ABS in IT?

[CRallo]

Discuss.

This popped into my head while I was falling asleep last night... Being in 'A' I don't really have a dog in the fight at this point, but the topic interests me, as does the "slippery slope" many believe it may represent.

Some obvious pros and cons here, but lets hash it out!


I don't want to steer discussion too much but here is my view: most simply, racecars don't have nannies! Learn to drive the damn car... further more, I have safety concerns. For example how does one lock the brakes while in a spin if they have ABS?! We all know how dangerous that can get! And the some of the brake failures that confused ABS systems are rumored to have caused...

Whats the status of discussion on this topic in the ITAC?

Have letters been sent? If so, what seems to be the feedback?

thanks!

[Knestis]

...racecars don't have nannies! Learn to drive the damn car... further more, I have safety concerns. For example how does one lock the brakes while in a spin if they have ABS?! We all know how dangerous that can get! And the some of the brake failures that confused ABS systems have caused...

I'm glad you're receptive to discussion, Chris. :)

K

[dj10]

There should be nothing to hash out. ABS should not be allowed in IT racing because of the strides in technology. The ABS in a 2005 car are way better then the cars in 1990 due to faster computers, etc. it just wouldn't be fair so if nobody has abs then we are on the same playing field.

[betamotorsports]

Does IT stand for "Idle in Time?"

[CRallo]

I'm glad you're receptive to discussion, Chris. :)

K

:) I'm willing to listen...

Seriously though, unlike certain ex's of mine, I understand a logical argument and am interested to hear the other side(s).

[JeffYoung]

THis is an ITAC member speaking from personal opinion only.

I understand the position of the proponents of ABS in IT, and think most of what they have to say is reasonable. I also fully agree with the post above that IT can't be locked into 1980s technology.

That said, I come out on the opposed side by a fair amount. Dan makes a good point about the disparity in ABS systems. Some are detrimental to performance, and others add performance. It makes it harder for us to use a simple power weight formula to balance cars objectively.

I also understand that ABS sensors can also be used as traction control sensors making a traction control cheat much easier.

But the bottom line for me is this. I've plumbed an entire braking system on a car. It is not that hard; maybe a weekend's worth of work. Even assuming worst case you had to do this, and run a standalone ECU (which you pretty have to do anyway to run up front), it's still a small price to pay for keeping the braking field LEVEL.

IT does need to go forward in time. However, I'm not sure computer aided driving controls like ABS and tractions control are a step forward at all. AWD? Turbos? cars with 300 hp stock? Yes, at some point we are going to have to deal with and in my view adopt those technologies, but driver aids I see as being a very different situation.

[Z3_GoCar]

My take is that ABS should not be allowed. Newer ABS systems have the abillity to brake individual wheels, thus allowing a racer to brake aggessivly into the apex without worrying about spinning out. I don't care how tallented with the brakes one is, I don't know how anyone could individually control the brake bias on a per-wheel and per-corner basis with a conventional single hydraulic brake pedal. Stabillity control (aka ESP, DSC, et al) is a large performance advantage over conventional brake systems, and it's integral to all new ABS systems now.

[Knestis]

** People who simultaneously argue that ABS is an advantage and a danger are moving from some different proposition entirely, and arguing points of convenience for rhetorical purposes. It's inconsistent to hold both positions, so evidence that they have a different agenda altogether.

** Fuel injected cars have an advantage over cars with carburetors, in that the former can self-adjust (damn nannies!) for atmospheric conditions. Disc brakes are an advantage over drums. I see arguments based on resistance to "new technology" argued by people who drive cars that take full advantage of it.

** Even when pushed to its purest form, the Process didn't try to equate cars that differed in technical terms described in the previous point. When someone would suggest that open ECUs were a "de facto competition adjustment for FI cars" (do a search here), we'd explain it away as either "pick your car warts and all" or "you can adjust the mixture with a carb, too." The difference between ABS-no-talent and no-ABS-with-talent is so small as to be lost in the noise of a hundred other variables that the ITAC doesn't try to account for.

** I keep seeing the "can't lock it down" argument trotted out. How often have any of you seen anyone successfully do that in a club race AND have it actually matter...? How many of the people in this conversation have ever done it? I've raced since 1986 and have *never* had to. Yes - it might make a positive safety difference in some minute number of situations but nothing like as often as would requiring H&N systems - and the membership has resisted that loudly.

** IT rules are founded on the assumption that the rules grant allowances for us to make changes to the otherwise stock configuration of our cars. A very limited number of safety rules MANDATE changes to the stock car. Forcing the disabling of ABS is inconsistent with that first assumption, imposing a "you must" standard where a "you may" standard has been the, well, standard since the inception of the category. How about "all cars in ITC and ITB are required to replace fuel injection systems with a Weber 32/36DGV carburetor, effective 1/1/2011. All ITA, ITS, and ITR cars are required to replace fuel injection system with side-draft carbs, not to exceed one venturi per cylinder." ...?

** Having re-plumbed my Golf's brake system, too, I agree that it's not a horrific job. It's not however a job similar in technical scope to the minimum modifications *required* for someone to go racing in IT. Further, I know damned well that a 2010 model year ABS system is going to be very much more resistant to that process than was my 1994 system, that essentially piggy-backed ABS hardware on an otherwise non-ABS master cylinder, etc.

** If we are "eventually" going to have to deal with it - and we are - we should deal with it NOW, before some people spend a bunch of time and money to comply with a rule that will eventually have to be changed.

** That something might make cheating easier is not a sufficient rationale for outlawing it. Offset keys make it a HELL of a lot easier to gain power with a twin-cam engine (e.g., Miata or VW 16v) by cheating the cam timing, than is possible with a single-cam engine (e.g., VW 8v). That has not resulted in a cry to take back that allowance.

** Got a philosophical disagreement with "driver aids?" I've got power steering and power brakes. Anyone else letting the technology make your job easier behind the wheel? Why no arguments with tools like data collection and video that (at substantial cost) allow some drivers to perform at higher levels than others?

K

[Greg Amy]

YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!!!! (waving fist...)

[RacerBill]

YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!!!! (waving fist...)

But would you mind mowing the grass first?

Seriously, I know of at least two serious crashes in the last two months that resulted from ABS failures. So, my take is that they are a potential safety issue.

[Ralf]

Why not allow ABS? Have you ever driven in the snow and wished ABS wasn't working? Stopping distances seem to be longer with ABS releasing the brakes over and over again. Also, since I drive a VW, what about the three legged stance? What would ABS do when the inside rear locks up? I would think its going to want to release the brakes because of the lock up. So no real advantage of having ABS there.
As far as ASR, once it kicks in, it will apply the brake that is losing traction and reduce engine power.
My thinking is that one would want to disable ABS but it shouldn't be mandated. Someone may want it working so that ESP keeps them from spinning out of control and hitting something.

[Greg Amy]

I know of cars that crashed due to failures of:

- Wheels
- Hubs
- Struts
- Control arms
- Flywheels/clutches
- Bolts, nuts, screws, and other pieces of hardware
- Hood pins
- Quick release steering wheels
- Non-ABS-brake components (e.g., pads, rotors, caliprs, lines, etc)
- ...and many other pieces/parts that, as an extension to your logic, are bona fide safety issues.

Ergo, we should ban all that stuff too.

Ain't quite sure how we'll keep the cars off their bellies, but that's not important; after all, this is a safety issue!

Hey, if it saves the life of only one child (or the mother or father of that child, or maybe a sibling or their cousin) then it's worth it!

;)

[JeffYoung]

For me the bottom line still is it is far eaiser to replumb a car (if I can do -- I couldn't even change brake pads when I started racing -- anyone can) than to deal with the issues this raises. It's a close call, with good points on either side. In that situation, I say no, but interested in the debate.

1. Point One -- Agreed. I don't see the safety issue. I see it as an advantage.

2. Point Two -- Agreed, but I still see driving aids (more below) like ABS as a fundamentally different.

3. Point Three -- Agreed, but it becomes just another factor we can't account for. I don't WANT to have an ABS adder/subtractor. The easiest way to do that is not allow ABS, especially given how easy it is, in my view, to just plumb a car normally.

4. Point Four -- Agreed. I do not see ABS as a safety issue.

5. Point Five -- Disagree. You aren't fundamentally changing a basic IT characteristic of a car by saying no ABS. We already say no traction control for example. I'll have to check, but wouldn't cockpit adjustable suspensions like with many cars with "sport" buttons that stiffen shocks, etc. be illegal, not allowed? I'm not saying a car has to put on smaller brakes. I'm saying it has to remove a computer based driver aid that is not NECESSARY to race.

6. Point Six -- Disagree. It's certainly easier to replumb a brake system than to say install a cage.

7. Point Seven -- Disagree. We already let it go too long. Some of the anti-letters were from guys with ABS equipped cars who don't want to deal with a rule change allowing them to put the stuff back on. So, we are already in the quagmire.....

8. Point Eight -- In concept, I almost always agree with this point. However, with electronic stuff, like with the ECU rule, we have considered the inability to have a reasonable means of checking legality/compliance. It got to the point with stock ECUs it was nearly impossible to check legality. The same would be true, is my understanding, with modern ABS and traction control systems.

9. Point Nine -- Disagree. Power brakes and steering are comfort items and in many cases, performance detriments. BUT, they are not (as newer ABS systems are) computer controlled driver aids that enhance performance. I agree the line is not black and white, but ABS certainly seems a hell of a lot more like traction control than power steering to me.

10. Point Ten -- Good discussion. Helps focus the debate.


** People who simultaneously argue that ABS is an advantage and a danger are moving from some different proposition entirely, and arguing points of convenience for rhetorical purposes. It's inconsistent to hold both positions, so evidence that they have a different agenda altogether.

** Fuel injected cars have an advantage over cars with carburetors, in that the former can self-adjust (damn nannies!) for atmospheric conditions. Disc brakes are an advantage over drums. I see arguments based on resistance to "new technology" argued by people who drive cars that take full advantage of it.

** Even when pushed to its purest form, the Process didn't try to equate cars that differed in technical terms described in the previous point. When someone would suggest that open ECUs were a "de facto competition adjustment for FI cars" (do a search here), we'd explain it away as either "pick your car warts and all" or "you can adjust the mixture with a carb, too." The difference between ABS-no-talent and no-ABS-with-talent is so small as to be lost in the noise of a hundred other variables that the ITAC doesn't try to account for.

** I keep seeing the "can't lock it down" argument trotted out. How often have any of you seen anyone successfully do that in a club race AND have it actually matter...? How many of the people in this conversation have ever done it? I've raced since 1986 and have *never* had to. Yes - it might make a positive safety difference in some minute number of situations but nothing like as often as would requiring H&N systems - and the membership has resisted that loudly.

** IT rules are founded on the assumption that the rules grant allowances for us to make changes to the otherwise stock configuration of our cars. A very limited number of safety rules MANDATE changes to the stock car. Forcing the disabling of ABS is inconsistent with that first assumption, imposing a "you must" standard where a "you may" standard has been the, well, standard since the inception of the category. How about "all cars in ITC and ITB are required to replace fuel injection systems with a Weber 32/36DGV carburetor, effective 1/1/2011. All ITA, ITS, and ITR cars are required to replace fuel injection system with side-draft carbs, not to exceed one venturi per cylinder." ...?

** Having re-plumbed my Golf's brake system, too, I agree that it's not a horrific job. It's not however a job similar in technical scope to the minimum modifications *required* for someone to go racing in IT. Further, I know damned well that a 2010 model year ABS system is going to be very much more resistant to that process than was my 1994 system, that essentially piggy-backed ABS hardware on an otherwise non-ABS master cylinder, etc.

** If we are "eventually" going to have to deal with it - and we are - we should deal with it NOW, before some people spend a bunch of time and money to comply with a rule that will eventually have to be changed.

** That something might make cheating easier is not a sufficient rationale for outlawing it. Offset keys make it a HELL of a lot easier to gain power with a twin-cam engine (e.g., Miata or VW 16v) by cheating the cam timing, than is possible with a single-cam engine (e.g., VW 8v). That has not resulted in a cry to take back that allowance.

** Got a philosophical disagreement with "driver aids?" I've got power steering and power brakes. Anyone else letting the technology make your job easier behind the wheel? Why no arguments with tools like data collection and video that (at substantial cost) allow some drivers to perform at higher levels than others?

K

[StephenB]

I am honestly on the fence and could go either way...

Pros. ***warning these pros are selfish***!
1.) I honestly think I could go faster with the ABS installed than without it. That gives me what I personally think would give ME an advantage over those without it.
2. I am lazy and don't really want to change it all out... I know what your thinking but I am being honest here :)
3. I think it is significantly safer and if you don't think it is please drive in Stevens Advanced Driving School and learn how to drive an ABS car! It is AMAZING how much more control you have in a car while applying brakes during turning... trail braking and utilizing weight transfer to gain grip while not loosing traction from brake lockup. This can ONLY be done with changing brake pressures to individual tires. If you have never tried it you really should... it is AMAZING the difference you have for accident avoidance and car control.

Cons:
it honestly takes a skill set away from the driver. Car control under braking while shifting and possibly trail braking is a skill that is awesome to feel when you get good at it. In road racing I love the aspect that you have to be good at braking! It will literally make or brake your lap time. (I had to get in that play on words!)

So in the end from a selfish point I don't want ABS and I would rather have the satisfaction and feeling of accomplishment when I outbrake a peer without driving aids. But I also selfishly can say that I want them because I think it will give me an advantage over others without it. And from a safety standpoint it isn't possibly or marginally safer it is significantly safer in an immeasurable amount. If you honestly don't think it is safer please go out and rent a car... something 1995 or newer and see what its like to drive a car with ABS in an accident avoidance situation.

That's my rant... in the end I don't really care but make a decision sooner than later... this decision is hr's of work and hundreds of dollars depending on your decision... so make it fast and make it stick.
Stephen

[Z3_GoCar]

....3. I think it is significantly safer and if you don't think it is please drive in Stevens Advanced Driving School and learn how to drive an ABS car! It is AMAZING how much more control you have in a car while applying brakes during turning... trail braking and utilizing weight transfer to gain grip while not loosing traction from brake lockup. This can ONLY be done with changing brake pressures to individual tires. If you have never tried it you really should... it is AMAZING the difference you have for accident avoidance and car control.....


Stephen

This is my point the early ABS systems are simple two/three channel systems. Basically they only release brakes on the front/rear axle or in the case of three channel, individually on the front. On the four channel systems, used with ESP/DSC, they can release brakes to an individual corner. With our current ban on ABS, no one has a performance advantage of individually braking each wheel. If it's lifted, we'll have some cars that are worse with the oe ABS, some that are slightly better, some that can update to or are way better than the current.

Now don't compare what we have to a class like T-1/3, because of their obsolesence of touring models aging out. Even in ITR, there are models where the ABS isn't as good as the 2000MY and later ABS systems.


YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!!!! (waving fist...)

Where I'm at it's more like "YOU KIDS GET OFF MY ROCKS!!!"

Oh, and lake testing doesn't work around here because everything floats in a dry lake.

[924Guy]

There's no question in my mind, both as a racer of an "obsolete" car and as an ABS/TCS/ESC engineer, that ABS doesn't belong in IT. It's far too much of an advantage. Pro racers know this.

If it were allowed in and I were still campaigning the 924, I would seriously consider fitting a Bosch Motorsport ABS unit (they go for, IIRC, around $10-15k a pop... though the employee discount would probably help).

Then I'd rework it a little to further suit my needs.

Who wants to race me now? :D

[Knestis]

...ABS doesn't belong in IT. It's far too much of an advantage.

There are our two issues, distilled down to one line.

1. A statement of belief. If you believe it, you do. If you don't, you don't. People tend not to change their beliefs - just ask any Internet board. There's little point in trying.

2. Acknowledgment that the question isn't WHETHER there is an advantage, but HOW MUCH of an advantage is too much. The ITAC deals with this all the time, when people say, "...but the Borgward has better gear ratios, so it should weigh more."

This is the policy environment in which the Club has got to deliver rules decisions. Decision-makes are inclined to (1) do what supports their beliefs first, and (2) what pisses off the fewest of their current constituents as a second choice. Since decision-makers tend to be active players, and active players tend to BE active because they like the way things are (currently), they are disinclined to like change (Satisfies 1, above). This is handy because "don't do anything" is generally a good way to satisfy intent 2, as well...

Short version: You don't need to worry very much, Chris. Yet. Because we'll put off cleaning this boo-boo until it's a festering, infected mess that HAS to get attention - at which point it will be a huge brouhaha rather than a policy decision.

K

[JeffYoung]

We are already past that pint Kirk (of dealing with it early on a policy basis). Not finger pointing at all, because you and I were both a big part of this, but probably the last clear chance we had to deal with this was when we created ITR (the first class in which the majority of cars probably have ABS of varying degrees of effectiveness).

The thought I had was only allow it in any new classes "above" ITR. That keeps it clean -- as clean as possible anyway.

[Knestis]

But if instituted RIGHT NOW for ITR, it would impact only a tiny handful of people. (Sorry, people.) Let it go and it WILL get changed eventually, impacting more and worse.

K

[JeffYoung]

I'd disagree. ITR fields this year in the SEDiv were 5-6 cars a race in many cases. Plus, we couldn't get the rule in for 11 - it would be 12 at the earliest.

There are many cars build without ABS right now. In fact, I think all existing ITR competitors who commented said no, including those with stock ABS systems.

It's a tough question, I agree with that.

[jimmyc]

My take on it...

you will see MANY if not ALL of the *new* cars (ie that 06 honda civic SI that was recently classed), HAVING to dissable the ABS/stability control. If not have fun dealling with the brake issues it creates.

And same goes for the 2010+ Mazda products.. You don't remove/dissable/re-pumb the car and you will be sent into limp mode often.

I am sure Greg could speak further on some of the issues that the VW where having.... (i think he was around at that time).

IMO you have a few years where the ABS systems where/are good, and still work in the IT type race car enviornment.

The new cars?? Yep not so much, people are going to be dissabiling them because they make things worse.

ABS an advantage?? I'd dissagree, especially in a FWD car where the rear tires lock up long before the fronts it is IMO a disadvatage.

What is an advatage?? installing a rear brake bias valve THOSE things rock!

[Knestis]

My take on it...

you will see MANY if not ALL of the *new* cars (ie that 06 honda civic SI that was recently classed), HAVING to dissable the ABS/stability control. If not have fun dealling with the brake issues it creates.

And same goes for the 2010+ Mazda products.. You don't remove/dissable/re-pumb the car and you will be sent into limp mode often. ... ABS an advantage?? I'd dissagree, especially in a FWD car where the rear tires lock up long before the fronts it is IMO a disadvatage. ...

NO WAY! ABS is magic. It will make bad drivers into WINNARS...!!!

:shrug:

K

[StephenB]

My take on it...

ABS an advantage?? I'd dissagree, especially in a FWD car where the rear tires lock up long before the fronts it is IMO a disadvatage.

What is an advatage?? installing a rear brake bias valve THOSE things rock!

Even with a brake bias you can only apply 2 different amounts of pressures to the brakes. 1 equal amount to the front and 1 equal amount to the rear. The very instant that ANY 1 of the 4 wheels locks up you are at your maximum braking regardless of the bias. Agreed the bias helps reduce the brake force to the rear however you are still only able to apply the maximum braking force up until the first tire locks up regardless if its inside, outside, front or rear. With ABS all 4 wheels work individually and allow maximum braking to each and every wheel.

I am not an expert but I have tested both with and without ABS in the exact same scenario in the exact same car on the exact same day in a controlled environment. The comparison was mind boggling to me and I instantly became a believer and more importantly an understander.

STEPHEN

[Z3_GoCar]

NO WAY! ABS is magic. It will make bad drivers into WINNARS...!!!

:shrug:

K

"Any sufficintly advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

:023:

I can't wait untill we start arguing about SMG/PDK/DCT. Then it will be dynamic steering by wire. At some point the race car can click off fast and consistant laps minus the driver :blink: At that point I think I'll just stay home and watch it on the screen.

[Chip42]

Its all about the disperity of advantage, real or imagined, between various ABS system designs and no ABS. as the general term "ABS" includes both useless hinderances and inteligent massively beneficial systems, the rule for how to deal with one must encompas the others.

YES - the same is true of various EFI/MFI/carbed fuel delivery and distributorless vs. distributed ignitions - some benefit more than others when moved away from the stock settings, or are able to make more use of the stock sensors, or whatever. so power gain is not as predictable as "25%" for example.

Remove ABS fromt he category in its entirety, and the variety of performance potentials it can encompas is removed with it. I'm sure the same argument was made against fuel injection, or open computers, or whatever. but replumbing the brakes requires a lot less technical savvy and cost than adding carbs to a wide variety of motors, many without available carb mounts. it also doesn't radically alter the power potential of the cars like carburation MIGHT, which seems to be the main crux of classification over other beneficial and derogatory factors a car may posess.

the rule making process seems easy from my perspective (as a non rules maker): no ABS. done.

yes - in some applications ECU replacement is required in order to disable ABS. what was it "warts and all" this is hardly a massive difficulty anymore, and you probobly would need or want to do so anyway to get away from the nannies built in to newer ECUs anyhow.

yes - there could come a time when master cylinder replacement is required in order to have a fully functional system. I don't know if this is currently the case with anything in production, but with all of the electronic brake force distribution systems and the comon availability of traction control, ESP, etc etc I'm sure there will be such a system. THAT is the difficult rule as it will force an addition currently outside of the class philosophy (alternate master cyclinders).

Like james said though - the big scary issues are the drive by wire systems beyond the throttle that are headed to the 5 year old mark. that's a set of issues that needs dealing with to keep IT from imposed obsolescence.

[Knestis]

...I am not an expert but I have tested both with and without ABS in the exact same scenario in the exact same car on the exact same day in a controlled environment. ...

STEPHEN

I'm going to guess that was possible because you could disable ABS on a car that had it...?

K

[Z3_GoCar]

I'm going to guess that was possible because you could disable ABS on a car that had it...?

K

Seriously Kirk,

Sounds like you've not driven a car with a good ABS system. You gotta try something with stabillity control.

[betamotorsports]

Luddites.

Every car in every class has advantages and disadvantages when compared to other members of its class. In ITS the 240Z has 1960's brake technology and they require a lot of attention compared to the 2nd gen RX7. The ITS 240Z driver learns how to use the brakes in such a way as to minimize his disadvantage. The 240Z's advantage over the second get RX7 is weight and mid range torque. The RX7 driver's learn to minimize that disadvantage in one way by making sure the starts are fast so the rotary is in its power band.

The same will be true when (not if) ABS is allowed in IT. Its going to happen, it has to happen. Might as well get it done now and let the competitors make the adjustments.

[924Guy]

Luddites.


Hardly - quite the opposite, in fact. I know how much faster I can make a car go with good ABS/EBD tuning.

I agree, Kirk - you need to drive something with newer-than-10-yr-old technology. Also - don't forget, Audis used to come with an ABS switch, factory - and last I heard, Stephen's an Audi guy... so...

I still can't believe there's any question.

This would be a distinct competitive advantage that applies only to certain cars. There's no question this would need a weight adder applied.

And then there's still the question about reprogramming. Oh, wait - we'll just allow that to open up after a few years, just like engine management - can't control it.

Now we will have TCS, if needed, and custom tuneable. And if you think I can't make a car faster with TCS and ABS, you need to read some car magazines... ;)

I'm pretty sure that's not consistent with IT philosophy. It's not even consistent with DSR philosophy!!

[Knestis]

Seriously Kirk,

Sounds like you've not driven a car with a good ABS system. You gotta try something with stabillity control.

I'm not saying it doesn't make a difference. I'm saying that we have to decide whether (1) that difference is small enough that it's lost in the noise of factors not considered by the IT classification/specification process, or (2) that it's big enough to take into consideration when determining weights.

Our first instinct - to try to keep the genie in the bottle by reframing a first assumption of the category - is indeed Luddite. Forcing people to tear perfectly good parts off of a stock car SOLELY to prevent them gaining an advantage, to keep current entrants happy, is ludicrous.

Putting off the decision doesn't make it easier. This is where some of that leadership stuff that the Club is supposed to have somewhere would come into play. The CRB ought to frame a big-picture strategy for incorporating new technologies and provide broad guidance to the ad hocs. The ITAC ought to understand that they make decisions that impact the category 10 years from now, and act in anticipation of having to deal with it eventually - so sooner rather than later...

...and it should not be a major policy consideration, what a half-dozen drivers have done to this point. I'm sorry but it's a national rule set. As long as we continue to be reactive to a handful of voices - half of whom won't even be racing in 5 years - we're always playing catch-up and making mistakes that will be substantially harder to deal with once we have no choice.

KK

[steve b]

If we are going to let our cars threshold brake for themselves, we need to let them shift for themselves. I assume everyone in favor of ABS is also in favor of automatic transmissions. Or how about the transmissions in the 370Z?

[Ron Earp]

If we are going to let our cars threshold brake for themselves, we need to let them shift for themselves. I assume everyone in favor of ABS is also in favor of automatic transmissions. Or how about the transmissions in the 370Z?

Exactly. And as a side benefit so you'll open up a whole lot of cars to IT that never had manual trannys.

No ABS in IT.

[betamotorsports]

There are so many straw men being built and torn down in this thread that I feel like I'm in the Wizard of Oz. I'm just waiting for the Nazi comparison so I can invoke Goodwin's Law. Oh wait! I just did!

ABS is coming gentlemen probably within the next two years. We should figure out how to accommodate it and not fight it.

[Chip42]

simple question:
why accomodate ABS? what is the purpose?

[steve b]

... and we keep on embracing all new technology as it comes along. In 30 years we won't even need to be in the car. Just program in the course and send out our drone cars.

[MMiskoe]

I know of cars that crashed due to failures of:

- Wheels
- Hubs
- Struts
- Control arms
- Flywheels/clutches
- Bolts, nuts, screws, and other pieces of hardware
- Hood pins
- Quick release steering wheels
- Non-ABS-brake components (e.g., pads, rotors, caliprs, lines, etc)
- ...and many other pieces/parts that, as an extension to your logic, are bona fide safety issues.



Greg - I will counter this to saying this. Being able to keep averything locked down so you spin in a straight line safer than zig-zaggin across the track. I don't think there's an argument there. Although everything you list there can fail and create a safety hazard. However, they all have to fail first. ABS systems in their normal course of their SOP can create lack of braking when you want to just get the car stopped.


- Bolts, nuts, screws, and other pieces of hardware
I assume this includes the nut at the wheel, the component that is responsible for most problems after they fail.

ABS can be a significant performance advantage. There is little or no way currently to police it to see that it is not being used for traction control now that we have open ECU's.

Unlike carbs vrs FI or better vrs worse suspension set ups, there is no reasonable way to retrofit an ABS system into a car that never had it. Therefore there is no way to allow a non-abs car to catch up to those that have it. Conversely, an ABS car can be made to run w/o it.

I can see that in the future there could be a need for alternate brake master cylinders to be allowed if the ABS systems of the future get more intergral w/ the master cyl.

ABS is an active driver assistance component. We don't even allow sway bars that we can adjust from the cockpit. From this stand point I'm surprised it even gets considered.

[Z3_GoCar]

I see it less of a rules creep for IT to accept Tilton adjustable master cylinders than to allow ABS and it's follow on stabillity augmented braking control. Imagine just stopping on the brakes and not have to every worry about releasing the pressure for bumps in the brake zone, being able to move the brake zone into the turn in and not worry about spinning out because one wheel will release enough pressure to keep you from spinning out.

[Bill Miller]

5. Point Five -- Disagree. You aren't fundamentally changing a basic IT characteristic of a car by saying no ABS. We already say no traction control for example. I'll have to check, but wouldn't cockpit adjustable suspensions like with many cars with "sport" buttons that stiffen shocks, etc. be illegal, not allowed? I'm not saying a car has to put on smaller brakes. I'm saying it has to remove a computer based driver aid that is not NECESSARY to race.

Jeff,

Last I looked, the wording in the ITCS says that cockpit adjustable suspension is not allowed, unless originally fitted from the factory. So I'm thinking that if your car came w/ cockpit adjustable suspension, you're good to go. And what it doesn't say, is that you have to use the factory stuff.

As far as the ABS in IT thing, I'm really undecided. Some very good points on both sides of the issue.

[JeffYoung]

Good point about cockpit adjustability. I will check that rule.

We have a lot of ITR cars built -- way more than 5 or 6. We are in my view doing them a disservice by ignoring their situation.

The cleanest thing in my view is to allow ABS in the "next" class above ITR.

[Ron Earp]

The SCCA has been doing just fine with its head in the sand. Why change things now?



Damn, all the other stuff I wrote went missing.

In short, while I don't wish to see ABS in existing IT classes ABS certainly isn't going anywhere as far as production cars are concerned. Sooner or later the SCCA will have to deal with it. What are pro series racing classes doing or planning to do? What is NASA doing or planning? NASA seems a bit more forward thinking on some items than the SCCA, be interesting to know what they are planning.

[betamotorsports]

NASA Pro Touring is the closest they have to IT and their rule set is nothing like IT. Its a base class, point mod concept and ABS is considered a no-point modification if your car came with it.


59) ABS (anti-lock braking system)--Only OEM systems offered specifically for the car model as a factory option. No OEM systems offered for a different car model or aftermarket systems are permitted.

[seckerich]

Grand Am allows it in ST and GS. Not allowed in Daytona Prototype and GT cars. Traction control banned as well. It is allowed in cars that came with it factory but all purpose built cars have it banned.

Too bad it was not instituted in ITR in the beginning. I would guess it was a little much for the CRB to swallow when they did not want the class in the first place. If you are ever going to give it a try ITR is the least amount of cars of the classes. I remember throwing away perfectly good remote res shocks and the CRB did not bat an eye.:rolleyes: Not near as bad to add ABS from a junk yard car. Don't wait a year until everyone builds more cars and then add it back. Many of the ITR cars are just old ITS BMW's or PCA, etc. They already had it jerked anyway. Yes, some are new builds but very few. I bet 20 nationwide.

[JeffYoung]

Practically speaking, the earliest we could get this online is for 2012, so that is another year of ITR cars being built without ABS.

I still think we are in too deep with ITR to change the rule on them now.

Next class up the chain is an easier call, although I still have doubts/reservations about ABS and traction control in IT (which is the next "we have to deal with it" driver aid).

[StephenB]

I'm going to guess that was possible because you could disable ABS on a car that had it...?

K

Sorry for the delayed reply I was at work all day. When I was younger I did drive a bunch of Audi's with ABS, now that I think about it, I did always turn off the ABS with the button on the dash because "real drivers" didn't need ABS... well at least that is what I thought when I was in my teens :)

The controlled environment situation is from instructing at the Stevens Advanced Driver Education Program. I think they use a Ford Taures or Sable. Whatever that late 90's Ford passenger car was. Disabling the ABS is simply done by removing a fuse. We did accident avoidance over and over again in the exact same situation with and without ABS active. Honestly eye opening for me in what is most likely not an advanced system.

I now own a speed3 that has traction control and is HP limited to prevent torque steer... seems complex but interesting... it will barely scuff the tires now matter how hard I try even in the rain and in turns.

As far as my position on to allow it or not... not really sure. I agree with every post here except that it is less safe. Every other argument for and against I support.

Stephen

[Greg Amy]

my...lawn...get...off...my...lawn!!!!

[dickita15]

Practically speaking, the earliest we could get this online is for 2012, so that is another year of ITR cars being built without ABS.

I still think we are in too deep with ITR to change the rule on them now.

Next class up the chain is an easier call, although I still have doubts/reservations about ABS and traction control in IT (which is the next "we have to deal with it" driver aid).

The only problem with that is ITQ, the next class after R is a few years away in my mind.

I wish there was a way to pole the active R drivers.

[Greg Amy]

Pick a number - 150, 200 pounds? - and toss it on any car wishing to retain factory ABS. Then you can kick that can down the road, dealing with it later and avoid having to MANDATE removal of a stock components.

Call me "full of myself" (shockers, it'd be a first ;) ) but were I pitted in a non-ABS car against someone with the same car with ABS, I'd bet a case of our favorite on the outcome...but I would need to ensure sobriety...after all, I don't want you claiming later you had a hangover...just sayin'...

[Ron Earp]

I wish there was a way to pole the active R drivers.

Jeezus Dick......keep that to yourself.....

[JeffYoung]

We've gotten 8? maybe 10? letters? I think all were opposed, I need to check.


The only problem with that is ITQ, the next class after R is a few years away in my mind.

I wish there was a way to pole the active R drivers.

[JoshS]

I've been avoiding getting involved with this thread because I'm both an ITR driver and also on the ITAC, and I don't want my personal opinion construed as "the plan of the ITAC." It isn't.

But I think Kirk has it totally right. I think there aren't that many ITR cars and it's not that big a deal for those who have removed it, to add it back if they want to. We have to do it someday, so why not now? In the interest of full disclosure though, I did a brand new build in winter '06/'07, and I chose to keep the ABS hardware in the car just in case this rule ever changed. I think it's a performance advantage and I'd use it if I could.

Now ... I really hate the idea of "pick which rules you want to follow, and that will determine your weight." As in, one ITR BMW 325i might have a minimum weight of 2765, and that other one that looks just like it might have a minimum of 2965. I hate it. One weight per make/model/year/engine please!

I don't think there's an ITR car for which the factory ABS would not be an advantage, therefore, I'd give weight breaks to the *3* (now 6, with those old 911s we added) cars listed that never had any ABS available, as part of the weight-assignment process (it would be a subtractor if there was no ABS available). For cars that had it available but for which the driver thinks it's not an improvement, well, go ahead and remove it, it would still be allowable. For the people that did a new build and tossed the parts, well, nothing would be forcing them to go put it back before their next race, but if they felt it would be an advantage, sure, they would want to go back and re-acquire those parts sooner rather than later. I see the inconvenience, but for the good of the class & category, this would be my vote.

However, we put this out for member input, and got very little. But with one exception, every letter we got was from someone in that last category, who didn't want to be inconvenienced like that. The other letter was from someone without an ITR car but who felt that it was a bad step down a slippery slope. Add that to the original letter requesting the change, and we have exactly one member writing in requesting the change. That's not enough positive feedback to support a change, as, as Kirk pointed out, the status quo wins without compelling arguments and support.

[Ron Earp]

However, we put this out for member input, and got very little. But with one exception, every letter we got was from someone in that last category, who didn't want to be inconvenienced like that. The other letter was from someone without an ITR car but who felt that it was a bad step down a slippery slope. Add that to the original letter requesting the change, and we have exactly one member writing in requesting the change. That's not enough positive feedback to support a change, as, as Kirk pointed out, the status quo wins without compelling arguments and support.

I hate to bring it up, but after the motor mount fiasco should the membership still believe that member input has a bearing on the ITAC recommendations? I really shouldn't beat that horse but I'm still weary that the ITAC can/will do what the ITAC wishes and that may or may not agree with the majority of member input.

[lateapex911]

Well, I know which letter Josh was describing was mine, LOL.

I see both sides of the issue, but, as a guy who loves the unpredictable challenge rain racing brings, I really want ABS kept off our cars.

Yea, in many cases, it won't make a difference, BUT, two equal cars, and two equal drivers, ...there ARE situations where it can be advantageous. But more than that, we have open ECUs. Allow 4 wheel speed sensors, and suddenly, guys like Vaughn Scott will have a whole kettle of fish that most of us can not even imagine.

That's a slippery slope, and it ups the game....for everyone.

Braking is a skill, like throttle modulation, steering modulation, timing, and clutch modulation in downshifting. And it's forbidden in all the top racing series, even the technological leader, F1. And I'm very glad it is, as the racing is far better. Separates the men from the boys.

[Terry Hanushek]

Josh


I think there aren't that many ITR cars and it's not that big a deal for those who have removed it, to add it back if they want to.

FYI

We had fourteen ITR cars enter one or more rounds of our Northeast Division Pro IT series this year. I don't know how many of them were ITS cars which were 'promoted' and I don't know how much effort / expense it would by to retrofit ABS on these cars.

Terry

[dj10]

I will say this one damn last time! BECAUSE OF THE DISPARITY BETWEEN ABS SYSTEMS & YEARS THERE IS NO WAY YOU SHOULD ALLOW ABS IN IT RACING!!! If you want to run ABS go production, National racing, SPO or SPU. If you can't drive without ABS you shouldn't be allowed to be on a race track, unless you drive Porsche, BMW, Corvette etc. driving schools.

[madrabbit15]

Why does there seem to be this push from the club to have ABS in ITR, when from what I am hearing, all of the reponses were "NO". Isnt this a club to serve its members or are we working from a representative democracy here?

In any case, having built an ITR car in the last year, with the rules in the last year, I am against ABS. If for no other reason than to replumb/wire and find a good abs unit, that is not out of some yard car with 100k on it. Which I am sure is the same reason for most of the responses, but whats wrong with that?

It is just like the emission systems on IT cars, that is some of the stuff that we just know has to go when we start building. There is nothing wrong with just saying IT cars will not have ABS from now on.

From all of the BMW guys I have talked to that raced an E46 in Grand Am with ABS, they claimed it was a huge advantage. If I have to because members on committees want us to now add it back, then whatever, lets just not change our mind back the other way 2 years from now, like the shock deal a few years ago. I would like it to be made part of the record as to how many were for and against and which way the committee chose to go.

I do like the idea of the weight addition for ABS or without. Makes complete sense.

[Spec Volcanic]

BECAUSE OF THE DISPARITY BETWEEN ABS SYSTEMS & YEARS THERE IS NO WAY YOU SHOULD ALLOW ABS IN IT RACING!!!

But near is a disparity between all types of things...
Engine type, displacement, valve size, susp. type, more things then I care to list.

That's why we have different Class and weights...

Up here in Canada (WMCA) OEM ABS (no aftermarket)is aloud in IT, removal is also aloud. I don't have ABS and about 1/2 the cars do, is there some advange? Likely, but it has never cost me a spot is a race.

I look at IT this why, It is IMPROVED Touring, meaning with the expection of safety we are taking a street car and a making some small improvements to it. If it a car has OEM ABS, T/C, Varible valve timing, that's the way in goes. We/you can try and adjust weights and class to correct for it, but there will always be cars that are more competive and there will always be underdogs.

If rules don't move forward with time they will die, we won't be able to race CRX's, E30, FB and FC forever and some point it will be 2010 civic's and 370Z, at which time ABS and DCT's will have to be considered.
Today may not be the day the rules have to change, but that day will come.

[JoshS]

Why does there seem to be this push from the club to have ABS in ITR, when from what I am hearing, all of the reponses were "NO". Isnt this a club to serve its members or are we working from a representative democracy here?

There is no push from the club. The background is that a member (not an ITAC member, or anyone even close to an ITAC member from what I can tell) wrote in a letter asking us to allow it. The ITAC published the request as a "WDYT" (What Do You Think?) to see if other people agreed with the author. There has been no rule change recommendation. I'm not sure why you think there is any pressure. This idea did NOT come from the ITAC.

The stuff I posted above should not be construed as a "push from the club" ... it was just my personal opinion. It's true that I think it's a good idea to allow it. But I'm just one voice of 8 on the ITAC. As you have seen in this thread, other ITAC members completely disagree with me. Please work with me to try to separate my opinions from those of the ITAC as a body.

[madrabbit15]

Josh,

My mistake, from my misunderstanding. I appologize.

I still dont want ABS.........

[dj10]

Traction control is illegal, why is that? What is ABS? It's another form of traction control. He who has the latest car model, the highest cost per vehichle will have the best ABS System especially in the rain/ or snow. :~)

[GKR_17]

with one exception, every letter we got was from someone in that last category, who didn't want to be inconvenienced like that.

That was only one of the six reasons I listed to oppose this idea.

What about the cars already classed (more to come) that have ESC? They get traction control even though it's not legal for anyone else. Then there's Vaughan's custom ABS unit from Bosch. Do you really think stuff like that won't creep in somehow? Anybody remember how we got to open ECUs? The exact same logic applies to ABS.

[robits325is]

ABS was in IT until 2000 or 2001 or so. Those that didn't have it complained that it was an unfair advantage and it was banned.

[924Guy]

As far as "deal with it" - note that in 2012, all passenger cars per FMVSS126 are required to have stability control (with some exceptions that are irrelevant for IT).

So in 2017, we will have cars in IT that only came with ABS, TCS and ESC. And they're modern, very effective systems.

[betamotorsports]

VIT - Vintage Improved Touring. This should keep the Luddites happy:

Carbs only.
No ABS.
No ECUs.
Points ignition (no Hall effect or LED triggers).
Drum brakes on the rear.
14" wheels.
Phoenix Stahlflex 301 tires.

[Ed Funk]

VIT - Vintage Improved Touring. This should keep the Luddites happy:

Carbs only.
No ABS.
No ECUs.
Points ignition (no Hall effect or LED triggers).
Drum brakes on the rear.
14" wheels.
Phoenix Stahlflex 301 tires.

Cool, got all that stuff! And, I'm old!

[Knestis]

... Isnt this a club to serve its members or are we working from a representative democracy here? ...

I sure hope not.

K

[steve b]

open ECUs, power/disk brakes, fuel injection, etc. = performance improvements or mechanic's aids

auto transmission, traction control, abs = driver's aids

Depending on cost, I can support changes for performance gains and mechanic's aids. I can not support driver's aids no matter how common place they become.

Power steering is the one allowance that I can think of that would be considered a driver's aid. The drivers that I know that could, removed their power steering.

[StephenB]

open ECUs, power/disk brakes, fuel injection, etc. = performance improvements or mechanic's aids

auto transmission, traction control, abs = driver's aids

Depending on cost, I can support changes for performance gains and mechanic's aids. I can not support driver's aids no matter how common place they become.

Power steering is the one allowance that I can think of that would be considered a driver's aid. The drivers that I know that could, removed their power steering.

Hmmmmm I Think you may have just swayed me to the NO ABS side. :) I really don't want to give up that feeling of outbreaking a peer through my own ability to threshold break. I think your post is a solid explanation for my viewpoint, well said!

Stephen

[lateapex911]

Hmmmmm I Think you may have just swayed me to the NO ABS side. :) I really don't want to give up that feeling of outbreaking a peer through my own ability to threshold break. I think your post is a solid explanation for my viewpoint, well said!

Stephen

While it's true that your Audis have been known to break on the threshold of wins as well as other events, I think you are more proud of your threshold braking....

[CRallo]

While it's true that your Audis have been known to break on the threshold of wins as well as other events, I think you are more proud of your threshold braking....

*owned*

[jimmyc]

Even with a brake bias you can only apply 2 different amounts of pressures to the brakes. 1 equal amount to the front and 1 equal amount to the rear. The very instant that ANY 1 of the 4 wheels locks up you are at your maximum braking regardless of the bias. Agreed the bias helps reduce the brake force to the rear however you are still only able to apply the maximum braking force up until the first tire locks up regardless if its inside, outside, front or rear. With ABS all 4 wheels work individually and allow maximum braking to each and every wheel.

I am not an expert but I have tested both with and without ABS in the exact same scenario in the exact same car on the exact same day in a controlled environment. The comparison was mind boggling to me and I instantly became a believer and more importantly an understander.

STEPHEN

errr maybe you missed my point.

On a FWD car, the inside rear typically has very little weight on it and can lock up very easily, or have no weight on it and STOP.

When this happens WITH ABS:

Older systems just engage abs... but you really aren't at the limit, and the fact that the inside rear tire is stop doesn't mean anything...

Newer systems.. you get a whole lot of fun, some times limp mode, some times ICE mode... who knows.


With out abs/with bias valve:

You lock up that inside rear it smokes, but you still brake just as hard and nothing happens except tires smoking...

[jimmyc]

I don't think there's an ITR car for which the factory ABS would not be an advantage,

You're wrong Josh, the newly classed 06 civic SI would be a huge disadvantage.

[Knestis]

Well at least we all agree on that. :)

K