One...more....time...

[lateapex911]

Here's a letter I sent to the ITAC and CRB, since it's a new year and all. And it's not Ground Hog Day......yet. ;)


Sirs-

I write to request that you approve of alternate engine and transmission mounts for the Improved Touring category.

I do so with this history:

The allowance was requested once recently. My understanding was that a rule was written that had good verbiage to prevent non stock relocation of the driveline.
The membership was invited to provide input, and my understanding is that the input was overwhelming in both the amount and the one sided nature: nearly 100% in favor.
The ITAC vote was, to my understanding, divided down the middle. (the first vote was positive, but the membership changed in the time period between the votes)

Inexplicably, the request was denied in Fastrack.


Further, the ITCS has, since nearly the inception of the category, allowed methods to control engine and transmission movement. Philosophically then, this request breaks absolutely no new ground.
IT racers have been using various methods of engine location control for decades. The only difference is that, when the rule was written, alternate and higher performing mounts were rarely available.
Times and technology have changed of course, and the rule writers need to stay current with the changes. Today, many alternate mounts are available via the aftermarket. Further, many stock mounts
can be modified easily and inexpensively to achieve the same effect. Many factory mounts have become complicated and excessively expensive, and the current allowances to control engine movement
are insufficient and these mounts fail quickly under the rigors of racing. Rather than replacing these highly expensive mounts with less expensive and more effective aftermarket versions, the current rules
force the replacements to be stock. This adds to the expense of racing in a manner that is completely unnecessary and totally avoidable.

While it isn't the rules writers responsibility to ensure racers have the ability to build their cars in the cheapest manner possible, it IS their responsibility to listen
to the wants and needs of the members, and to accommodate the members when the action has no downsides.

Allowing alternate mounts will break no new performance ground. It will not open a new performance envelope. It breaks no new philosophical ground, and it creates no competitive imbalances. It has no downsides.
It merely offers the membership more ways to skin the same cat.

I urge the ITAC and the CRB to do what the embers have clearly indicated they want: Allow alternate engine and transmission mounts.


Regards


Jake Gulick

Now, the ITAC and CRB have MASSIVE support for this on file AND they have the rule already written, so, Jeff, Travis, should people write in AGAIN to support it??

[chuck baader]

+1, if necessary. CB

[Flyinglizard]

If everyone uses them, what can happen. Just all agree to use any stock placement mounts, and get on with it.
This is just like the vin rule. Took 10 yrs toget it fixed. The Board is supposed to listen to the guys paying to race .

[Ron Earp]

If everyone uses them, what can happen. Just all agree to use any stock placement mounts, and get on with it.
This is just like the vin rule. Took 10 yrs toget it fixed. The Board is supposed to listen to the guys paying to race .

+1 to that. Power to the people.

[jhooten]

I know this will not be popular but here goes.

If you want to race a production car build a production car.

[Z3_GoCar]

:023:(To Jake)

[lateapex911]

I know this will not be popular but here goes.

If you want to race a production car build a production car.

So, for the guys who ...lets say, race a car that has expensive and fragile engine mounts, that break often, you suggest they leave the category they love...... or stop whining and keep spending ten times what it would cost to bolt in an aftermarket mount that would last far longer?

See, to me, THAT's the kind of thinking that open minded newbies look at and say "Crusty old geezers club, Screw them." (And trust me, that's what they DID say the last time the PTB botched this one)

If we can write a rule that allows people to do what we already allow them to do, but in a easier, more effective and more budget friendly way, why shouldn't we? Because according to you, they should put up and shut up, or go race in other categories where their car isn't classed, that require significant changes to the car, require them to change schedules/friends etc, so they can use ONE allowance? Really? THATs a good solution/recommendation? They'll be more likely to find a place to race in NASA, BMWCCA, PCA, etc etc.

Times change, if the club doesn't keep up, it dies.

My point might not be popular with you, but that line of thinking seems to me to be close minded and rather elitist.

[preparedcivic]

I know this will not be popular but here goes.

If you want to race a production car build a production car.

I thoroughly disagree. That this allowance hasn't been updated in 25+ years is just plain dumb, and frankly comments like the one above are indicative of a lack of relevancy from many in the SCCA, and I can get away with saying that having been in the Club since 1984.

Per the ITCS I can cryo fragile metal bits, stuff a Motec in my ECU case, put sphericals in my suspension, but I can't legally fill the voids in my motor and trans mounts with 3M Window Weld from Home Depot?

My letter has been sent.

[Flyinglizard]

SCCA is a bunch of crusty old geezers. Thats a given.
Can you get reasonable rules?? No, not in a reasonable time frame.
Is SCCA a member driven club?? Not from what I have seen.
Does the rule make for good racing?? Most of the time. If they are checked, ever.
300$ for a legality question?? Total BS.

[RacerBill]

Jake, what is the letter number, so I can voice my support.

[mossaidis]

I know this will not be popular but here goes.

If you want to race a production car build a production car.

antagonist? or protagonist? tough to say. You do have courage my friend...

[JLawton]

Hey, don't get testy with Jerry just because he has a different opinion...............





.

[JeffYoung]

Exactly - Jerry expressed a valid viewpoint, and did so politiely. That's appreciated.

We need the debate on this. While I support it, in discussing it with those who opposed it I certainly did learn something about potential pitfalls in allowing it that need to be addressed in the rule. Debate is a good thing.

[EV]

I know this will not be popular but here goes.

If you want to race a production car build a production car.
If you race production, then your opinion on the matter means doody.

Let's stage a silent protest, run your poly mounts, and all agree to not protest your fellow competitors for said mounts.

[BruceG]

Keeping the rule the way it is currently may be one more nail in the cofffin(wallet) of NER racers. What with the 2010 helmets, H&R rules(needed), increased reg fees, wait till we pay for pump gas this spring at LRP,etc, Jake is right in requesting a rule change that may save us money and not affect racing.IMHO

[Greg Amy]

...requesting a rule change that may save us money and not affect racing.IMHO

First, I support the rule. I believe it's within the modern philosophy of the class, especially given technology and aftermarket supply changes over the last quarter-century.

But if you're pushing this as a cost savings, safety, or performance move then I'm opposed to it. There is no cost savings to the category as a whole; it's cheaper to leave the stock ones in and I've never had to replace motor mounts due to the stress of racing in decades of running Improved Touring. There is no safety in this change to the category as a whole; if it's a safety issue for you then it's your responsibility to replace them as a service item regularly. And there's no performance value to the category as a whole; as in costs and "safety", some will benefit, some will not.

So if you want to be honest about the whole thing, simply say exactly as Jake has: I like this, I want to do it, it's a reasonable modification to allow, and I believe it's within the philosophy of the category.

But don't play this dishonest game of "safety and costs".

GA

[RacerBill]

I agree that Jerry has a valid point about the slippery slope from IT to Production-like rules. However, there is a difference between rules changes that allow the addition of complex (expensive) changes such as open ECU's, coil-over suspensions, etc. and a simple change in the material used in a motor mount. Some will say, enough is enough - no more changes, or if we allow the change then everyone will be forced to make the same change (BS!!!!!). And others will say that we need the change to lower costs to our racers. I tend to agree with the later viewpoint. (Sorry Greg, I was writing my post while you were writing your's).

[mossaidis]

Hey, don't get testy with Jerry just because he has a different opinion...............

I did appreciate the disclaimer and approach, wasn't trying to be testy. :) Seriously. If I was, I would be including him with the like of some others on forum that call us whiners and like. I meant what I said, it takes courage to say what Jerry said on this forum.

Jerry, I meant no offense, it was 6:32 am in morning, please forgive me if I came off as "testy" as that was not my intent. I do want to ask you to expand on your view point if it's anything other than the "if you want to do more to your car, then upgrade to prod" viewpoint.

[almskidd]

There are a few downsides to this allowance. First of all there are more than a few aftermarket mounts out there that move the motor from its factory location.

With my particular motor I could easily move my motor down an inch or more using factory motor mounts with the stock rubber removed and the window weld polyurethane squeezed into its place. If we allow complete replacement of factory motor mounts it would be even easier to disguise the relocation or even rotation of the motor. Would I personally do that, no. But would other people do that, absolutely. Some people don't mind being that guy, if it helps them win.

Even though this type of cheating is a certainty, I am still 100% behind this allowance. A lot of cars out there really need a better system for supporting their engines than what comes from the factory and at least a few of them are down right dangerous if not checked often. I would personally like to fill my mounts with poly and call it a day. You have my support.

[JeffYoung]

We woud nt consider a rule that allowed the motor to move. We can't write rules to stop cheating, and this allowance won't really change anything. If someone wants to move the motor with a disguised mount, they will do that.

[EV]

<snip>...Even though this type of cheating is a certainty...</snip>

I agree, but we can't base the possibility of cheating as a reason to disallow a rule change. Isn't this the whole reason we have the current ECU rule? Too many people cheating, and no way to control it.

I want the poly mount rule because on my car the engine moves around so much, chit breaks. If YOUR car, or YOU don't have a mount issue, then don't f'ing change them.

I don't understand the "well I don't need them so no one else should have them" logic. How lame is that? :shrug:

[almskidd]

I agree, but we can't base the possibility of cheating as a reason to disallow a rule change. Isn't this the whole reason we have the current ECU rule? Too many people cheating, and no way to control it.

I want the poly mount rule because on my car the engine moves around so much, chit breaks. If YOUR car, or YOU don't have a mount issue, then don't f'ing change them.

I don't understand the "well I don't need them so no one else should have them" logic. How lame is that? :shrug:

Agreed which is why I am a 100% behind the rule allowance. Plus I do need poly mounts.


We woud nt consider a rule that allowed the motor to move. We can't write rules to stop cheating, and this allowance won't really change anything. If someone wants to move the motor with a disguised mount, they will do that.

I didn't even think of the fact that someone could be doing that now with factory looking mounts. So that just makes that argument even more invalid.

[lateapex911]

One MAJOR aspect of rule writing is to NOT trip up on the "It will be easy to cheat that up" caveat.
Rules do not enforce. People enforce. Or not. Their choice.
In this case, enforcement is easy. Protest mount. Remove mount. Purchase new stock mount from manufacturer. measure. Soup.

Yes, it's a bit more hassle than that, but.....if I walked the paddock now, I bet I'd find 10% of the cars have illegal mounts. And I don't see many protests. Which tells you something.

Here are the sides of the debate, as far as I can discern them:

Con: Rules currently allow control of engine location via stayrods. Some ITAC members feel this includes chains (that operate under tension). So we don't need the rules creep.
Counterpoint: Stayrods are allowed in ONE place. The engine can still move around quite a bit. Further, stayrods are often the more difficult/expensive method. Finding the location on the chassis and engine that will handle the loads isn't always easy. Alternate mounts are merely another way to get to the same destination.

Con: Mounts represent a performance advantage to FWD cars: The stayrod method doesn't work on fwd cars as well because it doesn't lock down the entire drivetrain. Mounts will do this more effectively, giving the FWD cars a leg up on the RWD cars. (who can not lock down the entire drivetrain with engine mounts)
Counterpoint: If that's the case, Con # 1 (Stayrods are effective and other options are not needed) isn't true. Further the rule was written with the purpose of allowing engine location control. At the time, FWD cars were not as common, and alternate mounts were rare. As such, the rule was RWD centric, and RWD cars have been getting the greater potential advantage for years, while the rule didn't suit the FWD cars as well. Adding mounts to the existing allowance to control engine location merely evens things up a bit. Some will say the FWD cars gain additional advantage because the ENTIRE drivetrain is locked down as the trans is also the final drive, but that's largely irrelevant as RWD cars have numerous advantages with IRS and suspension allowances.

Con: Rules creep, the members want stability:
Counterpoint. Red herrring. It's not rules creep, the allowance already exists. If the rule says you can, then the rule should allow you do do what it purports to allow. As for the members, they have spoken that this allowance is not a threat to their desire for stability.

Con: If you don't like the rules, go race someplace else:
Counterpoint: I'm afraid the rules simply don't make sense. Why allow something, but then place limitations to NOT allow it? And I'm also afraid people WILL and DO go someplace else to race. Someplace where this aspect is handled with common sense....and it isn't always someplace else within the SCCA.

[jhooten]

Did I call anybody a whiner Jake?

Every year some body wants a new rule that takes IT closer to production. Some of the IT rules now allow car to be built that are closer to the production cars of a few years ago just as the production guys are asking for rules changes that move prod cars closer to GT every year.

What happen to IT being a budget entry level or a place for aged out SS cars? What about the younger drivers we are trying to entice into the sport? Many are just getting started in life and do not have big budgets. Now instead of being able to buy an older SS car or one of the more popular street cars, add a cage, seat, harness, and fire extinguisher then still have a chance at being competitive they have to build a RACECAR, or get bitched at for being a rolling chicane. Yea, that is going to do a lot to attract new drivers.

Just for the record my current wreck does not have a rubber or poly mount on the engine or transmission. And still won't when it gets out of the body shop. SOWDIV ITE rules allow it.

The other Supra on the pad under going an ITS build will have stock ECU and mounts. Perhaps I should just give up on IT and skip straight to a GT-2 build on the other Supra.

Jake you as well as anyone should know that racing ain't cheap. A rookie mistake by another driver just cost me $2500 in body work. I can either whine about it or get it fixed and move on. Parts wear out and break, belts expire, and unpopular safety upgrades are mandated. At the end of this year I will have to buy a new helmet and HANS or quit driving. We all know this and we all have to live with it. We also have to keep up with the maintenance on our cars. That means buying parts.

Here is my suggestion. If you all want to make IT more of a RACECAR class make a petition to have the class philosophy changed to allow the rule changes you want.
As a refresher:
"Improved Touring classes are intended to provide the membership with
the opportunity to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications,
suitable for racing competition. To that end, cars will be models, as
offered for sale in the United States. They will be prepared to manufacturer’s
specifications except for modifications permitted by these rules."

If anybody cares I will be at the convention. Look me up and cuss me in person.

[shwah]

I am still of the opinion that the problem this tries to solve can be solved now within the rules, is easier to do than people want to believe, and that 95% of the proponents have not even tried.

However it won't be the end of the world if it happens. Depending on the wording of any new allowance I plan to use it to shed 5-10 more pounds off the nose of my car.

[John Herman]

My engine breaks lifters. When it does, my engine is grenaded and really, nothing of value remains. I have gone so far as to tear the engine down after every race to inspect and replace parts as needed. This is time consuming and expensive. I've lost six engines due to this type of failure. (The preceding is 100% true. Now comes the fun part...) Therefore, I should be allowed to convert to a solid lifter with the same dimensions as the hydraulic one. This would be a cost savings for me, and a HUGE safety item as I will not oil down the track causing a HUGE accident. Since everything is the same as stock, there is no performance advantage. The engine rule should be changed to allow this change. If the rule is not changed, then SCCA is being unreasonable to my requests, and I think I'll just take my business elsewhere. Anyone who disagrees is being unreasonable and doesn't think clearly............I'm just sayin'

Change the engine lifter to front hubs on a lot of FWD cars and you can generate a similar arguement.

[callard]

I'll bet that my Benz has destroyed more motor mounts (and radiators) than any ten other brands.....
But the point is, Jake sent a letter. The ITAC and CRB already have the poll. Let them rule on the new letter.
Move to a new topic.

[Matt93SE]

I have no dog in the IT fight, but here's my opinion on safety and factory engine mounts...
Here's what my 93 Maxima (which could run in ITE if I so chose) did to THREE crossmembers in 20k miles of hard driving with stock- soft- engine mounts:
http://blehmco.com/pics/car/drivetrain/crossmember/IM000109.JPG

The stock engine mounts allowed the engine to move about 2" when I shifted and the engine would jumpt and hit the edge of the mount, causing a shock to propagate through the crossmember. do that a few thousand times and the xmember fatigued and snapped. I was fortunate that I felt this as soon as it snapped and chose to not enter the highway onramp I was about to turn on. I limped the car home and was able to repair the car before my engine hit the pavement and destroyed another oil pan.
I installed some window-welded engine mounts and another xmember and didn't have another problem with it. (as you can see in the photos in that folder, I also beefed up another xmember with 1/8" steel plate and installed it later..)

Again I have no dog in this IT fight so my $0.02 is only worth 1/2 that, but there's a real safety issue to look at. it would sure suck for a car with similar mounts like a Sentra or Altima to snap an Xmember and drop their engine onto the track at 100mph.

[JLawton]

I did appreciate the disclaimer and approach, wasn't trying to be testy. :) Seriously. If I was, I would be including him with the like of some others on forum that call us whiners and like. I meant what I said, it takes courage to say what Jerry said on this forum.

Jerry, I meant no offense, it was 6:32 am in morning, please forgive me if I came off as "testy" as that was not my intent. I do want to ask you to expand on your view point if it's anything other than the "if you want to do more to your car, then upgrade to prod" viewpoint.


My comment was just a generalization and not directed at you. You usually make it VERY clear when you're ripping into someone!! :D

[tom91ita]

i think i will write another letter regarding H&NR.

only this time i will include ACCUS.

http://www.accusfia.us/

[lateapex911]

Did I call anybody a whiner Jake?
Not directly, but the point is that just saying "Go away if you don't like it"....when the vast majority of respondents to a CRB query were very much for it, is inappropriate. it's indicative of an attitude that's not too tolerant, and that's gotten the SCCA a bad name. Listen, I don't give two cents about engine mounts..this aint about MY car...it's about a much bigger issue.


Every year some body wants a new rule that takes IT closer to production. Some of the IT rules now allow car to be built that are closer to the production cars of a few years ago just as the production guys are asking for rules changes that move prod cars closer to GT every year. Yes, and no. When I was on the ITAC, I rejected dozens of rules asking for things like lexan windows, carbon hoods, wings, bigger brakes, and so on. None of them had any real upside and all of them would cost every competitor time and money to keep up with the Jones'.

This is NOT a new ground breaking allowance. The forefathers wanted to allow engine movement controls. This is merely bringing an old rule in line with current times. Allowing window weld moves us not 1 nanometer closer to Prod, and saying so is just not accurate.


What happen to IT being a budget entry level or a place for aged out SS cars? What about the younger drivers we are trying to entice into the sport? Many are just getting started in life and do not have big budgets. Now instead of being able to buy an older SS car or one of the more popular street cars, add a cage, seat, harness, and fire extinguisher then still have a chance at being competitive they have to build a RACECAR, or get bitched at for being a rolling chicane. Yea, that is going to do a lot to attract new drivers. Well, I don't travel in your circles. I don't hear much bitching about slow cars/drivers. Unless they drive badly. Regardless, that really has zero, zilch nada to do with this, unless you're saying that an allowance of engine mounts will cost everyone $$. Or conversly that the cars lacking them will be backmarkers. It will actually save some people significant money. It's much cheaper and easier to buy some mounts (or spooge goo in your on the car stock mounts) and jack the car up, slip them in than it is to get rods, brackets, spherical bearings, and a welder and build a stayrod. Certainly it's more 'newbie friendly', and more in keeping with the "bolt on" nature of the class.


Jake you as well as anyone should know that racing ain't cheap. A rookie mistake by another driver just cost me $2500 in body work. .....been to frame machine myself for a guy who decided to try braking at the .5 mark instead of the 200 mark and T boned my car. My solution to that is to instruct whenever possible.

I can either whine about it or get it fixed and move on. Parts wear out and break, .....t. We also have to keep up with the maintenance on our cars. That means buying parts.
And my solution to THAT is to look at the rules with a little common sense and see how they can be made friendlier. Jerry, there are lots of reasons to allow engine mounts, and only one of them is for possible economic benefit to a certain subset of drivers. IF it provided an unfair advantage to some, then it would be a non starter. It might make it easier for some, cheaper for others, or a non issue with the rest. It WILL make it easier for non SCCA racer to race with us legally, as most other sanctioning bodies that have IT-like classes allow mounts,


Here is my suggestion. If you all want to make IT more of a RACECAR class make a petition to have the class philosophy changed to allow the rule changes you want.
As a refresher:
"Improved Touring classes are intended to provide the membership with
the opportunity to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications,
suitable for racing competition. To that end, cars will be models, as
offered for sale in the United States. They will be prepared to manufacturer’s
specifications except for modifications permitted by these rules."

If anybody cares I will be at the convention. Look me up and cuss me in person.yes, I know the opening mantra. And I ask you, is it easier for a newbie to spooge a little window weld into a stock mount or to fabricate a stayrod while knowing the best location for it that wont cause further damage?

See, to my eye, this allowance IS the the poster child for a 'limited modification suitable for racing competition"

[BruceG]

But don't play this dishonest game of "safety and costs"

Not exactly sure about what is dishonest about trying to save money for all racers, Greg?

[jimbbski]

I just putting this out there but if anyone checks out my motor mounts at the track this year they will find that they are new stock/OEM type rubber ones with the voids filled with polyurethane.

[Doc Bro]

I just putting this out there but if anyone checks out my motor mounts at the track this year they will find that they are new stock/OEM type rubber ones with the voids filled with polyurethane.

and that fits whose definition of legal besides your own?

[Knestis]

Greg x2

Chris x2

I've been relatively silent on the subject but as the outgoing King of Anti-Creep even I think an engine mount rule consistent with what's been talked about here would be totally fine. Completely consistent with other allowed LIMITED modifications within the intent statement, and already allowed by other more complex means.

And to be clear, I've already completely locked the engine in place with one 3" long stayrod, coaxial to the front engine mount. I spent the money for custom fabrication but I don't think it's reasonable to ride that high horse and force an entire category of drivers to do the same thing.

K

[Knestis]

I just putting this out there but if anyone checks out my motor mounts at the track this year they will find that they are new stock/OEM type rubber ones with the voids filled with polyurethane.

You knowingly cheat. You think it's OK for anyone to simply ignore the rules they don't like. It's not even fun to beat people like you.

I'll put up a $20 to contribute to protesting your car if anyone you race against is willing to write the paper. PM me if you're out there someone...

K

[RacerBill]

i think i will write another letter regarding H&NR.

only this time i will include ACCUS.

http://www.accusfia.us/

Isn't the President and CEO of SCCA also a VP of ACCUS?????????:rolleyes:

[tom91ita]

Bill,

not sure about the exact connection but it was something like that.

besides, i think it might be a broader appeal if we can communicate that there is a reason for them to collectively accept a performance based standard as opposed to a design based standard.

[GTIspirit]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the "warts and all" aspect of picking your car for IT. How is it that this saying applies to other discussions, but when it comes to motor mounts poorly suited/fragile for racing application that it's ok to dispense with this wart?

Personally I was opposed to the wording of the previous proposal. I felt there were too many vagaries and loopholes that could be exploited to some kind of advantage, like stated above, such as relocating the engine or modifying the kinematics of the mount system.

If it's simply a material substitution allowance, stock mounting locations and geometry must be maintained, however this is worded, then I'm in support.

[jimbbski]

and that fits whose definition of legal besides your own?


I wrote that just to see what reaction I would get. I do have two mounts so modified but they are not installed. If the rule being dicussed here is changed to make these legal then I will.
The allowance, if it happend, to legally install non OEM style motor mounts using non OEM materials it stand to reason that adding non OEM materials to OEM type mounts can be too. Or am I out in right field here?

[Lael Cleland]

I have a rear mount for my rabbit hanging on the wall that has long bolts all the way threw it, sleeves threw the mounts around the bolts, its metal to metal.... I have a pile of broken headers and engine mounts..... Even with the 8 different stay bars I have tried, some thing always breaks....... When I raced a 16v scirocco, the radiator support ripped away.....

I don't think allowing larger front wheel bearings is fair, but needed. BUT Spending $12 in 3M goo to save a $400 header would be nice.....

P.S. us MK1 VW guys can install the side engine mounts upside down to lower the engine1.5 inches with OEM mounts.... is that legal?

[callard]

P.S. us MK1 VW guys can install the side engine mounts upside down to lower the engine1.5 inches with OEM mounts.... is that legal?

Hey, thanks for reminding me, Porsche inverted their gearbox to lower the racecar and improve halfshaft angles........Evil Grin

[Knestis]

I wrote that just to see what reaction I would get. I do have two mounts so modified but they are not installed. If the rule being dicussed here is changed to make these legal then I will.
The allowance, if it happend, to legally install non OEM style motor mounts using non OEM materials it stand to reason that adding non OEM materials to OEM type mounts can be too. Or am I out in right field here?

Then you're less a cheater than you are a smarty-pants. :happy204:

K

[Z3_GoCar]

I have a rear mount for my rabbit hanging on the wall that has long bolts all the way threw it, sleeves threw the mounts around the bolts, its metal to metal.... I have a pile of broken headers and engine mounts..... Even with the 8 different stay bars I have tried, some thing always breaks....... When I raced a 16v scirocco, the radiator support ripped away.....

I don't think allowing larger front wheel bearings is fair, but needed. BUT Spending $12 in 3M goo to save a $400 header would be nice.....

P.S. us MK1 VW guys can install the side engine mounts upside down to lower the engine1.5 inches with OEM mounts.... is that legal?

So since:


9. Hardware items (nuts, bolts, etc.) may be replaced by
similar items performing the same fastening function(s).

I can take a hole saw to my current mounts and insert my new similar hardware items in the middle that performs the same fastening function:happy204:

As for making racing more economical, preventing money shifts every third race thus making new valves and bearings neccessary. Then there's the safety aspect of avoiding the oil slick when my pan breaks on the crossmember.

[Lael Cleland]

I didn't increase the diameter of the hardware, just the length and went to 12.9 grade.... Unless you disassemble the mount, I looks stock..... And yes I did use a 3/4 in hole saw..... 30 degree 12mm & 8mm flush head counter sunk type bolt(the real name eludes me).. It may be too stiff, The shear loads there are huge.... I have broken blocks, bolts, Heim joints, you name it, trying stay bars....

Now if i went back to a stock type clutch disk with springs, ditch my 5 year old 4 puck, I may not brake mounts and things but I would be replacing the clutch twice a year...
Its yin and yang.....

[StephenB]

So first of all I must say that it wouldn't matter to me which way the rule went.

My first thought is that I believe it fits the philosophy and purpose of the class. I do get a ton of movement with my engine and this is a cheap bolt on part that increases the reliability of my racecar. since it is FWD the only things that can really break are the exhaust and shift linkage. Exhaust now has a flex section at the start of it and luckily the linkage has enough play that it doesn't break until a motor mount actually breaks. Even then the engine usually just shifts and it gets stuck in a gear. I just dismiss it as a maintenance part and "that's racing" But if the rule did change I would clearly have an advantage in relation to reliability. So naturally I am in favor for selfish reasons :)

Second thought is that I honestly think the response should be "we have already had this proposed rule change requested and the decision was made to not allow them at this time. No new evidence shows that we should overturn that decision." I really hate to say that especially since most people want it but I also don't think that a new regime should be able to overturn a previous regimes decision within a single year, unless of course new evidence or reason is given to change the rule. If they do decide to overturn the previous decision it (IMHO) shows a lack of rules stability and shows that depending on who is in "office" can really change the future of the class with no regard to previous leadership. So although I hate to say it but I really think the previous decision should stand...

Stephen

[lateapex911]

Second thought is that I honestly think the response should be "we have already had this proposed rule change requested and the decision was made to not allow them at this time. No new evidence shows that we should overturn that decision." I really hate to say that especially since most people want it but I also don't think that a new regime should be able to overturn a previous regimes decision within a single year, unless of course new evidence or reason is given to change the rule. If they do decide to overturn the previous decision it (IMHO) shows a lack of rules stability and shows that depending on who is in "office" can really change the future of the class with no regard to previous leadership. So although I hate to say it but I really think the previous decision should stand...

Stephen

Read my summation again. The ITAC already voted in favor of the rules change, pending member support.
THEN, three months later, when OVERWHELMING member support showed a landslide in favor, the new ITAC inexplicably decided to re-vote, and this time, the vote was tied. The CRB decided a tie vote, in spite of the overwhelming member support, was not a positive vote, so they left the rule 'as is'.

To me, that is a disservice to the membership, who clearly made their desires known. It's my opinion that when the ITAC took it's second vote THAT was in error...they had already voted in favor pending the members response. I suspect a vocal member of the ITAC convinced the new guys (on their first or second call, I think) to vote his way.

To me, the whole thing is a travesty, it is a new calender year, and the issue needs to be reexamined, looking at it critically.

Essentially, I agree with your thought process, but I'm looking at it from an internal point of view: They voted in favor to start with, then double backed on that vote. It's my feeling that that vote was irresponsible to their policies and charter to serve the membership.

[StephenB]

"I agree with your thought process, but I'm looking at it from an internal point of view: They voted in favor to start with, then double backed on that vote. It's my feeling that that vote was irresponsible to their policies and charter to serve the membership."

Maybe we should appeal the decision rather than request the rule change again. I am honestly not sure how or if an appeal process exists but it should since it is a board that represents its members that overwhelmingly disagrees with their decision. After reading your request again I think your heading in the correct direction and asking them to discuss the decision again, I am just not sure if its going to work.

Stephen

[Simon T.]

I'm all for aftermarket mounts.

I sent a request for battery relocation...yours is much better written, you all don't bash me too hard. I just don't want to swap my battery to the front. LOL

[Eagle7]

I sent a request for battery relocation...yours is much better written, you all don't bash me too hard. I just don't want to swap my battery to the front. LOL
I'm going to bash you. You'll have to determine whether it's too hard. :D

By writing the letter, you must have had one of two mindsets: either "screw y'all, I want this for me", or "I think this is best for the category".

If the former, shame on you. If the latter, then you have to think about the implications. Is there a performance advantage to moving 30 lbs from the left front to the right rear? Clearly yes for many cars. So if my arch-rival moves his battery I have to move mine or I'm screwed. Or, even worse, if it doesn't help my car to move it, now I'm further back in the grid and I can't do anything about it.

[seckerich]

It would be nice if we could move out of the 90's and at least allow AGM batteries in the stock location. Set a minimum weight to keep out the ultra expensive carbon jobs and they are no more expensive than a stock replacement in most cases. Would it help some cars to loose 10 pounds off the front--sure, but we do not use battery location in classing anyway.

[Tristan Smith]

Steve, why can't I use a different type of battery. I don't see anything in the rules that dis-allows it: What am I missing?

GCR:

9.3.9. BATTERIES
Battery location is unrestricted within the bodywork (except Showroom
Stock, Spec Miata, Touring, and Improved Touring). If located in the
driver/passenger compartment, vented wet cell batteries shall be in a
nonconductive marine type container or equivalent. The hot terminal
shall be insulated on all cars. All batteries (on-board power supplies)
shall be attached securely to the frame or chassis structure independent
of the marine type container.

IT Rules
9.1.3e

Batteries may be replaced with those of
alternate manufacture provided they are of similar amp-hour
capacity and weight and are fitted in the standard location.

[lateapex911]

I think the rule USED to say "Type" and maybe "group". Now it says 'similar", which is VERY open to interpretation.
Regardless, when I next do a race car battery, I'm going gel cel.

[JoshS]

I have a Deka AGM battery, stock size, stock mounts, in the stock location. Didn't know think such a thing was illegal?

[Simon T.]

I'm going to bash you. You'll have to determine whether it's too hard. :D

By writing the letter, you must have had one of two mindsets: either "screw y'all, I want this for me", or "I think this is best for the category".

If the former, shame on you. If the latter, then you have to think about the implications. Is there a performance advantage to moving 30 lbs from the left front to the right rear? Clearly yes for many cars. So if my arch-rival moves his battery I have to move mine or I'm screwed. Or, even worse, if it doesn't help my car to move it, now I'm further back in the grid and I can't do anything about it.

It's not just for me, my car won't be fast enough to even worry about the battery being in an illegal location. However many other series cars easily fit IT rules but have small things, one the battery relocated, which steers them away, sounds stupid but I've spoke to many who mention just that, the other little things can easily be swapped back and forth.

I mentioned that the batteries have to be mounted on the left side of the car (someone can easily swap sides if it was already on the right) and weight has to be added to that cars minimum competition weight. So really there wouldn't be any performance gains but there could be more cars on the grid.

It's my first time at this, so don't go TOO hard on me. :shrug:



;)

[mossaidis]

"Batteries may be replaced with those of alternate manufacture provided they are of similar amp-hour capacity and weight and are fitted in the standard location."

Are gel-cel or AGM batteries a "similar" weight as originally placed in the car? lol, I think we have a thread elsewhere just on batteries regarding "similar" agruements. I would keep it simple and hopefully less hassle for tech, keep the battery in stock location and let it be replaced with any size, amp-hour capacity, weight etc. A variation would state a 8 lbs minimum or whatever is commonly available yet light. IT should be cheap, simply, safe AND most importantly FUN.

[JoshS]

Are gel-cel or AGM batteries a "similar" weight as originally placed in the car? lol ...

Mine is. It's exactly the same size and 1 lb *heavier* than the original equipment battery that came out. You must all be thinking of those micro-batteries that are certainly not anywhere close to the same size. I replaced a Group 48 lead-acid wet-cell with a Group 48 AGM, and reused the stock mounting. Why would that be illegal?

[Matt93SE]

Or, even worse, if it doesn't help my car to move it, now I'm further back in the grid and I can't do anything about it.

You could always learn to drive a little better. :D
I would think that moving 30lb in the car will make a smaller difference in overall lap times than a driver improvement would make..


...just sayin... :)

[mossaidis]

Mine is. It's exactly the same size and 1 lb *heavier* than the original equipment battery that came out. You must all be thinking of those micro-batteries that are certainly not anywhere close to the same size. I replaced a Group 48 lead-acid wet-cell with a Group 48 AGM, and reused the stock mounting. Why would that be illegal?

Does not sound illegal to me (nor was I suggesting it was.) Read through the battery thread we have posted somewhere on it.com, perhaps i can find it myself and forward it to you. There was much speculation about what are the weights of original batteries. it's usually not listed in their handbooks and by the time we get our IT cars prepped, the original was been replaced 3 times over - so how can I prove that the current battery is same weight as the original? It's very hard to protest and/or defend against.

[lateapex911]

Does not sound illegal to me (nor was I suggesting it was.) Read through the battery thread we have posted somewhere on it.com, perhaps i can find it myself and forward it to you. There was much speculation about what are the weights of original batteries. it's usually not listed in their handbooks and by the time we get our IT cars prepped, the original was been replaced 3 times over - so how can I prove that the current battery is same weight as the original? It's very hard to protest and/or defend against.

Go to NAPA etc. Take bathroom scale. Get battery book, look up car. Read listing showing stock group. Get the guy to bring stock group to the counter and weigh it. Soup.
if the car came with options (different groups) weight those. Choose lightest. Soup...and crackers.

Now find a AGM version (plenty to choose from) that is the same weight and get that. Soup and crackers, but served by a hot waitress.

[Eagle7]

You could always learn to drive a little better. :D
Hey now, play nice. No need to confuse a good argument with facts. :happy204:

[CRallo]

Simon - saying you only have to follow the rules if you're to place well is not only a shity attitude, that statement is not as true as you think... I speak from experience lol I came up nine pounds light once at impound after "winning" STU. I was about 40 lbs lighter than the car owner who ran ITA with the car the same weekend... But I still got DQ'd and we had to scramble to add ballast and get the car reweighed while running the car "triple duty"!

Jake - you have such a way with words!

[Simon T.]

Simon - saying you only have to follow the rules if you're to place well is not only a shity attitude, that statement is not as true as you think... I speak from experience lol I came up nine pounds light once at impound after "winning" STU. I was about 40 lbs lighter than the car owner who ran ITA with the car the same weekend... But I still got DQ'd and we had to scramble to add ballast and get the car reweighed while running the car "triple duty"!

Jake - you have such a way with words!

I didn't mean it as "I'll do whatever I want" I was just saying, I won't accidentally be winning ITA or anything. For the time being, especially my first season, I'm not too worried about a small infraction that nobody will notice. If I start being competitive then I'll fix it.

[mossaidis]

Soup and crackers, but served by a hot waitress.

I assume this is your idea of good time? wow... Jake, you need to get out more. ;)

[lateapex911]

Better than grits served by a big fatty chewing gum!

[DavidM]

:dead_horse:

Nothing is going to be said different this time around than last time.

[Knestis]

:dead_horse:

Nothing is going to be said different this time around than last time.

Non suscipit cursus...

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed semper lacinia turpis, sed pharetra risus molestie sit amet. Nam id facilisis urna. Pellentesque est ligula, rutrum non ornare at, hendrerit nec velit. Maecenas lorem orci, molestie convallis aliquam ac, imperdiet sit amet arcu. Sed tincidunt mi tincidunt sem pretium non sollicitudin dolor lobortis. Donec cursus, risus rutrum dignissim faucibus, enim lectus mollis arcu, sed dictum nibh neque id odio...? Donec at eros sem.

Suspendisse quis arcu ut dolor tempor sodales a et nisl. Curabitur condimentum aliquam egestas. Quisque fringilla sagittis metus, feugiat hendrerit augue semper vitae. Maecenas consectetur leo ornare lectus lobortis a adipiscing odio egestas. Sed eu risus nec nunc auctor tempor. Vestibulum viverra tempor tempor.

Etiam porta rhoncus lorem, at semper erat pellentesque vel. Curabitur in tellus eu diam tristique fermentum. Suspendisse consequat laoreet lacus porttitor convallis. Duis metus velit, rhoncus eu tempus in, rutrum nec nibh. Morbi suscipit nibh in tellus feugiat sed porta velit facilisis.

Sed luctus eleifend erat...!

K

EDITRI - Phasellus pellentesque sapien vel ipsum hendrerit imperdiet... :)

[JeffYoung]

Fo shizzle.

Non suscipit cursus...

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed semper lacinia turpis, sed pharetra risus molestie sit amet. Nam id facilisis urna. Pellentesque est ligula, rutrum non ornare at, hendrerit nec velit. Maecenas lorem orci, molestie convallis aliquam ac, imperdiet sit amet arcu. Sed tincidunt mi tincidunt sem pretium non sollicitudin dolor lobortis. Donec cursus, risus rutrum dignissim faucibus, enim lectus mollis arcu, sed dictum nibh neque id odio...? Donec at eros sem.

Suspendisse quis arcu ut dolor tempor sodales a et nisl. Curabitur condimentum aliquam egestas. Quisque fringilla sagittis metus, feugiat hendrerit augue semper vitae. Maecenas consectetur leo ornare lectus lobortis a adipiscing odio egestas. Sed eu risus nec nunc auctor tempor. Vestibulum viverra tempor tempor.

Etiam porta rhoncus lorem, at semper erat pellentesque vel. Curabitur in tellus eu diam tristique fermentum. Suspendisse consequat laoreet lacus porttitor convallis. Duis metus velit, rhoncus eu tempus in, rutrum nec nibh. Morbi suscipit nibh in tellus feugiat sed porta velit facilisis.

Sed luctus eleifend erat...!

K

EDITRI - Phasellus pellentesque sapien vel ipsum hendrerit imperdiet... :)

[Z3_GoCar]

Non suscipit cursus...

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed semper lacinia turpis, sed pharetra risus molestie sit amet. Nam id facilisis urna. Pellentesque est ligula, rutrum non ornare at, hendrerit nec velit. Maecenas lorem orci, molestie convallis aliquam ac, imperdiet sit amet arcu. Sed tincidunt mi tincidunt sem pretium non sollicitudin dolor lobortis. Donec cursus, risus rutrum dignissim faucibus, enim lectus mollis arcu, sed dictum nibh neque id odio...? Donec at eros sem.

Suspendisse quis arcu ut dolor tempor sodales a et nisl. Curabitur condimentum aliquam egestas. Quisque fringilla sagittis metus, feugiat hendrerit augue semper vitae. Maecenas consectetur leo ornare lectus lobortis a adipiscing odio egestas. Sed eu risus nec nunc auctor tempor. Vestibulum viverra tempor tempor.

Etiam porta rhoncus lorem, at semper erat pellentesque vel. Curabitur in tellus eu diam tristique fermentum. Suspendisse consequat laoreet lacus porttitor convallis. Duis metus velit, rhoncus eu tempus in, rutrum nec nibh. Morbi suscipit nibh in tellus feugiat sed porta velit facilisis.

Sed luctus eleifend erat...!

K

EDITRI - Phasellus pellentesque sapien vel ipsum hendrerit imperdiet... :)

Vos can narro ut iterum; vero, intereo est iacio.

[DavidM]

I stand corrected.

[Duc]

Now, the ITAC and CRB have MASSIVE support for this on file AND they have the rule already written, so, Jeff, Travis, should people write in AGAIN to support it??

So is the consensus we need to write in again? (Just did a pre-season look and I might need to replace a mount.)

D

[JeffYoung]

We didn't get to Jake's letter on Monday. Issue is still open.

Any and all input will be considered, and appreciated.

Thanks guys.

[lateapex911]

Thanks for the update Jeff. I really appreciate the open line of communication.

[JeffYoung]

We tried to focus on car classification and "non-controversial" rule issues on Monday since Josh was out -- first time in 4 years! He had a lot going on, new house, etc.

Plus, we just didn't make as much progress as we had the last few weeks, primarily because Josh does a very good job of leading and getting us focused on progress instead of (sometimes) endless debate and we meandered a bit in his absence.

[lateapex911]

WOW, he's been on for 4 years? Time flies!

[rlward]

Sorry guys, this all sounds too familiar, like how about wheel sizes; you know, diameter and width changes. I think I have learned to just go with the flow, 'cause the majority on this forum does not want to change anthing that may: 1. cost them money, 2. be an advantage to anyone else, 3. update to current practices of the rest of the racing world. We are, after all, Improved Touring, what other racing is out there that would be worth even looking at their rules? Nah!

However, there will be a rule change if you can't stop the cheating. (ECU) SO my suggestion is for all of you that want changes to cheat by making your change in the mounts or batteries or wheels or what ever. Then when enough racers are cheating, the non-cheating group will want to change the rules 'cause they can't enforce the old rules. simple.

[lateapex911]

Roger, the ECU is a terrible example. I was very involved in the current rule, and it's genesis has nothing to do with cheating.
The first rule that allowed chips in boxes might have had some people claiming that it was due to the difficulty in policing, but really, that's not logical either. If carbed cars had the ability to change mixture and timing, why shouldn't ECU cars have the same rule allowances?

I'll make it simple for you: The existing rule is in place mostly because modern day ECUS are, or will be, overly cumbersome and limiting when it comes to building a race car.
I bet you point to the spherical bearing rule next....

[rlward]

Carb cars can't change mixture or timing on the fly. That's a no brainer.

[gran racing]

You do realize that Jake's car is carbed, right?

The ECU rule is a fantastic example of why the three items you wrote are wrong. LOL

[Bill Miller]

Roger, the ECU is a terrible example. I was very involved in the current rule, and it's genesis has nothing to do with cheating.
The first rule that allowed chips in boxes might have had some people claiming that it was due to the difficulty in policing, but really, that's not logical either. If carbed cars had the ability to change mixture and timing, why shouldn't ECU cars have the same rule allowances?

I'll make it simple for you: The existing rule is in place mostly because modern day ECUS are, or will be, overly cumbersome and limiting when it comes to building a race car.
I bet you point to the spherical bearing rule next....

Jake,

I was around through most of the ECU issue. EFI cars already had the ability to change the resistance values. The way I remember it, the original iteration of the ECU rule was 'stuff whatever you can in the original box w/ the original connections'. That was in response to not being able to police re-flashed chips. The 'stuff it in the original box' thing was a great example of trying to 'legalize' the cheating w/o giving away the farm. The problem was, not all cars had the same size boxes, and you had guys adding vacuum circuits where none existed initially. The current 'use whatever you want' model was a reaction to the fact that the 'stuff it in the original box' version didn't work.

To claim that the open ECU rule was the result of wanting to give EFI folks the same flexibility as the carb'd folks is disingenuous and revisionist history. As far as looking to the future, what ever happened to 'warts and all'? And IT rules written for what may come down the road in the future? That's a new one.

[lateapex911]

Jake,

I was around through most of the ECU issue. EFI cars already had the ability to change the resistance values. The way I remember it, the original iteration of the ECU rule was 'stuff whatever you can in the original box w/ the original connections'. That was in response to not being able to police re-flashed chips. The 'stuff it in the original box' thing was a great example of trying to 'legalize' the cheating w/o giving away the farm. The problem was, not all cars had the same size boxes, and you had guys adding vacuum circuits where none existed initially. The current 'use whatever you want' model was a reaction to the fact that the 'stuff it in the original box' version didn't work.

To claim that the open ECU rule was the result of wanting to give EFI folks the same flexibility as the carb'd folks is disingenuous and revisionist history. As far as looking to the future, what ever happened to 'warts and all'? And IT rules written for what may come down the road in the future? That's a new one.
Actually Bill, the reason that the "whatever fits in the box" came to be, according to the people I spoke with who were involved in writing the rule, was to allow guys who had boards that had non removable chips an equal chance by allowing 'piggyback' boards. The idea was that as long as the piggy back board fit in the original box, the level of modification would be similar to a chip replacement or reflash.
Now, maybe some were concerned about cheating, but really, that's more a competitor issue, and the ITAC has always taken that stance. Yes, they try to write clear rules, but, it's not up to them to enforce them.

Anyway, I was the guy who brought he ECU rule into discussion, and one issue that was seriously considered WAS the fact that ECUs were getting more and more invasive, and cars were finding themselves in tough situations. (limp modes, etc). OBVIOUSLY, if we had a few issues then, we would have MORE issues in the future.
And we had issues with the rule as it stood, which was that some cars were using full blown replacement ECUs while others couldn't fit an extra atom of air in their box.
So, the reasons to change the rule had a lot to do with the availability of reasonable to program/buy/install ECUs, the increasing complexity of stock ECUs, and the desire to have rules that affect genres of cars as equitably as possible.

Roger, carbed cars have the ability to alter the fuel curve over the rpm and the load range.

[Bill Miller]

Actually Bill, the reason that the "whatever fits in the box" came to be, according to the people I spoke with who were involved in writing the rule, was to allow guys who had boards that had non removable chips an equal chance by allowing 'piggyback' boards. The idea was that as long as the piggy back board fit in the original box, the level of modification would be similar to a chip replacement or reflash.
Now, maybe some were concerned about cheating, but really, that's more a competitor issue, and the ITAC has always taken that stance. Yes, they try to write clear rules, but, it's not up to them to enforce them.



Jake, I don't really disagree with that. The issue is, there would have been no need for the "stuff it in the box" rule if people didn't feel that it was impossible to police the cheaters using re-flashed or swapped chips. Rather than leaving the rule as written, and letting the competitors deal w/ the cheating issue, they took the stance that people that could, would cheat, they couldn't / didn't want to try and deal with it, so they were going to 'legalize' the cheating so that everyone could do it. They thought that by keeping the original box w/ the original computer and connections, they could prevent people from coming up w/ full-blown systems like Motec, etc. History shows that they were wrong.

The end result is what has come to be the poster child for rules creep in IT.

I do understand and appreciate the need to 'look to the future' in terms of writing rules. And I guess the current ECU rule does address what would happen if you had a car that would only run in limp mode if you disable the ABS and traction control systems. You scrap the stock computer and go w/ something else.


Roger, carbed cars have the ability to alter the fuel curve over the rpm and the load range.

Dynamically?

[rlward]

Jake,
A carbed car does not have the computer, O2 sensor, MAF, or MAP (or any of the other acronyms) hence does not have the capability to calculate/change/adjust the A/F ratio during the race as conditions dictate as the FI cars do. We change jets and other hardware within the carb to get the best overal based on expected weather, current fuel. This is now pretty much a dead horse.

Chapter 2
I am not voicing a yea or a nay for the proposal at hand. I have seen a proposed change that seems perfectly logical for one person or group met with tremendous resistance from others that will not even be affected by the change. Respondents reply, "not on my watch" or suggest you go race production ....who the heck do they think they are? Are our number up enough we can chase these people away? Most rsponses are well thought out, but some are better left unsaid.

Chapter 3
IT was conceived and created years before I started racing. As time goes on, changes are made to accept newer cars. If those changes are not made, IT will die a slow death.
Consider when changes are made to rules that affect newer cars only, the older cars are automatically delt a competitive blow. Maybe the way to preserve our numbers is to let older cars evolve within the confines of the rules that affect the newer cars. That is, if the newer cars have FI stock, and there is a stock FI set up you could get from a wrecking yard or the dealer, maybe that should be allowed. It woul be an expansion of the update/backdate rule, I know, but food for thought. Additionally, it would allow racers to do what we do (continually develop our cars) and would still be sort of in line with the current philosphy. Just a thought, maybe not worth much, but my 2 centavos anyway.

Another note, I still want to have 7" wide rims in ITB.....easier to get, etc, same o, same o. No I don't want to go to prod, but could and would if ITB numbers keep falling off.

Thanks for letting me sound off. Hope things change for the better, cause right now it kinda sucks.

[lateapex911]

Jake,
A carbed car does not have the computer, O2 sensor, MAF, or MAP (or any of the other acronyms) hence does not have the capability to calculate/change/adjust the A/F ratio during the race as conditions dictate as the FI cars do. We change jets and other hardware within the carb to get the best overal based on expected weather, current fuel. This is now pretty much a dead horse.

Roger, keep in mind that both cars are classed based on stock HP. So a 2L carbed car likely starts out at a different hp (and weight) than a 2L injected car. Further, it could be argued that the injected car will have a more difficult time achieving the expected gains, but that's very dependent car to car, and I think it falls into the 'warts and all" and 'noise' aspects in most cases. So each car is allowed to make equivalent changes to it's fuel systems.


Chapter 2
Chapter 3:
Consider when changes are made to rules that affect newer cars only, the older cars are automatically delt a competitive blow. ..... No I don't want to go to prod, but could and would if ITB numbers keep falling off.

Thanks for letting me sound off. Hope things change for the better, cause right now it kinda sucks.
I disagree that old cars are automatically dealt a competitive blow...yes, that HAS happened in the past, (a decade or more ago) but it was due to the total lack of a systemic process. I see old cars running in lockstep with new ones quite often. Also, old cars DO disappear..naturally. I know certain old cars have 'issues' currently (like the Volvo, which has it's own special case in ITB) but I don't buy the 'new cars are screwing old cars' broad statements.

Also, in certain regions, ITB is THE most healthy class going. The NE sees big ITB fields and MARRS races are huge throwdowns in ITB. I bet the ARRC race saw the same ITB turnout as the ITS guys, or very close.

And by "right now it kinda sucks"....what do you mean?

[Bill Miller]

Roger, keep in mind that both cars are classed based on stock HP. So a 2L carbed car likely starts out at a different hp (and weight) than a 2L injected car. Further, it could be argued that the injected car will have a more difficult time achieving the expected gains, but that's very dependent car to car, and I think it falls into the 'warts and all" and 'noise' aspects in most cases. So each car is allowed to make equivalent changes to it's fuel systems.






Being able to drop in a Megasquirt system is the same as being able to change jets and adjust the fuel pressure? Really?

And I'd like to hear the argument that suggests that an EFI car would have a harder time getting a 25% gain over a carb'd car (all else being equal).

[JeffYoung]

I'm probably one of the very few guys on here who could legally convert from carbs to FI and did.

When I built the car, the couple of folks running TR8s in IT thought the existing Bosch L-Jetronic system was crap and that the carbs were better. That may have been true before the ECU rule opened; now it absolutely is not.

Peak power is up 13 hp. Probably due mostly to the FI manifold design over the carb though.

BUT -- mid range is vastly improved. That's where I think carb cars suffer vis a vis FI. With FI, you can optimizie across the entire fuel/timing/load range. With a carb car, you can make changes, but it is usually in a fairly narow RPM band.

Plus, NO MORE STARTER FLUID....lol....

Without doubt the FI is better system on my car.

Bill, I think the argument on FI cars not being able to make the 25% as easily as carb'ed cars is more based on the age of the system/car than anything else.

We are certainly learning that newer cars are more optimized from the factory. And they see less gain in IT trim. Since newer cars are all FI, you get the perception that FI cars don't see carb'ed car gains.

I mean, we'll never again see a situation like my motor, which was developed at the nadir of engine emissions/hp crap. My motor made 133 crank hp stock in carb form; 173 whp in FI, full tilt IT build form.

That's just not going to happen with any newer car.

[Bill Miller]

I'm probably one of the very few guys on here who could legally convert from carbs to FI and did.

When I built the car, the couple of folks running TR8s in IT thought the existing Bosch L-Jetronic system was crap and that the carbs were better. That may have been true before the ECU rule opened; now it absolutely is not.

Peak power is up 13 hp. Probably due mostly to the FI manifold design over the carb though.

BUT -- mid range is vastly improved. That's where I think carb cars suffer vis a vis FI. With FI, you can optimizie across the entire fuel/timing/load range. With a carb car, you can make changes, but it is usually in a fairly narow RPM band.

Plus, NO MORE STARTER FLUID....lol....

Without doubt the FI is better system on my car.

Bill, I think the argument on FI cars not being able to make the 25% as easily as carb'ed cars is more based on the age of the system/car than anything else.

We are certainly learning that newer cars are more optimized from the factory. And they see less gain in IT trim. Since newer cars are all FI, you get the perception that FI cars don't see carb'ed car gains.

I mean, we'll never again see a situation like my motor, which was developed at the nadir of engine emissions/hp crap. My motor made 133 crank hp stock in carb form; 173 whp in FI, full tilt IT build form.

That's just not going to happen with any newer car.

Jeff,

I'll buy the part about newer cars being more optimized. But if anything, that speaks to a Process issue more than anything else. Maybe 25% gain is too optimistic w/ an IT build. But then again, I have always thought that max hp gain didn't really tell the whole story. I fell that it is the area under the curve that really is the issue. Your comment about improving the mid range is consistent w/ that.

I also agree that seeing 50%+ gains from a legal IT build is very rare.

I just don't buy the "an open ECU gives the EFI guys what the carb guys have had all along" argument. I won't use your car as an example, because based on what you've said, I'd say it's an outlier or an anomaly.

[Ron Earp]

I just don't buy the "an open ECU gives the EFI guys what the carb guys have had all along" argument.

A crude litmus test for that is:
"If it is the same then let the carb guys run EFI with the same size throttle bodies as carb throttle plates and a single injector for each cylinder 1.5" from the end of the intake manifold"*
There won't be any takers. EFI is an advantage, slight in some cases large in others, but nevertheless it is definitely not a handicap.

Should it change, that is, should carbed cars be allowed to retrofit EFI? IMHO no. That boat sailed. You makes your picks and takes your chances. In rare cases someone gets to choose, like Mr. Young's car, but the rest of us stick with what we have.

*I'm not crafting a rule, just an example.

[lateapex911]

Well, there are all kinds of specific examples to prove one way or another.

In general, the ITAC wants to use 25% across the board form what I glean from what little public information is being released these days regarding the Process aspect.

IF that rule/aspect were applied across the board, the EFI/carb thing would be a non discussion point. EFI cars, I think, in general have a more difficult time making gains, but as Jeff points out that's likely due to the increased optimization coming out of factories, and that's related to production dates. Still, there are lots of exceptions. When I was on the ITAC, we discussed having a "POS factor" of 30 or 35% for cars from 74 and thereabouts because of the massively awful emmissions related air pumps, and exhaust manifolds and other power robbing devices that, when removed, result in big performance increases. Jeffs car is a classic example. There are others out there, but they don't see much racing action...most have rusted away. (I still think a Monza could be awesome in A and FIreArrow in B would kick butt).

Now carbs ARE a pia, and most of us would rather dork around with a laptop than get all smelly with gas on our hands..... and I thin we as a generation understand EFI tuning better than carb tuning. So there's some anti EFI bias there from carb guys.
But, in the grand scheme, I don't see the difference in rules to be a handcuffing aspect to the carb guys at all. I'd wager the number of carb guys who who really tune them and really know their stuff to be very very small, which also leads to the claim.
In any case, if the ITAC is trying to 'simplify' and stick to 25% (as they appear to be*), things like EFI vs carbs is going to be considered 'noise'.

* I make that comment based on things I've read here, and recent reclassifications of cars that clearly don't come within 10% of 25%, yet were classed at 25% anyway, like the MR2.

[callard]

There is a certain German IT-B carbed car that is allowed to bolt on the Weber identified in the ITCS. All the combinations of jet and air corrector changes that you can make will not result in an ideal fuel/air mixture across the RPM band. UNLESS you drill a couple holes in certain places in the carb body. To achieve parity with fuel injection are these holes legal? :shrug:
Chuck - just askin'

[Gary L]

There is a certain German IT-B carbed car that is allowed to bolt on the Weber identified in the ITCS. All the combinations of jet and air corrector changes that you can make will not result in an ideal fuel/air mixture across the RPM band. UNLESS you drill a couple holes in certain places in the carb body. To achieve parity with fuel injection are these holes legal? :shrug:
Chuck - just askin'
IIDSYCYC. I don't see an allowance... no matter how noble the cause. :D

[callard]

IIDSYCYC. I don't see an allowance... no matter how noble the cause. :D
That's my take too. I sold the car because I didn't condone the illegal carb and moved to a different class. To the guys that have one, it's worth almost 2 seconds at Summit Point.
Now to play devil's advocate: The holes provide the high speed enrichment that the carb can't provide with the emulsion tubes, air correctors, idle and main jets set to good mid range. If you adjust for a good high speed fuel mixture, the mid range goes to hell. It seems to me that if you can make those adjustments with a laptop on your megasquirt, you ought to be able to make those adjustments with a craftsman drill on your Weber carb. Only achieving parity.
Jake, what say you?

[CRallo]

I've always thought this, but I'll say it now... If computers are open, then carbs should be too!

There would need to be a stipulation about size and what not, but to me this is obvious...