestricted at less than its ITS process weight.

3. To give existing IT racers a place to run more modern (akin to no. 1 I suppose) models of their favorite makes.

Building an ITR car will not be cheap and may not be possible for a lot of IT guys. I for one am going to take a few years to do it, will start looking for a shell once everything is official. I do think some of the top race shops -- BW, Speedsource, Sunbelt, ISC etc. -- will turn out some top of hte line ITR cars fairly quickly.

But I bet next year, you'll see at lot of 325s and maybe a Prelude or two. By 2008 or 2009, I think you'll see more of the grassroots guys getting in, especially if the SN94/95 Mustang is classed.

Interesting times. Looking forward to seeing how it plays out. If I can score a Supra shell cheap, which is not likely, that is the car for me. If not, probably the 300ZX.

I love my TR8, but damn, I'm looking forward to 4-wheel disc brakes......

lateapex911

08-09-2006, 12:16 PM

Just in case you missed the comment O copied into the other thread from the SCCA site, here it is. It's from a non SCCA racer who currently races with the Porsche Club of America, and has a ITR candidate:

I'm planning on moving out of PCA and into ITR. I have to tell you, if it wasn't for the formation of ITR I would never consider moving to SCCA. My other option is NASA. Based on what I've learned, NASA is a far better venue, less politics, more models allowed, and the rules make more sense.

I'm not involved in SCCA yet and have always been told by former IT racers that the mindset is very closed, change is painful, and people spend more time bickering than racing. There's a reason NASA is growing at a very healthy pace - it's made up of a bunch of disgrunteled SCCA guys.

SCCA is doing the right thing in changing its image and forming new classes. For years there was no non-Marque challenge to SCCA. Now there is. Compition is a wonderfuil thing. SCCA needs to change its image and appeal to a broader, more open minded customer. They are doing just that and I applaud them.[/b]

HE is one of the ITR targets, along with lots of marque guys who are looking for more racing. Not to mention offering an alternative to NASA, et al.

I havea 944 S2 that I think would be a fun car....if they build the class, I might just come on over.

benspeed

08-09-2006, 12:32 PM

I have just moved over to SPO/GT1 and will likely stay with this car for 3 seasons - maybe more. BUT, ITR is something I will watch very closely. I loved racing in S but got sick of running a car that was 20 years old and regularly had mysterious problems, many related to just age.

If I can run a modern R car that will not have the same age related problems I'd be a candidate. (I'll wait to see what is the overdog and then buy one and hopefully get 2 seasons before Andy evens things up again) :lol:

Fastfred92

08-11-2006, 07:59 AM

We would love to hear the final word from SCCA !!! Have 1 very damaged e36 325 ITS car, and have 1 very gutted e36 318 headed for ITA...... Sure would love to be motivated by SCCA giving the big ITR OK so that all that nice 318 sheetmetal could resurrect the 325 into new life, complete with it's BMWCCA 17" wheels! Come on snake eyes !!!!

seckerich

08-11-2006, 08:52 AM

Waiting for the "second round" of classification process to come through--no rotary--no new car. ITAC don't fail us now. :P

Doc Bro

08-11-2006, 08:54 AM

I too am curious about the final word. I personally think it's a done deal...let's face it if the CRB doesn't green light this proposal then the SCCA is a dinosaur.

I'm soo curious to see where this thing goes.....spec e36 325?

R

JeffYoung

08-11-2006, 09:12 AM

It will be "spec" E36 next year until new cars get built. After that, the 325 better watch out. Some fast Japanese sixes will be nipping at its heels.

Steve, I hope to have the RX8 proposal done for review by you guys after Oak Tree National.

Z3_GoCar

08-11-2006, 10:55 AM

I'll throw mine in too.

So it won't quite be spec e-36, e-367 has sort of a Porsche sound to it, don't you think :P Besides, I thought you mustang guys were going to let your horses run wild B)

lateapex911

08-11-2006, 11:12 AM

Good to see such anxiousness!

The RX8...when is the first year of it's eligibility?? 07 or 08??

I don't think it will be "Spec" E36....I bet we see some Fowler Preludes, and a smattering of other stuff too.

Greg Amy

08-11-2006, 11:18 AM

I'm in A because of the cars and competition. [/b]
Amen, Evan.

ITA is popular because of the relative affordability of the cars along with intense competition. I don't see where the majority of my peers feel compelled to go faster and faster and buy a new car or feel lesser for driving in a 'slower' class. I certainly don't. Someone who does have that compulsion will never be satisfied.

I'm certainly no candidate for ITR. The cars buy-in are far too expensive and the prep costs will be incredible. I just don't have the priorities to blow that kinda money for a hobby (it's impossible to redeem what I'm doing now!). Hell, if ITB or C had some really cool more-recent cars and 25 entries per weekend I'd be looking there, not ITS or R.

I'd love to build and race one for the technical challenge, but not on my own dime. If you gots the desire (and the money) let me know...

Finally, I don't see much of any SCCA Club competition as a "stepping stone" to anything else. It's an end to itself. In my mind SCCA exists primarily as a hobby and a place to generate driving experience, nothing more, nothing less. Maybe in "the old days" it was expected that you'd race SCCA Club for a while to gain experience, but recent history has proven that in order to go pro racing you...write a check and go pro racing. If you really believe that someone with a successful history in SCCA competition and no checkbook will magically be whisked away by the Fairy Racing Godmother into a pro racing seat, well, all the old sayings about 'buying a bridge' apply...

I think ITR is a fine idea for those folks that want to race those particular cars, but I sincerely see no threat to the existing IT classes. I'd be damned surprised if even 10% of the ITR field turned out to be today's current ITA/B/C competitors. - GA

lateapex911

08-11-2006, 11:49 AM

I think ITR is a fine idea for those folks that want to race those particular cars, but I sincerely see no threat to the existing IT classes. I'd be damned surprised if even 10% of the ITR field turned out to be today's current ITA/B/C competitors. - GA
[/b]

Thats the hope Greg! We hope that it will provide an outlet for those who might be in current IT classes but in cars they feel are too old, got wrecked, or just don't fit the class...

But....we also hope it steals some interest and entries from marque clubs and other organizations who have newer offerings at this prep level.

And we hope that there is some pent up demand and we see guys jump in now that they see cars classed they want to race.

Initial feedback, like the post I quoted in another thread, shows that interest is coming from marque clubs, and letters we've gotten at ITAC world HQ show lots of "attaboys" from lots of different groups.

We hope it's a win win, where overall numbers are up. Of course, it's not going to field 25 car grids right from the start, but I think we are seeing solid IT numbers (more than any other category, considering the decrease in overall entries) for a reason. And thats because people like the prep level of the ruleset, the cost level, and they feel that there is better parity than ever. Hopefully that management philosophy will be seen in ITR as well.

Doc Bro

08-11-2006, 11:54 AM

Thanks for weighing in Greg. I have similar thoughts about it. For me personally, ITR would be easier than ITA because an ITR Z3 is more of a natural occurrence than an ITA one. Wheels, motor upgrades, etc. the 1.9l is one step above prototype (or dinosaur, or orphan, or a turd ) as most people know. The ITR Z3 uses a motor that is a known commodity. But the thought of competing in ITR comes with mixed emotions. I'm really curious to see where it goes and what the car counts will be. I do like the fact that at least on paper the playing field will be level. There should be no 200hp red egg flying around!!! :happy204:

R

zracre

08-11-2006, 12:09 PM

I see alot of Z32's running around...looks like a great platform and alot of fun! I miss my 300ZXTT alot...im sure the IT version would be an absolute hoot!

Knestis

08-11-2006, 12:41 PM

I'm thinking like Greg, that the only way ITR would touch us is if we stumbled onto the Rich Guy who would only go club racing in a [fill in image marque here] but needs someone to build and maintain a car for him. Or his kid. Or both. I passed the OPM convoy yesterday as they were headed to the Oak Tree Nat's at VIR and was reminded that's how this gig works.

I'd not really thought about it but I bet the proposition that most ITR entrants will come from other places is accurate (marque clubs, country clubs, new big-money leisure-seekers) - and largely NOT from existing IT fields. But I'm going to add that it might, through its timing and the current state of affairs, poach some of the more well-heeled folks out of Spec Miata. They've done their drivers schools and wadded up a car or two, and are still in mired mid-field. ITR would give them a chance, at least initially, to buy into the front of a high-profile grid.

K

JeffYoung

08-11-2006, 12:47 PM

I disagree to a certain extent with Greg. I think a lot of the guys in S are there because it is the "fastest" IT class. I certainly chose an S car primarily for that reason. It think initially ITR will hurt ITS, but in the long run, S will be much better off and hopefully like A is today in Florida and the Northeast. Lots of chassis with a chance to win, lots of good cars and drivers.

I'm not so sure that ITR has a much higher "minimum" buy in than S or A though either. You can find a junked Z32, or a Mustang (when those get in) for peanuts. I bet you could build a $10k ITR car. But, like a $10k ITS or ITA car, it ain't gonna win.

I also think that as B and C cars get retired over the next few years, some of those guys will look at R, S and A and make the jump to R.

So, yes, to a certain extent, I think R will draw from existing IT drivers (I plan on moving to R in a couple of years). But it is a necessity. The PCA guy who posted on the other thread sort of summed it up -- R is a clear example of the SCCA finally embracing newer cars and concepts, and doing so in a way to attract those who right now want nothing to do with the SCCA and the perception that it is a bunch of entrenched Spridget and formula car drivers who resist change to their benefit and the detriment of all others.

Fastfred92

08-11-2006, 02:51 PM

(marque clubs, country clubs, new big-money leisure-seekers) [/b]

Kirk, I think I resent that comment :D

JeffYoung

08-11-2006, 03:02 PM

Come on Fred, we all know you are a "big-money leisure seeker." :D

zracre

08-11-2006, 03:05 PM

Im a big money seeker for leisure B)

Fastfred92

08-11-2006, 03:16 PM

Let me correct you all, I am a big leisure money seeker, that is why NC now has the Powerball, just for me dammit !!!!

JeffYoung

08-11-2006, 03:17 PM

I am a heat seeker of leisure and pleasure.

Oh wait, there's got to be small money in there somewhere.....

Friday afternoon it definitely is.

Fred, you at VIR this weekend?

Fastfred92

08-11-2006, 03:56 PM

Fred, you at VIR this weekend?
[/b]

After the last lap of the Oak Tree Nat SSB race last year, I had Acura drivers making hostile overtones towards me, scared me so bad I sold my Nat car.... but the course workers were all grins and the PA announcer said the last 2 laps of that race were the best racing of the weekend...... Whats a couple busted bumpers, lights, and a muffler amongst friends ????

Hotshoe

08-11-2006, 05:30 PM

I think a lot of the guys in S are there because it is the "fastest" IT class. I certainly chose an S car primarily for that reason.
So, yes, to a certain extent, I think R will draw from existing IT drivers (I plan on moving to R in a couple of years). But it is a necessity.
[/b]

I agree with Jeff.

... Most guys want to run in the fastest class and I plan on joining them. Over the winter I will be finishing my T2 98 BMW Z3 in ITR trim (hopefully) Since some people seem to think that my 1st Gen RX7 is a has been ... (yeah right) I will run it while I'm sorting out the new ride.

... But my main reason for switching to ITR is because of the cars that are eligible. I have fallen in love with my BMW Z3 and I am looking forward to sliding it around Oak Tree in Improved Touring ......... Yeee Haw

... Rick Thompson

Doc Bro

08-13-2006, 07:26 PM

I don't understand why ITR will be so much more expensive than ITS or even ITA for that matter. Especially for me in a Z3. Could someone help me understand why this class will be sooo expensive. I mean I understand bigger tires but that is only 500 a season more (maybe?). Isn't everything all relative. Shoot you need 30K+ to run at the front of A or S why would R be so different? I guesss running an ITA Z3 has left me immune to the financial hardship argument.

R

Z3_GoCar

08-13-2006, 09:58 PM

Hey Rob,

I can only guess they base it on a combination of the donner cars cost and more breakage, as in harder on tires, brakes, and more expensive body panels. In reality any time someone develops and drives an orphaned or unusual car, the cost will be higher than what's considered normal. However, with my preparing to run BMW club, including the required full fire system and H&N harness, I've come to realize that just the cost to buy and prepare a car is actually only one facet of a much larger expense, including safety, spares, training, pit equiptment, and ect....

BTW, Rick welcome to the Z3 maffia :birra:
Do you know John Byrd? He's been successfully defending his STS-2 title aginst stiff Miata competition down in your neck-o-the-woods.

Jeff,
Big racing makes small money :P

hunter164

08-14-2006, 07:04 AM

I'm very excited about ITR. I picked up a former T2 z32 300zx over the winter and was just going to get my butt handed to me in ITE next season while having some fun with the car. Hopefully now Ill be able to have a little more fun and be a little more competitive in class for the 07 season. Can't wait.

Hotshoe

08-14-2006, 07:45 AM

BTW, Rick welcome to the Z3 mafia :birra:

[/b]

... Thanks James,

... I'm really looking forward to getting this beast out on the track. After driving Mazdas for the past twelve years it will seem good to get in a car that can induce throttle oversteer :023:

... I guess since I'm part Italian I will fit right in with the Mafia .... :lol:

... Maybe when the time gets closer I can get some suggestions from you on springs and shocks?

... Rick

Ron

08-14-2006, 08:04 AM

Tristan Smith

08-14-2006, 11:03 AM

I plan on continuing the T-Rex Racing tradition of campaigning a Nissan product. I'll hopefully start the build on a 300zx this winter. Gotta keep those red, white, and blue cars out there!

tnord

08-14-2006, 11:44 AM

depending on how life playes out over the next few years....

i would certainly consider ITR once the 06+ MX-5 is classed and the current pro-series cars become available.

rsx858

08-14-2006, 12:08 PM

By 2008-2009 im hoping to have my rsx type s on the track in ITR trim and since it has been my daily driver i already have goodies like LSD ECU etc :D

Ron Earp

08-14-2006, 12:38 PM

I am looking for a Mustang for the 08 season. We are just finishing a new ITB mustang, the old one is just too beat up. I will keep my eyes open for a NASA CMC mustang over the next year and if one comes up I will make the jump. We will see what happens.
[/b]

Im with you Ron, class one and I'll build it. Word is it is a dead duck though, too bad. I think I could have it ready for end of 2007 if classed.

Ron

JeffYoung

08-14-2006, 12:42 PM

gran racing

08-14-2006, 12:44 PM

I don't understand why ITR will be so much more expensive than ITS or even ITA for that matter. Especially for me in a Z3.[/b]

Especially for you is the key here. What's the cost for a replacement Z3 or S2000 (or many other ITR cars here) engine? What's the cost for a replacement ITA Integra engine. Then take into consideration body panels and the cost difference between many of the ITR / Z3ish cars. :)

The ITR class does sound pretty darn cool. Heck, I'd love to race a few of those cars!

Ron

08-14-2006, 07:53 PM

A good V-8 Mustang motor will run less than 6K, total. Including new rotating parts and a day on the motor dyno to set up. They better class it, heck class it in ITS with a SIR. And body panels, have you been to a junk yard, they are lined up. THats one of the reasons we picked a Mustang for ITB. If we crash at VIR I know I can find a junkyard an hour away and get almost any part I could need. I do't think that is the case with a Volvo.

Ron Earp

08-14-2006, 08:17 PM

A good V-8 Mustang motor will run less than 6K, total. Including new rotating parts and a day on the motor dyno to set up. They better class it, heck class it in ITS with a SIR. .
[/b]

It won't need an SIR for ITR trim, it runs through the process as is well. That tiny MAF for those two years will take care of that. The car won't be a class winner in IT trim - but, it will be fun, affordable, something I can build easily, cheap, and reliable. Racing one of these would be a lot more fun than getting your Jensen Healey motor rebuilt again, and I can rebuild a SB Ford myself.

zracre

08-14-2006, 08:38 PM

I dont think motor will be problem...brakes will go away with that much forward momentum like ITGT cars of yore...and getting them to turn in IT trim

Fastfred92

08-15-2006, 09:48 AM

I dont think motor will be problem...brakes will go away with that much forward momentum like ITGT cars of yore...and getting them to turn in IT trim
[/b]

Evan is right, brakes will be the factor for the Mustang! I have toyed with the idea of a late model 01-02 GT for T3 and everybody I talk to has said get used to running the last half of a 30 lap race without brakes :(

Ron Earp

08-15-2006, 09:55 AM

Evan is right, brakes will be the factor for the Mustang! I have toyed with the idea of a late model 01-02 GT for T3 and everybody I talk to has said get used to running the last half of a 30 lap race without brakes :(
[/b]

But T3 doesn't allow all the ducting etc. that one can do for IT brakes. Regardless, some folks will chose to run the car. All cars have strengths and weaknesses. Just one of those things factored in the car when classing it, or selecting it to drive.

R

zracre

08-15-2006, 10:12 AM

I have had the pleasure of being baulked at sebring by a few ITGT cars recently and years ago...mustangs and camaros (in the Z and the Teg) very frustrating for me and them...

Fastfred92

08-15-2006, 10:29 AM

But T3 doesn't allow all the ducting etc. that one can do for IT brakes. Regardless, some folks will chose to run the car. All cars have strengths and weaknesses. Just one of those things factored in the car when classing it, or selecting it to drive.

R
[/b]

Actually I think most touring spec lines for Mustangs ( T1, T2 or T3 ) allow some ducting or duct kit. In T3 now they are allowing the "Bullit" brake upgrades but still not enough. The part I dont understand is why a Ford or GM or whoever builds car that weigh alot and have decent HP but crappy brakes.... I guess that is one of the differences between them and say a Porsche..

Z3_GoCar

08-15-2006, 10:44 AM

Hey it's just history repating itself...
The adoption of hydrolic brakes "Juice brakes" went like Chrysler -> GM -> Ford.
Juice Brakes was a major hot-rod upgrade, Not sure of the year, but I think it was post war when Ford did adopt hydrolic brakes. On edit and second thought maybe more like '36.

seckerich

08-15-2006, 10:44 AM

Actually I think most touring spec lines for Mustangs ( T1, T2 or T3 ) allow some ducting or duct kit. In T3 now they are allowing the "Bullit" brake upgrades but still not enough. The part I dont understand is why a Ford or GM or whoever builds car that weigh alot and have decent HP but crappy brakes.... I guess that is one of the differences between them and say a Porsche..
[/b]
Simple answer to that question. As a supplier to most of the major auto makers I can tell you that Ford and GM will sell you crap to save a $ while foreign makers will sell the best product for a little more because they know what brand loyalty is. Too late for reality for the big 3 now.

zracre

08-15-2006, 10:53 AM

yes it is cheaper to make a gazillion mustangs with econo car brake parts saving a dollar on millions of cars adds up....if it looks good it will sell

DavidM

08-15-2006, 12:05 PM

Actually, I think it is highly likely the Mustangs will be in for 2008.

Tristan, no ugly red white and blue Zs! Green and yellow! Green and yellow! Team Things that Break!

I'll probably build a Z32 as well. If willing, let's share info, etc.

Jeff
[/b]

I wonder how much a built VG30DE is going to cost. They're fairly complex engines. Ain't gonna be fun working on these cars with no room in the engine compartment.

Anybody building a Z32 might want to call the guys at Z1 Motorsports. They're some good ol boys out in Carrolton, GA. They do a lot of engine work and have built some pretty bad ass Z32 motors (though mostly of the turbo'ed variety). Plus they have a huge graveyard of Z32s and parts. I went out to their place once. Pretty nice guys. www.z1motorsports.com.

David

Andy Bettencourt

08-15-2006, 12:15 PM

I think you will find a decent amount of knowledge on those motors within the GT world. There are a lot of GT2 cars powered by the 3.0L

Fastfred92

08-15-2006, 01:22 PM

As a supplier to most of the major auto makers [/b]

Damn Steve, you work? Who knew???? I just guessed you were on Mazda's payroll! :P

Just Kidding :D

CMurduff

08-15-2006, 02:23 PM

When we are talking about the mustang not officially on the list, we mean the 94-95 GT's. I also noticed the 99-04 V6 on there and I think it would be the faster car. Classed 480lbs lighter the earlier 5.0 cars, they have larger brakes on both ends and that version of the 3.8 had 193hp from the factory. The 7.5" axle should live at 240 hp with no problems (they did behind SVOs) and if I remenber correctly are 35-40 lbs lighter than the 8.8 for less unsprung weight. A quick web search turned up full length headers, aluminum pulleys and radiators, watts links, various ring and pinions (for $150.00), spools, lockers and tons of $20 body panels, factory 16X7.5" wheels if 17's are too pricey and several rust free $1000.00 shells. You can literally build a complete rear axle assembly with new pads, rotors, gear and locker for less than a Porsche ring and pinion. I couldn't fathom a guess at how competitive it would be but the V6 Mustang would certainly be the best bang for the buck in the class and be a car to bring in younger drivers.

Tristan Smith

08-15-2006, 02:26 PM

I think you will find a decent amount of knowledge on those motors within the GT world. There are a lot of GT2 cars powered by the 3.0L
[/b]

Really? I thought in GT2 all the Nissans had to run the straight sixes. I didn't think the v6 was allowed.

zchris

08-15-2006, 03:42 PM

JeffYoung

08-15-2006, 03:51 PM

I thought the Z32 was a very good SSA car? Did the motor have problems in that application or was it just higher hp versions that did?

dj10

08-15-2006, 04:13 PM

Ron Earp

08-15-2006, 04:43 PM

Just be ready to replace all the parts mentioned after every race. :D
[/b]

I doubt it'll need replacing after every race. Last at least two!

Seriously, I too think the V6 SOHC might be an okay race car. The 7.5" can take the punishment, no problem. And the amount of gears, LSDs, lockers, etc. available for cheap $ boggles the mind. Transmission is stout in those cars, but I have not done much engine research on the V6, but I will. Shocks, struts, etc. can be had for pennies and are good aftermarket bits too. It won't break much I don't think if the motor will last. Might be a runner!

Ron

gran racing

08-15-2006, 05:33 PM

With the new ITR class, are there any accomodations (or rather exceptions) to the standard IT rules?

One car I'd love to race is the Honda S2000, but within IT rules, the anti-lock brakes need to be disabled. With this car, this causes bigger issues than just having the brakes not lock-up. Out of curosity I spoke with a few other people who race the car (in other classes and sanctioning bodies). With the rules they run, they are allowed to keep the anti-lock brakes but quickly commented that if they were not, there would be some bigger issues. Unfortunately I'm not going to be racing an S2000 anytime soon, but was wondering...

JoshS

08-15-2006, 05:48 PM

I asked the same question and was told that the approach to cars like this is to plumb the brake lines around the ABS system. In other words, fully remove it, don't just disable the electronics.

I personally think ABS should be allowed across the board, but hey, that's just me :-)

lateapex911

08-15-2006, 06:04 PM

I personally feel that it removes a significant bit of driver talent from the equation, but thats just me.

On the other hand, I can see how the ABS removal requirement could be an inpediment in the gathering of entries. In other words, there might be a part of the population that has major issues overcoming the removal of ABS, and the rulesets insistance on it's removal could be a hurdle too great for them.

One of the attractions, to my eye, of IT, is the ruleset. Like the Goldilocks bear story, not too little, not too much, just right. So having to reengineer brake systems to acheive the ABS removal requirement does leave a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.

SO..........

Blue sky thinking...IF there was an allowance to leave ABS in as an option, how would we go about it to make it fair for everyone??

I have some ideas, but I'd like to hear what others think.

JeffYoung

08-15-2006, 06:10 PM

I STRONGLY feel this is path we should not and cannot go down. We'll end up debating endless allowances for this car or that.

Before we even start, let me ask this - what insurmountable issue does the S2000 face with the ABS disconnected? Is it truly insurmountable, or is it just difficult and expensive to do?

If difficult and expensive, then S2000 drivers need to suck it up unfortunately. Changing the rules just for their car is far more dangerous from a global perspective.

Ron Earp

08-15-2006, 06:23 PM

Bad move.

It isn't a problem to simply bypass the ABS controller and come straight from the master to the calipers like we do now. Some cars might show an ABS light, some might not. The brakes will work though, and that is what counts. Sure, some will be more complicated than others (just like some engines are, some trannys are, some axles are) but that is the way it is.

R

Z3_GoCar

08-15-2006, 06:26 PM

Well Jeff,

Where in the rules does it allow someone to replumb the brake system to remove the ABS drive system. I guess it's the valve that controls the ABS system that's the problem. With the Z3, the stock ecm detect's the absence of the wheel sensor and goes into limp mode, the only way around is to remove the ABS relay. So in a sense I'm rewiring to remove the ABS system, where's this allowed in the rules? WC/Grand Am uses a 50lb penelty for a working ABS system. Might this be an option?

JeffYoung

08-15-2006, 06:49 PM

James, can't the ECU be corrected to fix that?? ECU is open now. Again, expensive, and maybe difficult, but fixable.

Guys, we truly cannot go down the road of 50 lbs for this, 100 lbs for that, and allowances for this and allowances for that. That's what has killed production, and what guys like Kirk feared would creep into ITR with the changes under the guise of "efficiency" or "common sense."

Part of the deal when you buy into the IT concept is you buy into the rule set that allows few if any allowances for particular cars.

If the problem is not insurmountable, then get to work.

Z3_GoCar

08-15-2006, 07:06 PM

Jeff,

Exactly. However, that's one of the unanticipated benifits of the ECU rule, which was put in place to obstensably replace ECU's that are tuning resistant.

So, in the end say a car comes around where removing the engine ecu doesn't just affect the ABS, say the ABS, traction control, and even a dynimic stability control all conspire to mean a complete rewire is required to remove the multi-headed hydra. Do we:

-A- Allow these systems unmodified

-B- Allow the complete removal of these systems and the required wireing

-C- Unclass this car as not suitable to the IT philosophy

Part of the issue with dynamic braking systems is that they have the ability to affect the brake balance on a wheel by wheel basis, when tied into the ABS system the brakes are ultimately not controled by the driver but by the computer, and when the conputer is removed from the loop as with an ECU transplant, then there's no telling how individual systems may respond based on their unique propritary means of accomplishing the same task. Also, say this car now has a significant following before we realize that a problem exists so that unclassing the car will result in a significant up-roar and -C- becomes a much harder propisition.

JeffYoung

08-15-2006, 07:14 PM

Ron Earp

08-15-2006, 07:59 PM

Use a stand alone ECU - Motec, Wolf, MegaSquirt, etc. and it won't be an issue. In fact.....open ECU, you can use those sensors for ABS for some good infomation and data collection.

It's fixable, but it might not be as easy as ordering a Jim confetti Shark Injector (but don't think this will put you upfront for BMW IT prep against the standalone route). Once you have your stand alone ECU not listening to signals from the non-existant/disconnected ABS or wheel sensors you should be just fine. Hydraulics are still going to work on the physical principles they are founded upon.

Allowing ABS would open up a huge can of worms. There are more than a few ITR cars with no ABS, and, I've no idea what one could do WITH ABS and an open ECU rule. I imagine lots of advantageous traction control, selective wheel braking, etc. I know some of the cars do that now, but I imagine with the "racers touch and tuning" these systems would actually be helpful to quick lap times, not a hinderance as they seem to be on most track tests.

Ron

Z3_GoCar

08-15-2006, 09:08 PM

James, you and I usually agree, but I just don't see the issue here.

Brake circuitry is free. That means you can replumb the entire braking system (I have). Is it fun? No. Is it time consuming? Yes.

ECU is free. This means you can get rid of any issues the various sensors you mention cause, with the appropriate amount of time and money invested in the same.

No need to remove the wiring. Plenty of cars out there still have the stock harness in the car with a rewire running along side it.

In short, there are ways to take the DSC, the traction control and the ABS completely out of the picture. If you chose to run a car that has these features, factor the cost of doing so into your build -- just like the 240Z guys (and me) factor all kinds of duct fabrication into their brake costs, or the RX7 guys factor lots of radiator/grill/spoiler work to keep the car cool, etc.

Them's the rules, in my view. These problems are fixable, they just take time and money. It is far safer from a global rules perspective to disallow one or two "allowances" than deal with the impact -- a never ending battle to get allowances by all cars -- of allowing them in the first place.
[/b]

Hey Jeff,

I'm just bringing it up because... I see it as a possible mine field, no matter what direction is taken. Also, this kind of technology is increasingly integrated and intrusive to other systems in the car. Let's take this further than the current cars classed here. How do we deal with ABS/Traction Control/DSC when the controls become fully drive by wire, or even by fiber optic cable? The first step is already upon us with the classing of the BMW 330i and it's electric throttle, and in future years active steering. It's perfectly feasable to have an electric brake pedal input a signal into the computer to operate the brake system, prevent lock-up and keep the car dynamically stable with out using hydraulics, there are also packaging advatages, as well as the current wisdom that electronic systems are more reliable and faster acting than mechanical, and it'll remove the pedal buzz that some find distracting. I also agree that each car shouldn't have it's own set of rules, but in my mind the real down fall to the Production class is that it caters to one set of cars, built over a short time from the 60's to the mid 70's at the expense of multiple generations of cars. My concern is that we may be wittnessing the last generation of cars to be classed in IT unless we take a proactive stance at how street cars become race cars and understand what kinds of compromises are made in that transition. A rule that says simple remove the wheel sensors to disable the ABS system just doesn't cut it in my book. If we can make that transition as KISS as possible, I think we all agree is the best.

JoshS

08-15-2006, 09:37 PM

Use a stand alone ECU - Motec, Wolf, MegaSquirt, etc. and it won't be an issue. In fact.....open ECU, you can use those sensors for ABS for some good infomation and data collection. [/b]
Except that wouldn't be legal -- cars with ABS and traction control "shall" disconnect the wheel sensors in order to disable those systems.

Allowing ABS would open up a huge can of worms. There are more than a few ITR cars with no ABS, and, I've no idea what one could do WITH ABS and an open ECU rule. I imagine lots of advantageous traction control, selective wheel braking, etc. I know some of the cars do that now, but I imagine with the "racers touch and tuning" these systems would actually be helpful to quick lap times, not a hinderance as they seem to be on most track tests. [/b]
I can point to Touring, and say that most of those cars have ABS, traction control, and the same ECU rules as IT, and even with the huge budgets and factory support, I don't see anyone doing that sort of customization.

I will also say that lots of people in SS and T believe that their factory ABS is actually a hindrance rather than a help, and would happily disable it if it if there were a legal way to that (in those classes, you cannot replace the plumbing) or futz with the sensors. When we were running our Mazda3s in SSC, we would have loved to disable the ABS on the one car we had that came with the option. It was terrible. The non-ABS cars had fabulous, consistent brakes.

dickita15

08-16-2006, 04:47 AM

ABS is an issue that is going to be more of a problem in all the IT classes as we go forward in classing more cars. The conversation so far has been focused on fully prepped cars, but we need to remember this is a class that is designed to be entry level. Lots of drivers add the safety gear and a few performance modifications and ease into racing. Making some one replumb the brake system and replace the ECU is a barrier to entry that I really do not think we want in IT.
I would like to explore a way that a car with the ABS unmodified can race but that would not allow it to be an huge advantage. Maybe that means a weight penalty, heck may be they have to race on space saver spares. If we can come up with some way to do this we will lower the difficulty to get started and encourage crossover for the marque clubs.

erlrich

08-16-2006, 06:09 AM

Use a stand alone ECU - Motec, Wolf, MegaSquirt, etc. and it won't be an issue. In fact.....open ECU, you can use those sensors for ABS for some good infomation and data collection.
Ron [/b] Hey guys, did I sleep through class again? I missed the part where they made ECUs open, can someone enlighten me?

Thanks.

Ron Earp

08-16-2006, 06:23 AM

Doc Bro

08-16-2006, 06:53 AM

Interestingly,
What we've done on the Z3 1.9 is the following:

Disconnect the ABS pump and remove it from the car, replumb lines from master cylinder to factory distribution block. (you've got to otherwise you cannot cycle the ABS pump to bleed the brakes)(MUSH PEDAL)
Remove all wheel seped sensors EXCEPT RR which is hard wired to ECU (from factory). Without it car won't rev over 5G's.

....legal....no....works...yes....rulebook accurate for a new car.....no....

"the times they are a changin"......we better get used to it

The automakers are progressing much faster than the rulebook. 5yrs post-production is not that much time for a ruleset to evolve.

.02

R

gran racing

08-16-2006, 06:54 AM

Earl, they're open as long as you can stuff it inside of the OEM ECU box. :rolleyes: So, its not really open otherwise I'd be using a relatively inexpensive piggy back system.

zracre

08-16-2006, 07:24 AM

Actually the gt2 guys use the VQ30 that is out of the 95 up maxima. A very different engine from the vg30 in the z32. There were several shops that tried to get the 4 valve vg30 to survive in a race enviroment and could not. They work for drag guys that only rev for short periods of time. Something about the blocks have to much flex for extended periods of high rpm. It will be interesting to see how they survive in ITR trim. It will be a very expensive car to build and maintain.
Chris
[/b]

the vg30de bottom end is overbuilt to handle the lower compression and turbos of the vg30det. So essentially building a .040 over NA motor you will never really exceed the motors capabilities. I have rebuilt a few when I worked at the dealer (they suck up water very easy) and was very impressed with them.

Greg Amy

08-16-2006, 07:46 AM

...we need to remember this is a class that is designed to be entry level...[/b]

Dick, might I throw a grenade into the middle of this circle of love? With the types of cars we're talking about here in the proposed ITR (look at the cars listed; show me an entry-level "economy" car) we're WAY beyond the concept of low-budget entry-level stuff...

That list of cars reflects the pinnacle of modern automotive technology. Very few of these cars (if any) were ever intended to be entry-level, economy, budget-conscious purchases. Regardless of the fact they may be able to be picked up in today's used market at a "low" price, these are high-tech, complicated, engineering-intensive automobiles that will require specialized skills and tools to troubleshoot, repair, deisgn, upgrade, and modify. This ain't no Spec Miata-bolt-on-the-parts-and-go type of class. No amount of lowball purchase price can get around that.

The sooner we let go of that mindset, the sooner we can advance on the process. - GA

dj10

08-16-2006, 08:00 AM

erlrich

08-16-2006, 08:17 AM

Earl, they're open as long as you can stuff it inside of the OEM ECU box. :rolleyes: So, its not really open otherwise I'd be using a relatively inexpensive piggy back system. [/b] Thanks Dave - that's how I understood it. When I saw Ron's comment about using a stand alone ECU I thought maybe I had missed the memo. Wouldn't be the first time.

x-ring

08-16-2006, 08:22 AM

... the only way around is to remove the ABS relay. So in a sense I'm rewiring to remove the ABS system, where's this allowed in the rules?
[/b]

17.1.4.D.6.c

"Components that perform no other function than to assist in the activation of the ABS portion of the brake system may be removed."

Knestis

08-16-2006, 08:31 AM

It's been two years since I made a pitch for leaving ABS installed and operative. I still think that it's something that needs to be considered.

K

Fastfred92

08-16-2006, 08:43 AM

With my background in showroom stock racing I can tell you that ABS is not what you want! Street ABS systems are not set up ( for the most part ) for the track and will do some bizarre things when you least expect it. Ditch the ABS unless you happen to own a Porsche GT3 Cup car.......

lateapex911

08-16-2006, 09:24 AM

......With the types of cars we're talking about here in the proposed ITR (look at the cars listed; show me an entry-level "economy" car) we're WAY beyond the concept of low-budget entry-level stuff...

The sooner we let go of that mindset, the sooner we can advance on the process. - GA
[/b]

Good point Greg, but I think that t while this train of discussion started in the ITR forum, it's not really limited to ITR. I bet Dick was talking categorically when he made his comment. Even in ITR, there is a reasonable chance that there will be those who, for lack of time, money and expertise, will struggle with the ABS aspect.

But in the larger picture, and down the road, this is something that will challenge us increasingly. Common garden variety cars that we'd love to class in ITA and ITB (even!) will possibly carry some interesting systems that involve ABS and more.

Actually, I wish the problems were going to continue to be as simple as very difficult to work around ABS systems.

Dick, I LIKE your thinking! SPace saver spares! That's great...except in the rain!

Just to stir the pot further, some random thoughts/solutions:

- Allow ABS but cars must run an additional ballast of 2.5% of their spec weight .
- Do FWD cars run a higher or lesser percentage?
- What about rain? Is there a rain race addition to the weight penalty? How do you define "wet"? ;)
- ABS equipped cars run rims 1" narrower than allowed for that class.
- Where ABS is linked to traction control systems, add 5% of spec weight.
- Continue the ban, reminding them that there are other choices in cars, and even classes or categories they can run in. (Or clubs?)

OK, some of those are silly, but they highlight possible issues.

Knestis

08-16-2006, 10:02 AM

See, Jake - suggestions (e.g., 2.5%) pretty much always move forward from the proposition that ABS is BETTER than no ABS. As Fred points out, it is not, since it's not optimized for racing conditions, pads, etc. Jeremy Lucas explained in a conversation back then that besting the ABS standard with one's foot was at that time a test to get into the Honda R&D racing club, or some such...

I simply argue that it's probably better for the category to not put garage mechanics in charge of trying to re-engineer something that complex, if they don't want to.

Yes - ABS will be of value for some (possibly large) portion of drivers in the rain. It still seems to me that the primary objection is that it "limits the skill required." It does, but evidence suggests that it limits it to a benchmark LOWER than someone with really mad braking skilz can achieve without the computer intervening.

Call it a wash, over a large number of samples and conditions, and on we go...

K

Z3_GoCar

08-16-2006, 10:18 AM

I agree Kirk,

It should be something like:

"ABS may be used if it remains unmodifyed from the factory; however, disconnecting or removal is allowed and encouraged. Removal of of all components associated with the ABS system is permitted."

And forget about a weight penelty. I suspect that most of the guys running ABS will be newbie's with barely modifyed cars just getting started. One guy at my Super School had a car with a cage, classed in ITS. He'd just caged it, I doubt he'd removed any ABS parts. His would have been an old-school style IT car with the head liner and everything. So we really want to chase these guys away now that ABS is so universal that even Hundai's come with it standard?

James

Fastfred92

08-16-2006, 11:42 AM

Back to the Mustang for a moment, 1) Do all the 99-04 V6 cars have ABS standard and 2)have you guys ever noticed where the plastic fuel tank is located on these cars???

Eagle7

08-16-2006, 11:59 AM

Yep, you were sleeping. :-)

They've been open as long as I've been involved with IT, not long, since about 2004. I think it had just passed a little before then or around that time.

And you can collect data from the ECU - the high end data acquistion systems do just that, but I was wrong about the wheel sensors and collecting from them.

Ron
[/b]
Um, as someone noted, "open" in this case means using an unmodified stock harness and only modifying the internal parts of a stock ECU case.

Since it also prohibits the connection of an external "computer" etc. to the ECU, how does that data get "acquired"?

I think an example of what I think you can't do would be helpful. I've got an aftermarket ECU in my car. It has a computer connector that does not protrude though the stock ECU case (so I have to open the case to connect a computer). I've also got an aftermarket wideband O2 sensor air/fuel ratio gauge that I connect to the ECU (also through the open case) for tuning - it's only used for logging, not for closed-loop control. I'd love to leave that WBO2 connected to the ECU and log the ECU data from my sessions to a Palm Pilot or computer, but don't see how it could be legal.

Ron Earp

08-16-2006, 12:18 PM

Um, as someone noted, "open" in this case means using an unmodified stock harness and only modifying the internal parts of a stock ECU case.

Since it also prohibits the connection of an external "computer" etc. to the ECU, how does that data get "acquired"?
but don't see how it could be legal.
[/b]

Well, not sure since I've not done it. But, SM drivers log lots of data (some really cool in car with every engine vital displayed in real time) and I assume they do it through the OBD port (whatever flavor since OBD wasn't a standard in those days) or OBD-II port. I know I get anything I want from my OBD-II port on my Lightning and it has been the same since 1999. Some of these cars will undoubtedly have a similar format. So, I imagine you can use your fancy GPS logger to pull data from the service port. Now, if you are using a stand alone ECU I suppose that won't work any more so not sure.

I'm aware that the stock box has to be used, but, there is plenty of room in most stock boxes for stand alone ECUs. A MegaSquirt can be quite small, and, MoTecs are small when taken out of their case, as is the Wolf unit.

All things to be overcome by the determined racer I suppose.

R

dickita15

08-16-2006, 04:51 PM

With the types of cars we're talking about here in the proposed ITR (look at the cars listed; show me an entry-level "economy" car) we're WAY beyond the concept of low-budget entry-level stuff...
[/b]
Greg as Jake said I am talking about allof IT and not just ITR, but even in ITR we will see people who are SCCA racing for the first time. One of the discussion points with ITR is these are the cars running track days now, lets give them a place to race.
I do think that replumbing the entire brake system is a barrier to a novice thinking about SCCA racing.

JeffYoung

08-16-2006, 05:07 PM

Hell, I can do it, and I'm an idiot (replumb the braking system).

I do agree that dealing with the sensors and the ecu could be an issue. And Kirk's point (and Dick's) about finding a way to allow ABS in IT is worth considering.

But I do think it is a huge can of worms we don't want to touch. Replumbing brake lines and removing sensors, and using an aftermarket ECU is no harder than 99% of what we do these cars anyway. If you don't want to do that type of work, select a car that has an easily removable ABS system.

mlytle

08-16-2006, 09:04 PM

Hell, I can do it, and I'm an idiot (replumb the braking system).

But I do think it is a huge can of worms we don't want to touch. Replumbing brake lines and removing sensors, and using an aftermarket ECU is no harder than 99% of what we do these cars anyway. If you don't want to do that type of work, select a car that has an easily removable ABS system.
[/b]
ditto. i am an idiot and i have sucessfully plumbed around the abs pump. you do not have to "replumb the entire system"!!!! this ain't rocket science.

whatever it's original intent, improved touring is way beyond "entry level". if someone wants entry level, then srx7 or sm is what they are looking for. if the concept of doing basic brake work is a barrier to someone entering it, then they need to find a different hobby...of get a better job and pay someone to do the car prep work.

dickita15

08-17-2006, 04:09 AM

whatever it's original intent, improved touring is way beyond "entry level". if someone wants entry level, then srx7 or sm is what they are looking for. if the concept of doing basic brake work is a barrier to someone entering it, then they need to find a different hobby...of get a better job and pay someone to do the car prep work.
[/b]
Wow I can’t believe you actually want that statement to come of as arrogant as it sounds. Maybe the air is a little thin at the front of the grid but if course IT is entry level and not everyone who tries IT racing is doing a $20,000 development effort. By the way SRx7 is only a class in a small part of the country. Are you saying everyone should start in Miata before they drive a “real” racecar?

In order to grow SCCA and IT racing we need to allow drivers to ease into this sport as much as possible. I have no problem with making it so there is a penalty that would prevent ABS cars from being at the front of the grid. New people are not expecting to win. There are tons of cars doing track days and Marque club event that are nervous about wheel to wheel racing and this attitude just makes us more intimidating.

Go back and read Dave Gran’s book and try to get into the mindset of a new person and then tell me redoing you brake system is no big deal.

Greg Amy

08-17-2006, 06:07 AM

"Entry Level" implies to me that there's something specific about a class/category that makes it:

- cheaper,
- easier,
- and/or faster

...for someone with lesser experience to "get involved" as compared to all other classes, as opposed to "be competitive". That's not really the case with Improved Touring (any more?) Question: what makes IT moreso "entry level" than, say:

- Showroom Stock
- Spec Miata
- Touring
- Formula Vee
- Formula 500
- Formula Ford

Is there some other definition of "entry level" that makes IT stick out compared to the others? In actuality, the thing that seems to pigeon-hole the category into this entry level mindset is the fact that it's a Regional class; well, all the ones I listed above are also Regional classes too, just not "-only"...that, coupled to the fact that "this is the way it's always been".

For someone coming in with no preconceived notions, there's really nothing that makes IT stick out as more entry level than pretty much any other category; if you take out the "expense" part of it then ALL categories are "entry level" (yup, even Formula Continental and GT-1; there's nothing to keep a newbie from showing up at a school with a brandy new $100K formula car...). In point of fact, the classes that MLYTLE mentioned, Spec Miata especially, are far more attrtactive to the inexperienced driver in terms of minimum requirements to compete and ablity to have a competitive car.

ITR just pulls this even farther out of the mainstream ideals.

Note: not an intended slight of ITR in any way, simply a way of opening minds. We've stuck ourselves in this pigeon hole that doesn't really exist (any more?)

dickita15

08-17-2006, 06:31 AM

Greg,
Entry level implies to me that it is a class that is likely to attract first time racers. What makes IT an entry level class is that a large number of people look at IT as a place to run the car they like or already own. IT is easy to get into relative to much other racing. I can take this car I like/own install safety equipment and a few performance upgrades and try this racing thing.

IT is not a class that one can bolt on a few parts and win but it is one where you can bolt on a few pieces and race. I am not suggesting that we should make it easy to win but there are lots of guys racing with no chance to win having fun and learning how to race. Without these guys we would have some pretty small grids.

As to the other classes you suggest, come on, first of all we are talking door slammers, so forget the formula classes. Touring and showroom stock are pretty new cars with a finite lifespan and no ability to modify. Most of the track day cars out there are already way beyond the prep allowed here. You are also limited to a pretty small choice of cars. So again do you think everyone should start in a freaking Miata?

You sound like a friggen prod driver. “If you don’t want to go thru the effort to build a real race car go race somewhere else.”

gran racing

08-17-2006, 07:08 AM

I am not suggesting that we should make it easy to win but there are lots of guys racing with no chance to win having fun and learning how to race. [/b]

Exactly Dick!

Greg, it wasn't so long ago that you were racing in ITS and I was racing in ITA.

if the concept of doing basic brake work is a barrier to someone entering it, then they need to find a different hobby...of get a better job and pay someone to do the car prep work.[/b]

You're kidding, right? Maybe the process of replumbing an ABS system is simple and "basic brake work" but it doesn't sound so simple to me. I suppose I now need to find a different hobby. :rolleyes:

I'm not saying that I don't have mixed feelings about allowing cars with ABS race, but looking long term it will be something that IT needs to take a close look at. And guys, don't forget that SCCA isn't the only game in town. People can already race many of these ITR cars with NASA and keep the ABS intact. "ABS systems maybe disabled, removed or relocated." One less barrier to entry people need to worry about.

Greg Amy

08-17-2006, 07:38 AM

“If you don’t want to go thru the effort to build a real race car go race somewhere else.”[/b]

That's totally not what I'm saying, Dick. What I'm saying is, "it may appear that you can just bolt on a few items and go racing, but in the end it just ain't that simple."

Show me one car out there that has done nothing but 'bolt on a few (safety) pieces and raced'. Name one person whose entire goal for going racing is to simply show up and not worry about being competitive. If "entry-level" is defined by perception rather than reality, with that perception being "I just wanna go out there and not worry about racing" then fine, I agree with you; yet any class can be looked at that way. But if reality rules, as it usually does, then it's a terrible disservice to make new folks believe there is such a thing. C'mon and go race - absolutely! - but don't carry any preconceived notions of what's going to happen.

As for limited lifespans of cars, doesn't the term "entry level" imply it's nothing but a stepping stone to something else? If so, who cares about limited life span? No ability to modify? How is that any different than not modifying where you can? Hell, given that I'd consider it a BENEFIT for someone starting out to do so in a class that allows minimal mods.

No, I don't think "everyone should start in a freaking Miata", but when someone asks me which door-slammer class SCCA offers that requires a minimum of outlay to build a prepared car, reaonably robust, and has a reasonable chance of being competitive with a minimum of financial outlay, I suggest to them Spec Miata. (I also caution them to be prepared to do bodywork.) Throw in there the ability to race potentially three classes per weekend and Spec Miata is a damn tough value to beat for the newbie (or the oldie!).

The basic problem is that everyone has a different "reality" of what entry-level is. Ergo, there is no such thing as "entry level" within SCCA. Taken to its idiot opposite extreme SCCA Club Racing IS entry-level in every way imaginable.

Or it's not.

But to claim that Improved Touring is more or less "entry level" than any other SCCA class is, in my opinion, disingenuous. - GA

zracre

08-17-2006, 07:49 AM

ok everytime a noob shows up at our silly little piece of the universe what do we tell them? Its cheaper to buy a car already built (and it always is) than it is to build your first race car. Get license and enjoy said car. When you have been in the neighborhood a while and see how things work build a car, change classes or do what ever you want...IT is entry level to people starting out as it is the most appealing financially (spec miata no more). It has relatively simple rules to get in to common cheap cars for most classes (if a noob goes straight to ITR then they can afford to pay someone to do stuff). now to win in IT is another story. It cost money and experience which can only be gained by doing time in the sport.
ABS can be disabled by pulling a fuse or a sensor or unplugging the abs ecu...or if it is a full time race car, replumb it. I have to agree with GA and Mlytle some of this stuff is not for entry level people in IT...but if you want to race and do it on a budget, race a cheap car to get time. an entry level one. not an SIR equipped ABS disabled BMW 325...maybe a used IT7 car/SM/ITA CRX/insert 5k-7.5k car here...or a 2.5k GTI as many have...

Andy Bettencourt

08-17-2006, 08:13 AM

To me, the entry level part of IT is that you can build up your car slow. You can progress as a driver along with the progression of your car. In SM, your car has to be 100% built in order to comply with the rules. In SS or Touring you have to outlay big money to play as the cars are so new.
The rule set in IT is pretty cool too, once you look at the limitations of SM, SS and Touring and keep in mind what you need to do to have a competitive Prod or GT car.

dickita15

08-17-2006, 08:35 AM

That's totally not what I'm saying, Dick. What I'm saying is, "it may appear that you can just bolt on a few items and go racing, but in the end it just ain't that simple."

Show me one car out there that has done nothing but 'bolt on a few (safety) pieces and raced'. Name one person whose entire goal for going racing is to simply show up and not worry about being competitive. If "entry-level" is defined by perception rather than reality, with that perception being "I just wanna go out there and not worry about racing" then fine, I agree with you; yet any class can be looked at that way. But if reality rules, as it usually does, then it's a terrible disservice to make new folks believe there is such a thing. C'mon and go race - absolutely! - but don't carry any preconceived notions of what's going to happen.
[/b]

Every drivers school I go to there are guys making the step from track days to racing in the same car. It really is that easy to go racing, take your track car put a couple of grand into safety equipment and get out there and learn to race. I can show you these guys Greg but they are way back on the grid with me. You only see them once a race. Ironically there seem to be even more of these guys in ITS than in ITA.

I am not saying this is there entire goal, I am saying they want to get started and as Andy said improve the car as they improve their driving. Is it going to be as easy as they thought, of course not.

But to claim that Improved Touring is more or less "entry level" than any other SCCA class is, in my opinion, disingenuous. - GA
[/b]
That is what I am claiming and I have been rightly called a lot of things but rarely disingenuous

ok everytime a noob shows up at our silly little piece of the universe what do we tell them? Its cheaper to buy a car already built (and it always is) than it is to build your first race car. Get license and enjoy said car. [/b]
Evan we always tell them that but I guess less than half do it that way. Everyone things they can do this cheaper better. It is the reality.

Greg Amy

08-17-2006, 08:39 AM

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...wtopic=8785&hl= (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8785&hl=)

JeffYoung

08-17-2006, 09:09 AM

Not sure I see the distinction here. Isn't IT both entry and non-entry level?

IT IS entry level in that you can bolt on a few parts and race.

IT IS NOT entry level in that you can't win by doing so.

ITR by necessity is going to have a higher barrier to entry than the other IT classes, and there is no way to change that. So it just means that the entry level racer will have to think hard about class and car selection.

Lots of guys build a B car first, then move up the "speed chain."

So, back to the real issue: do we maintain the same ruleset across all IT classes? I think we have to.

dickita15

08-17-2006, 09:17 AM

So, back to the real issue: do we maintain the same ruleset across all IT classes? I think we have to.
[/b]

yes yes yes yes. ITR should absolutley have the same modifications as any other IT class. If I led anyone to think otherwise then I am sorry.

my point is that across all the IT class as we class more newer and higher tech cars ABS is going to be a bigger problem. I think it is wrong to make racers replumb their brake system to get in to IT racing. with each evolution of cars I predict it will become harder and harder to make the car work without ABS.

its like if we said 10 years ago that everyone had to run carbs because that is what IT is.

Z3_GoCar

08-17-2006, 09:54 AM

......Show me one car out there that has done nothing but 'bolt on a few (safety) pieces and raced'. Name one person whose entire goal for going racing is to simply show up and not worry about being competitive.....
[/b]

.... ABS can be disabled by pulling a fuse or a sensor or unplugging the abs ecu...or if it is a full time race car, replumb it. I have to agree with GA and Mlytle some of this stuff is not for entry level people in IT...but if you want to race and do it on a budget, race a cheap car to get time. an entry level one. not an SIR equipped ABS disabled BMW 325...maybe a used IT7 car/SM/ITA CRX/insert 5k-7.5k car here...or a 2.5k GTI as many have...
[/b]

Well Greg,

I can name one. He was in my Super School class, his name was Kip and even though he was from a different region, I'm afraid that I might have scared him away from SCCA. Kip's car had a cage and a fire extinguisher, it was a car that he'd done several track days in too. The interior was still in it including the carpet, no where near a full prep car. He'd had the car a couple of years and decided to go racing with it. The letters on the side said ITS, guess what it was....

Evan,
Why do we have the right to decided what car is an entry level car and which aren't, do we want to make special rules so that guy's that drive Acura's or Mazda's have to do special prep work? Oh, don't show up in you .... .... RSX, it's not an entry level car. I agree with Greg on this point though all of IT is entry level.

zracre

08-17-2006, 10:06 AM

Entry level is determined by....the person entering. Entry level budget for a Mechanic wanting to race is different than the 7 figure executive. or the small business owner. or the 711 employee. Everyone is different and have different life obligations and skill levels. there is no way to put a real value on it or car type. All cars have hurdles some big some small.

I will repost in gregs thread.

mlytle

08-17-2006, 04:01 PM

Wow I can’t believe you actually want that statement to come of as arrogant as it sounds. Maybe the air is a little thin at the front of the grid but if course IT is entry level and not everyone who tries IT racing is doing a $20,000 development effort. By the way SRx7 is only a class in a small part of the country. Are you saying everyone should start in Miata before they drive a “real” racecar?

In order to grow SCCA and IT racing we need to allow drivers to ease into this sport as much as possible. I have no problem with making it so there is a penalty that would prevent ABS cars from being at the front of the grid. New people are not expecting to win. There are tons of cars doing track days and Marque club event that are nervous about wheel to wheel racing and this attitude just makes us more intimidating.

Go back and read Dave Gran’s book and try to get into the mindset of a new person and then tell me redoing you brake system is no big deal.
[/b]
not arrogant…just being a realist.

racing is not simple. maintaining any race car is very time consuming, whether you are at the front or back of the grid. people coming into the sport need to realize this or they won't last long. either folks learn to do basic maint stuff (like brake work) or they will have to pay someone else to do it. many cars in it classes are not good beginners cars. a car you can buy or have built to a spec is much simpler to maintain than it cars in the top classes.

I stick to my thought that if someone can't manage to bend and screw in a few foot long brake lines to bypass their abs, then they need to find another class, pay someone to do it or find a different hobby. it really is easy to do. if you haven't done it before, don't be scared!

think about the target audience here for new racers. it isn't joe blow off the street who has never seen a car before, it is the de/auto-x/tuner crowd. many of their cars are already pretty far down the modification road. I bet brake plumbing is probably simpler that a lot of the mods they have already done. heck most of them (and you) have probably installed new or braided brake lines in their car...that is the same level of complexity as bypassing an abs pump.

JoshS

08-17-2006, 06:10 PM

Here's the thing.

Newbies can look at the rules and think about where they can buy all of the bolt-on stuff they need to go racing. Seats, harnesses, helmets, suspension parts, headers, etc, etc, etc. However, when they see that they need to plumb around their ABS controller, they have no idea where to go to buy the kit to do that. It's fabrication, not bolt-on. That's what raises it a level above the other mods necessary.

Sure, once you know who to talk to about getting custom stuff done, it seems like no big deal, but IT *appears* to be a bolt-on class, except for this requirement. And it's a requirement, not even optional. I.e., I could be building my car up slowly, but before I even get the car on the track, I have to do this thing that appears to be difficult.

JeffYoung

08-17-2006, 06:17 PM

Josh, then pick a car that does not require the work around. Most at this time do not.

Dick's point is correct, that the time is coming when most will, but for right now, I still say it is far better to require the work around than to allow and police ABS (meaning what effect will it have on performance).

JoshS

08-17-2006, 06:25 PM

I understand that the status quo right now is not totally objectionable. I'm just illustrating why this particular hurdle is larger than some other hurdles, for certain models of cars. The list of cars will likely get larger over time, but things are okay right now.

But I'm continually surprised by how afraid people are of ABS. My experiencing racing three different ABS-equipped cars in SS and Touring tells me that it's really no big deal. In all of the cars, the ABS pretty much never was a factor, except when it got confused, the pedal went totally hard and there was no braking at all. The best thing about ABS was that if you did something stupid, you didn't flat-spot a tire and have to throw a race away (not to mention the tire). It's actually more of a budget saver than a performance enhancement (unless it's raining).

Ron Earp

08-17-2006, 07:07 PM

zracre

08-17-2006, 11:55 PM

There are going to be a whole bunch of the younger generation who won't know how to build things to race. Just the way it is. Many are used to calling up Greddy, Jackson, Millen, etc. and ordering a part, bolting it on, and going faster. But it takes a lot more than bolting on parts to go faster and race competitively.

A lot of the young people won't have any problem with fabbing stuff up and getting on with it. Everyone I've met in the paddock actively racing wouldn't have a problem doing it either. Maybe I've just been lucky in the people I've run into, but everyone I've met racing seems to be very competent working on their own car - tranny swap in the paddock? No problem. New head on before tomorrow's race? Done, pass me that beer. Rebuild brake calipers? Done that twice today, let's do it again. New hard lines? Get out the flair tool. I've helped folks do these things and had people help me do same.

We ought not change the rules around because we think that plumbing around an ABS controller is too hard for the up and coming racing crowd, or existing racers.

R
[/b]

:happy204:

If someone racing does not want to learn how to do minor things on their car then IMHO they should not be driving it unless they have a wallet capable of fixing things. Im not saying everyone shoud O/H their car in the pits 5 min before a race, just have knowledge of how it works...even un-mechanical pilots I know can tell you how the rudder works on a Cessna 172 or a Warrior, how to check for water in the fuel or what carb heat is and its purpose...required learning. So when it breaks on the track they know what to do to bring it to the trailer in one piece (or at least brought back on ONE wrecker).

dickita15

08-18-2006, 04:20 AM

As Josh said removing the ABS is a little intimidating as it is not a matter of running a few lines, it is more in knowing what to do. The interface to the electronics is getting more complicated. I watched an ITA competitor, a pretty smart guy, screw around for a season trying to get the car to not go in the limp mode without the ABS.

Maybe we are not there yet but we are going to have to face this issue.

I have been also thinking about why Greg is uncomfortable with IT being labeled entry level. I do not think that designation diminishes in any way what it takes to win in the class. If someone were new to SCCA racing would you recommend IT? Of course you would and that makes it entry level. Is IT a class where you can win without a lot of money, prep and talent, uh no.

IT, in our area anyway, is and entry level class and also just about the hardest to win. Hmm I am not sure why we have any other classes. :lol:

gran racing

08-18-2006, 07:24 AM

Evan, using an analogy of a pilot versus someone who club races cracks me up. The two are very different.

We ought not change the rules around because we think that plumbing around an ABS controller is too hard for the up and coming racing crowd, or existing racers. [/b]

No. We ought not change rules around if they are not suitable for the class, would cause safety issues, or would provide unfair advantages to some cars. Why shouldn't we try to reduce the barriers for new entrants? Without sounding too sarcastic - that's fine and dandy for you (and me) the existing / experienced racers.

With my newbie hat on... I really, really want to race my S2000. I read the rules about needing to deactivate the car’s ABS, but learn that it's not as simple as taking a fuse out. Someone then tells me I need to re-plumb it, but if I can't do that I shouldn't be racing anyways. So I take a hard look at the engine bay and try to figure things out. I look at the brake system, but replumbing doesn't look as simple as some make it sound. I don't have any friends who are into racing (yet) or know how to do this type of "easy task". The next step I take is to call a few of the local garages. The first one tells me there’s no way he will touch it due to liability. I then tell him the car isn’t registered, but still they want nothing to do with it. The next shop I call specializes in brakes. The first guy I speak with there has me talk with the owner of the shop who also races. Cool, now I’m getting somewhere. I tell him what I’m doing, and how someone else told me it’s really easy to do. “Well, have him do it then.” was his response. He actually wasn’t being a jerk and I go onto explain that it is someone else who races. “Is it not that simple?” “No, it’s not.” He too brings up the potential liability issue. I tell him that I understand where he’s coming from. “Would you be willing to install my master kill switch?” “Sure. I’d have to give some thought about pricing, but we could help you with that.” He does refer me to a speed shop down the street where they do work on racecars. I call them but they quickly tell me they are not interested in the job. (And yes, I actually called these shops and these are what the responses were, nothing embellished.)

Later I go online and others tell me if I can’t do it, then choose a different car. The fact is I want to race my S2000. But wait, there is another option that sounds much, much easier. Another club, NASA, allows me to race the car with the ABS intact. Guess where I’m going. Some SCCA drivers throw their noses up and say if they can’t do that simple task, I don’t want them racing on the track with me. (Cause that’s what some sound like to me.)

zracre

08-18-2006, 07:38 AM

we live n a high tech world. I wouldn't re-plumb ABS without talking someone who knows the ins and outs of a particular model. If this person blows a motor at the track in their ITC car...they will have to get it fixed somehow. There are places that will do the work it just takes research and someone who has done/solved it before...again the benefits time has on a car. This theoretical person could call a Tom Fowler or Anthony Serra or Mike Van Steenburg of Irish Mike etc etc etc and get it solved relatively quick. If they live in BFE then it will of course cost more...mut many shops are willing to share info to get you as a customer (as they should)

the reason i compare the 2 are others are at risk of your actions in a plane and race car.

x-ring

08-18-2006, 07:53 AM

The best thing about ABS was that if you did something stupid, you didn't flat-spot a tire and have to throw a race away (not to mention the tire). It's actually more of a budget saver than a performance enhancement (unless it's raining).
[/b]

The last time we discussed this Kirk, and others, were pushing the idea that running with ABS is actually a disadvantage, so why not let it in.

No. We ought not change rules around if they ... would provide unfair advantages to some cars.
[/b]

Mark Donohue mentions ABS in his book. He called it the greatest unfair advantage of all.

Ron Earp

08-18-2006, 08:07 AM

Mark Donohue mentions ABS in his book. He called it the greatest unfair advantage of all.
[/b]

I think Mark was thinking of an ABS system that would work the way he wanted.....Not the way it is delivered from mainstream auto manufactuers.

Guys, you can come up with lots of analogies about new racers being turned away becaues they couldn't plumb their ABS. But the problem is solvable without a rules change. Might cost money. Might cost time. Or, egads! - it might make someone sit down, logically evaluate it and figure out how it works, then "fix" it. As pointed out, there are shops that will handle it, and LOTS indivduals like myself who will help out for interests sake.

Pilots and racers are not that different - one in the same for me, and many others on this board. Don't fly planes I don't understand, and I don't race cars I don't understand. I just haven't found any racers out there in IT driving cars they don't maintain and understand well. I'll look harder next time.

Ron

x-ring

08-18-2006, 08:35 AM

I think Mark was thinking of an ABS system that would work the way he wanted.....Not the way it is delivered from mainstream auto manufactuers.

Ron
[/b]

He was actually talking about a relatively stock Porsche 911 prepped for a series, the name of which eludes me at the moment, that took drivers from different types of motorsports and put them in identical cars to see who was best.

Anyway, that's beside the point. If you let ABS in, how long do you think it will be until someone makes it work 'the way they want'? If we can't police ECUs how will we police ABS?

EDIT: As soon as I hit the post button the series name came to me: IROC.

zracre

08-18-2006, 08:37 AM

I think Mark was thinking of an ABS system that would work the way he wanted.....Not the way it is delivered from mainstream auto manufactuers.

Ron
[/b]

And there is the problem! someone with cubic $$$ (or just plain good with that stuff) will make it work to an advantage...opening pandoras box.

Ty you beat me to the enter key!

JoshS

08-18-2006, 11:13 AM

Suggestion: "Cars with ABS from the factory may not alter or replace hard braking system components except for the lines from the fender to the caliper." Wouldn't that make it impossible to build that magical ABS system?

This would make the rules like for ABS-equipped cars like the Touring rules. Again, when I look at Touring, where budgets are high, ECUs are free, and ABS is allowed, I just don't see people doing what you are suggesting. And the desire to win there is very high.

lateapex911

08-18-2006, 12:15 PM

When you make policy decisions and then the rules that follow, you have to look at all the possibilities.

So, lets debunk some myths....

Myth: ABS isn't good for racing.
Debunk: Some systems suck, but it is possible that some are designed better. I read constantly about traction control, stability and ABS systems that work poorly, and about those that work well. It IS possible that some manufacturer makes, or will make, an ABS sytem that is an advantage in racing.

Myth: We don't use ABS in racing situations.
Debunk: Do we only brake in straight lines on perfect pavement? No...we trailbrake into corners, over berms, on oil or water, on greasy tracks, on drying tracks and on wet tracks. We don't do any of that all the time, but we do it.

Myth: Disabling the ABS function to meet the rules is within the expected skill set of the competitor.
Debunk: I can name a bunch of racers, smart guys, who have either struggled with ABS or have chosen not to race a certain car due to their lack of confidence in dealing with it. One cited it as a reason he stays with another club.

IF it's allowed, we have to assume that some systems WILL be an advantage, and write the rule accordingly. If it's allowed to be removed, we give the competitor the choice, so there's no unfairness about assuming that some systems are worhty of a penalty where others aren't.

The other ramification is troubling though. Leaving the sensors in, and allowing ECU mods can clearly result in unintended consequences, like traction control. Is it being done now? Dunno....could it? Absolutley. Do we want that?? I don't think so. Maybe we say "OK" and assume its going to be done if the competitor chooses to run ABS, and structure the rule and penalty accordingly?

Just thinking out loud..

Dave Ebersole

08-18-2006, 02:41 PM

Look guys, I'm no #$%&@# genious and I disconnected the ABS in my Audi street car, mainly because the pump was failed and I couldn't find a replacement when I needed it.

As far as the threats go, or attempted arm-twisting, how's this? I'm thinking about ITR also. The car I want to build doesn't have an electronic fuel injection that I can chip or replace so I'm a bit screwed there. It doesn't have ABS, quality or not, so I may be at a big dis-advantage there. It does have the potential to be expensive, maybe in the mid-20s to build, and after everything shakes out may be totally uncompetitive due to the fact that it's older and doesn't have all the electronic soup-up potential. I currently race in ITB, which seems to be dying a little lately. What should I do? Maybe get my PCA license.

mlytle

08-18-2006, 03:36 PM

It's actually more of a budget saver than a performance enhancement (unless it's raining).
[/b]

bingo. we can debate all day whether abs is an advantage or not in the dry, but is there any debate about the rain advantage abs has? i really don't think we want to go down the road of different min weights for different weather conditions.
as some have said, all abs systems are not alike. even the olser early 90's bmw abs systems are pretty good. i used to run with the abs on in bmw club events sometimes. (before i spent $10 on some short brake lines and 2 hours of my time taking the abs pump out.) abs worked great in the dry and was a big advantage in the wet. it is allowed in bmw club racing and no one is disabling it to gain any advantage.....

gran racing

08-18-2006, 03:38 PM

I disconnected the ABS in my Audi street car [/b]

But not all systems are the same to disconnect. Some are really easy and the person can just take the fuse out.

Dave - looks like you need to make a trip over to Lime Rock some some ITB races. :)

Dave Ebersole

08-18-2006, 04:09 PM

Dave, My system was a bit more complicated than removing a fuse. I had to remove the ABS pump assy, which meant re-plumbing the lines near the master cylinder. It still wasn't rocket science.

BTW, I would love to come to Lime rock sometime. It would be a long tow though for me (100 miles east of Pittsburgh).

Bill Miller

08-18-2006, 05:59 PM

Andy Bettencourt

08-18-2006, 08:21 PM

If I could run ABS, I would run it in the wet and disable it in the dry. My 3rd gen RX-7 had a system that I would run all day long on the track. It's the sh*t that is on Neons and such that won't work.

Dave Ebersole

08-19-2006, 10:50 AM

Go ahead and build that 911 Dave! :eclipsee_steering: :smilie_pokal:
[/b]

Honestly Bill, I'm currently thinking more along the lines of an FProd 912 or 914 :D

By the way, I just got my license back and plan to run the last MARRS race. Thanks for your help!

Bill Miller

08-19-2006, 07:38 PM

Honestly Bill, I'm currently thinking more along the lines of an FProd 912 or 914 :D

By the way, I just got my license back and plan to run the last MARRS race. Thanks for your help!
[/b]

:023: :023: :023:

If you want an FP 914, there are a few for sale, and I know where you can probably get a started car pretty cheap.

Bill Miller

08-20-2006, 06:55 PM

Looks like a good donor ITR car!

http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2759334

Knestis

08-21-2006, 12:01 AM

The last time we discussed this Kirk, and others, were pushing the idea that running with ABS is actually a disadvantage, so why not let it in. ...[/b]
Please don't misrepresent my point by oversimplifying it.

There is certainly the possibility that ABS is a better braker than is an AVERAGE club racer, and it's certainly better than a complete wanker. ABS will make bring the wanker and the average guy up to some higher threshold.

My point is that street-specification ABS, on a typical IT-prepared car, likely isn't better than a really talented foot. If the argument is that ABS is going to magically put wankers up front, it ain't going to happen.

Back in the ESCORT endurance days, we ran an RX7 without ABS against a team that ran a GSL-SE or whatever they called it, WITH ABS. They bitched and moaned about it and we were typically faster than them. They had trouble with it overheating, couldn't get it bled right, yadda, yadda, yadda and wanted to take it out.

But at the end of the day, the policy shouldn't be made on anecdote. Someone needs to make a strategic decision for the category and decide what makes the most sense for the most cases, for most people in most cars. There will ALWAYS be some cars that get a little edge or get dinked a little more by a particular allowance, and we absolutely MUST be concerned with creep and unitendend consequences. No argument from me there...

...but what I'm suggesting is NOT an additional allowance. I'm suggesting that cars with ABS should be allowed to leave it exactly the way that the manufacturer's millions of dollars worth of engineering designed it, as a compromise for street application. I'll continue to defend as cheaper (cheapest) and easier (easiest) leaving something the heck alone. If that means that some cars are better in the rain, that's what that means. It's already the case that some cars are better on high-speed tracks, and some on handling tracks, etc., etc., etc.

The arguments against ABS continue - OPINION - to be based largely on purist beliefs that we shouldn't have computers making car-control decisions for "real racers." I remember having conversations with guys in the paddock back when IT was new, who were against allowing FUEL INJECTION on IT cars, since it took back a relative advantage enjoyed by racers who really knew how to tune a carb. How silly does that seem today?

K

Ron Earp

08-21-2006, 07:39 AM

...but what I'm suggesting is NOT an additional allowance. I'm suggesting that cars with ABS should be allowed to leave it exactly the way that the manufacturer's millions of dollars worth of engineering designed it, as a compromise for street application. I'll continue to defend as cheaper (cheapest) and easier (easiest) leaving something the heck alone. If that means that some cars are better in the rain, that's what that means. It's already the case that some cars are better on high-speed tracks, and some on handling tracks, etc., etc., etc.
K
[/b]

That is a good point and one position I had not considered, and I bet some others haven't considered it either. Leave it be, and let the chips falls where they may. The ABS system becomes another consideration in selecting a car. Is a Bosch system better than a Delphi system? Do Hondas have ABS controllers worth a damn? ABS will have to be considered when selecting a car, absolutely.

But, that will open up another door - will ABS systems have to be considered when classing a car.......

Ron

Bill Miller

08-21-2006, 07:44 AM

I'm suggesting that cars with ABS should be allowed to leave it exactly the way that the manufacturer's millions of dollars worth of engineering designed it, as a compromise for street application. I'll continue to defend as cheaper (cheapest) and easier (easiest) leaving something the heck alone. If that means that some cars are better in the rain, that's what that means. It's already the case that some cars are better on high-speed tracks, and some on handling tracks, etc., etc., etc.
[/b]

Kirk,

While I understand your position here, I'm not sure that it could be implemented and subsequently policed. Read back a few posts about the cars where the ABS system is tied into the ECU. Being as ECU's are essentially open (yeah, yeah, as long as it fits in the stock housing and uses the stock harness), how long do you think it will take for someone to figure out how to improve that 'street' system to something that will help out even a talented driver? Or diddle it so that it will become and advantageous traction control system?

It's only going to get harder, as cars get newer and more sophisticated, to isolate specific systems and components from the overall management system of the car. Not sure how to best handle it, but having opened the door on the ECUs, the ripple effect will only be that much greater.

dickita15

08-21-2006, 07:56 AM

I too like Kirk’s perspective. Upon reflection the concept of a specific allowance (like 50 pound more) if you run ABS is scary. It kinds of sends us down the production road and I thinks many of us do not want to go there.
I wonder if a rule that ABS may be removed but not modified would work, and Bill I understand that it would be very hard to detect cheating, but that is already the case with many modifications now.

Andy Bettencourt

08-21-2006, 08:15 AM

Is it dumb of me to think that ABS, like AWD IMHO would create a huge disparity in cars within a class when wet track conditions are involved?

Back in 1988, when I did a Skippy ADS, they had you do a braking excersize with an ABS equipped 325 and then one without. You couldn't leave the area until you had outbraked your distance in the ABS car with your distance in the non-ABS car.

My issue is not at your typical club event, its my personal fear that we could create huge overdogs when weather is involved.

Knestis

08-21-2006, 11:14 AM

We don't try to equalize cars for different courses so it seems a little out there to start considering different racing conditions. (Of course, the same argument can get be made by turning that statement over - that it's so out there that we should stay far away from it.) FWD already (arguably) has an advantage in the wet over RWD.

Extend the either/or option such that if the ABS hardware is present, it must work exactly as designed - aka we can't pick and choose when we do or don't want ABS, based on conditions. If someone wants to leave it in and gain an advantage in the relatively small number of regionals that are run in the rain, they have to be willing to accept its compromises in functionality in the dry.

I'm not buying that we have close enough control over the variables to accurately consider ABS in the classification/specification process and would, regardless, be happier with a system that classified a car ABS-blind and allowed the driver to do what he/she thinks is best for his situation.

ABS WILL help newbies who screw up and would otherwise flatspot their new tires in their first race. It will help mask errors in brake or downshift control, decreasing their cost in laptime. If I were building a new enduro-specialty Golf, I'd leave it in. (I think I'd also leave the AC in, now that I'm living where I do.) But if I were trying to give a really talented driver a shot at winning ITB at the ARRC, and had time to figure out pad compounds, etc., I'd probably leave it out.

I don't remember who to cite for the idea but rules and the enforcement of rules are entirely separate things, and comingling them in discussions clouds pertinent issues. There are plenty of rules in the ITCS that require more expertise and equipment than many regions have on hand, and that doesn't make the rules themselves a bad idea.

K

Eagle7

08-21-2006, 11:39 AM

Would allowing ABS to remain functional get us into some of the same issues as AWD? (No or not much advantage in the dry, but an overdog in the wet)

Bill Miller

08-21-2006, 03:44 PM

and Bill I understand that it would be very hard to detect cheating, but that is already the case with many modifications now.
[/b]

Dick,

With all due respect, that old saw is, well, OLD! If people are going to come from the position that we can't police things now, so why should we try to police other things? We should pretty much throw the rule book out the window. How about looking at it from another point. If rules are hard to enforce/determine compliance, how about writing better rules?

lateapex911

08-21-2006, 04:28 PM

On the other hand, we could open up the ECU rule completely, but prohibit wheel speed sensors. That eliminates the issues the guys are having with the bundled system and limp mode problems.

Doesn't make it easy for a new entrant though, but it is an option.

I'm not a fan of the idea, but thought I'd toss it out.

(But I'm not a fan of the whole ECU issue to start with, LOL)

And Kirk, yes, I see your point about Fuel injection, but keep in mind that only until this past year has the damage done by the ECU rule been rectified, and it nearly took an act of God. That was a classic unintended post classification consequence issue of the highest order.........

Wehn we're discussing ABS, et al, we need to be very careful in cnsidering not just what the current state of the art is, but what it could be down the road. Sometimes the solution seems better than the reality.

dickita15

08-22-2006, 07:04 AM

Dick,

With all due respect, that old saw is, well, OLD! If people are going to come from the position that we can't police things now, so why should we try to police other things? We should pretty much throw the rule book out the window. How about looking at it from another point. If rules are hard to enforce/determine compliance, how about writing better rules?
[/b]

Bill, first the smart alec part of my reply: Sometimes an old saw cuts true. :lol:

But of course you are right in that if it is possible to write rules that work better that is the logical course of action. That is what this forum does best. Someone suggests a possibility and the people poke holes in it. This group is very good at that.

I am coming from a position that the following are true statements and looking for a solution.

IT is an attractive set of classes for drivers to start racing in SCCA, particularly those already running track days or marque club events.

Replumbing the ABS system is viewed as a complicated and intimidating task by many newbies and a barrier to entry.

As technology evolves and we class newer cars this will become a bigger issue for drivers entering IT.

There should be a solution that allows us to ease the barriers to entry of new drivers without upsetting the competitive balance at the front of the grid.

Bill Miller

08-22-2006, 12:06 PM

Dick,

I'm all for easing barriers to entry, but here's a great example of an unintended consequence. Open the ECU up, but now, you have to either replumb the ABS system out of the equation, or you've just given people the ability to sneak in an improved breaking system or a traction control system, if you now allow ABS.

Andy Bettencourt

11-01-2006, 10:01 AM

[attachmentid=651]

There goes the neighborhood!

tnord

11-01-2006, 10:22 AM

do it Andy!

if i had unlimited funds, that is absolutely the car i would build for ITR, but $10k motor rebuilds scare the bejeezus outta me.

Eric Parham

11-01-2006, 12:04 PM

True story: When I was a kid just out of school with an MSEE, I crewed for a team running World Challenge. As I recall, the rule at that time was that the ABS could stay in place but could not be modified. Some customers had more money than talent, and paid me to make the ABS work better under race conditions. I thought it was too difficult until I stumbled upon a trace in the circuit board that actually switched the map to a true race system! The trace could be removed without a trace ;), and was therefore undetectable. The point is that policing stock ABS is going to be next to impossible for just one year/make/model of car, nevermind the multitudes running IT.

When it comes to tasks that infringe upon the duties traditionally assigned to drivers (as opposed to mechanics, such as the earlier FI versus carb tuning example), I guess I fall into Kirk's "purist" catagory. Although I agree that a good shoe can still outbrake most or all of the stock systems today, that probably will NOT be the case in the future. My concern is not that the wankers will be faster than they deserve, but that allowing computers to actually take over ANY of the DRIVING duties will make racing significantly less challenging and less fun. If a future ABS system is actually the faster way around the track, who in thier right mind wouldn't use it to help them "succeed" if it was permitted? The final question is: Do we want to be RACERS pushing the edge of the driving envelope (even if a computer could do it better), or would we be content to just go along for the ride? How many remember Star Wars, where the droids (aka ride-along mechanics/navigators, but NOT drivers) were in the back seats of the fighter craft? It wouldn't be quite the same if the humans were in the back seat, now would it?!

As to Dick's observation that replumbing ABS is viewed as a significant challenge, since when were the new recruits not exposed to challenges? In addition, I think we would ultimately be doing them a significant disservice by allowing ABS and thereby preventing them from learning threshold braking, for example.

JoshS

11-01-2006, 01:11 PM

As to Dick's observation that replumbing ABS is viewed as a significant challenge, since when were the new recruits not exposed to challenges? In addition, I think we would ultimately be doing them a significant disservice by allowing ABS and thereby preventing them from learning threshold braking, for example.
[/b]
I'm building my first IT car right now, although I'm not new to club racing. I've been in SS and T before. The car I'm building has stock ABS & traction control, both operating off the same wheel speed sensors. And I perceive complying with the rules as a bit of a challenge.

I have to say that I'm okay with being forced to disable both systems, although I also wouldn't have a problem with it if we were able to keep them. I've become comfortable with replumbing the brakes, although I really think that the rules should be using a guideline of what's available as bolt-on mods, just to keep the barriers to entry (perceived or real) low. But what bothers me is that we're forced to do disable traction control in one particular way -- by disconnecting the wheel speed sensors. There would be other ways to disable these systems, such as cutting other electrical circuits. But disabling those particular sensors causes the stock ECU to go into limp mode, thereby FORCING us to replace our ECUs. This is what causes these rules to be such a big hurdle.