August 2011 Fastrack

[Greg Amy]

Preliminary Minutes (http://www.scca.com/documents/2011%20Tech/Preliminary%20July%20CRB%20Minutes.pdf)

Preliminary Tech Bulletin (http://www.scca.com/documents/2011%20Tech/Preliminary%20August%20TB%20Fastrack.pdf)

[Chip42]

interesting update to the "E" decal rules in minutes/GCR/5

[lateapex911]

So, Les Chaney, and Sam Moore, both (ex?) ITB Volvo drivers (although not currently in IT, as far as I know), got together with Rick Benazic, a Honda Civic driver to have the weight of the Civic reduced in ITB??? Huh? LOL

[Greg Amy]

interesting update to the "E" decal rules in minutes/GCR/5
That's a clarification. That decal was NEVER intended for handheld bottles, it's for denoting the locations for the release for fire systems only. Think of it this way: there's absolutely no need for a corner worker to know the location of a handheld, they won't be using it. But they might just reach in and hit a fire system actuator.

They should make a similar emphasis (it's already there) for fire system pins, so that uninformed grid (and tech) personnel won't make you pull the pin out of your handheld fire bottle (thus making it unsafe).

GA

[StephenB]

I was hoping they would consider ABS with a weight penelty. :( It is obviously much safer and I personally do think it is a competitive advantage. By adding the weight penelty I suggested in my letter I was hoping it would be considered. Since it wasn't posted for input from others I am guess it is not something they would even consider with a weight penalty. Oh-well... All new IT cars classified will have it and eventually they will all need it to run with how fast technology is moving. But then again IT can look 4-5 years into the future when planning things like this.

I am going to run my car without a sensor connected and hoping it doesn't create a "limp" mode issue like my Jag does. I will let you know after the Glen in a few weeks!

Stephen

[quadzjr]

So, Les Chaney, and Sam Moore, both (ex?) ITB Volvo drivers (although not currently in IT, as far as I know), got together with Rick Benazic, a Honda Civic driver to have the weight of the Civic reduced in ITB??? Huh? LOL

Don't know enough to support one way or another but last time I talked to Les he was there in support of his friends ITB honda. Les was there with his FP volvo but from what I remember on track shennangans made it it easy for him to skip out on the race.

Curious was this a process move? of recently both the CRX and the Civic in ITB have lost 160lbs.. How much data was presented to get such a reduction? how many 10/10ths builds were handed in to get the percentage correct?

[lateapex911]

Just seemed like an interesting combination....Rick Benazic is a New Yorker (As in close to NYC) I think and Les and Sam were, I thought, more Southern, and you'd think with them being Volvo guys, they wouldn't be on that letter. It's just a surprising combination, that's all.
Now, the letter DOES make sense in light of the recent CRX adjustment, so good on them for that.

[quadzjr]

Just seemed like an interesting combination....Rick Benazic is a New Yorker (As in close to NYC) I think and Les and Sam were, I thought, more Southern, and you'd think with them being Volvo guys, they wouldn't be on that letter. It's just a surprising combination, that's all.
Now, the letter DOES make sense in light of the recent CRX adjustment, so good on them for that.

No I totally agree that if the Civic and CRX have the same power plant they should be classed at the same weight. I was just curious how a car that was alread somewhat competitve (and more competitive than my car) some how got a bigger weight break? I know what I submitted to get 95lbs.. to get 160lbs.. you would think cosworth or someone submitted info or soemting.

I am joking.. but seriously intrigued on how much data backed up the decision for the first (CRX) weight break.

[StephenB]

How much data was presented to get such a reduction? how many 10/10ths builds were handed in to get the percentage correct?

I am sure they had several dyno sheets and supporting evidence. They don't just run cars through the process without supporting data to do so. I am sure it had supporting data from Kessler. How is it compaired to yours on a dyno Dave? (Gran)

Stephen

PS: I am very suprised at both Hondas having the reduction in weight. Based on "on track performance"

[Greg Amy]

Since it wasn't posted for input from others I am guess it is not something they would even consider with a weight penalty.
If you've not seen it in Fastrack and you've not received an email telling you it's been considered, then it's still on their agenda. Committees don't always get to everything every month, but may table it to subsequent months (especially game-changing items that require significant discussion/thought).

When something leaves the committee and goes to the CRB you get one email, then when it's dispensed by the CRB you get another. Until then...patience.

GA

[lateapex911]

I am sure they had several dyno sheets and supporting evidence. They don't just run cars through the process without supporting data to do so. I am sure it had supporting data from Kessler. How is it compaired to yours on a dyno Dave? (Gran)

Stephen

PS: I am very suprised at both Hondas having the reduction in weight. Based on "on track performance"

???

What does the Process spit out for that car!?

I too would be interested to hear what amount of data was needed to gain the 'confidence level" of the ITAC.

[StephenB]

If you've not seen it in Fastrack and you've not received an email telling you it's been considered, then it's still on their agenda. Committees don't always get to everything every month, but may table it to subsequent months (especially game-changing items that require significant discussion/thought).

When something leaves the committee and goes to the CRB you get one email, then when it's dispensed by the CRB you get another. Until then...patience.

GA

It was in the fast track meeting minutes thing you posted. Basically said no-go... :( I kinda figured as much. I get not allowing it as I do see it as a competitive advantage. I was just hoping with some type of penalty (weight) that it would be considered. I do get it, but I also think they will need to allow it at some point. I was hoping sooner rather than later so I didn't have to spend all the money re-plumbing in new lines and valves and such. I know we had another thread on the ABS thing a while back but I can't find it. Back then I even said it was an advantage but argued it was also safer.

I guess in the end I am not looking for an advantage, I just don't want to waist time and money on something that will be allowed within the next few years anyway. I beleive Its already allowed in every other class in SCCA where a car came stock with it, including SCCA PRO.

Stephen

From meeting minutes:

NOT APPROVED BY THE CRB

IMPROVED TOURING
1. #4329 (Charles O'Toole) change head gasket thickness rules
The rules are correct as written.
2. #4432 (David Russell) Allow alternate valve seat material
Not consistent with class philosophy.
ITR
1. #4635 (Stephen Blethen) Allowance of ABS in ITR
Not consistent with current class philosophy.
ITS
1. #4970 (Fred Brett) Reclassify to ITA 99-2000 Civic
This car is classified correctly.
ITA
1. #4226 (Chris Gentry) reclassify scirroco 16v
This car is classified correctly.
2. #5332 (Grant Boshoff) Increase weight

[StephenB]

???

What does the Process spit out for that car!?

I too would be interested to hear what amount of data was needed to gain the 'confidence level" of the ITAC.

Jake,

Not sure what the ??? are but
1) Maybe your questioning if Kessler built Ricks engine... I thought so but maybe I am wrong and if so PLEASE correct me. Kessler is a GREAT guy and builds top notch stuff IMHO. That is why I would think the ITAC would have asked for his dyno sheets.

2) As far as what it spits out... no clue. Doesn't matter does it? I didn't think we could change any car without dyno sheets and supporting data.

[lateapex911]

I know we had another thread on the ABS thing a while back but I can't find it. Back then I even said it was an advantage but argued it was also safer.

I guess in the end I am not looking for an advantage, I just don't want to waist time and money on something that will be allowed within the next few years anyway. I beleive Its already allowed in every other class in SCCA where a car came stock with it, including SCCA PRO.

Stephen

Don't play the safety card, you're smarter than that, Stephen...

Also, the other classes in SCCA, like Pro, that allow it, are MUCH more tightly managed classes with 5% of the total models listed. Apples to oysters, methinks.

[StephenB]

Don't play the safety card, you're smarter than that, Stephen...

Also, the other classes in SCCA, like Pro, that allow it, are MUCH more tightly managed classes with 5% of the total models listed. Apples to oysters, methinks.

Yup I am smarter than knowing that that it would persuade anyone into allowing it. However it is a fact that it is safer and I think it is a competitive advantage. I will never deny either of those statements.

I am playing the save time and money thing... If you notice they normally put "Not consistent with class philosophy." My notation says "Not consistent with current class philosophy." This says it all and it will change I guarentee it. Mark this day down and I promise that before I get rid of my current car it will be allowed (unless I ball the thing up... then the bet is off!)

Stephen

[Knestis]

Don't know enough to support one way or another but last time I talked to Les he was there in support of his friends ITB honda. Les was there with his FP volvo but from what I remember on track shennangans made it it easy for him to skip out on the race.

Curious was this a process move? of recently both the CRX and the Civic in ITB have lost 160lbs.. How much data was presented to get such a reduction? how many 10/10ths builds were handed in to get the percentage correct?

With respect, the whole "10/10ths build" thing was never the big deal that it's been made for you around the Toyota question. I think you've been led astray by post hoc rationalization of a weight spec on the MR2 that's based in bias and fear.

The Process v.2. simply asked the ITAC members to record their judgment of whatever evidence was presented for a non-standard - other than 1.25 - power multiplier. The idea from the outset, from a guy who helped craft that system, was to impose a pretty high expectation of confidence from the entire committee in order to shift us off of "SOP" and on to "what we know." If we had repeated dyno evidence of a reputable, pro build, that would have been taken into consideration differently than "I've never put it on a dyno but my friend built it and I know it makes like 120whp."

(I hate the term "what we know," by the way, because we NEVER actually KNOW anything.)

The actual change for the CRX Si happened after I left but we looked at a pretty good accumulation of evidence that generated substantial confidence around a 1.3 multiplier for that make/model (with 91 hp stock). Not coincidentally, that multiplier puts it at its current GCR weight. The Civic version should have been done at the same time but wasn't.

You are going to drive yourself crazy looking for a way to make classifications more generally - or the Process v.2 as it was applied c.2008-2010 and should still be applied - align with what happened with (or to) the MR2. That listing is crap. It's always been crap. It should be fixed. Until it is, my confidence in the ITAC is very low.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Can Jeff run us through the process on the lightened Hondas?

[JeffYoung]

Yes. Home eating dinner but I'll run through it when I get back to the office. This was based off of the various letters to Tom A. and Rob Foley sent (among others). If I recall correctly, the basic idea here was this car was tagged at like 50% or something, and with the dyno data we had we set it back at above default I think. But I will run the numbers and check.

[jjjanos]

I was hoping they would consider ABS with a weight penelty. :( It is obviously much safer and I personally do think it is a competitive advantage.

Safer? Please explain how one locks down a car with ABS? One of the first things they teach in DS is both feet in. It puts the spinning car on a predictable path and keeps the engine running. How does one do that with ABS?

[jjjanos]

1) Maybe your questioning if Kessler built Ricks engine... I thought so but maybe I am wrong and if so PLEASE correct me. Kessler is a GREAT guy and builds top notch stuff IMHO. That is why I would think the ITAC would have asked for his dyno sheets.

2) As far as what it spits out... no clue. Doesn't matter does it? I didn't think we could change any car without dyno sheets and supporting data.

I assume that with the process being codified, every car has a chance to be run through as if it had never been classified. I.e. 1.25 multiplier for anything in ITB except for multi-valve engines which use 1.3

After that, raising or lowering the multiplier is going to depend on proving the case for such a movement via the confidence thingy.

If that isn't the case, what's the point?

[preparedcivic]

Yes. Home eating dinner but I'll run through it when I get back to the office. This was based off of the various letters to Tom A. and Rob Foley sent (among others). If I recall correctly, the basic idea here was this car was tagged at like 50% or something, and with the dyno data we had we set it back at above default I think. But I will run the numbers and check.

Here's what I believe is the math for how the 1G CRX Si/3G Civic Si's got adjusted to their current 1970lbs:

91hp * 1.30 * .98 * 17 = 1970.8

Tom Lamb's letter languished in the ITAC for years. I wrote mine over the winter in support of his and adding some new points of my own. It was well established the old weight was completely arbitrary when the car was moved down from A to B.

BTW, that previous weight of 2130lbs was a power multiplier of 40%+.

[tom91ita]

No I totally agree that if the Civic and CRX have the same power plant they should be classed at the same weight. I was just curious how a car that was alread somewhat competitve (and more competitive than my car) some how got a bigger weight break? I know what I submitted to get 95lbs.. to get 160lbs.. you would think cosworth or someone submitted info or soemting.

I am joking.. but seriously intrigued on how much data backed up the decision for the first (CRX) weight break.

here is background on what i submitted. i have posted the same basic content here in various formats/threads as well.

http://www.sccabb.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=9113

take a look at what the accord has for a power to weight or pound per cc, etc. and i think you will notice the difference.

[Harvey]

Jake in case you don't remember I raced a ITC CIVIC for about 8 years or so before I started to run the Volvo and the Civic And the CRX in this case have always and should always go hand in hand.

[StephenB]

Safer? Please explain how one locks down a car with ABS? One of the first things they teach in DS is both feet in. It puts the spinning car on a predictable path and keeps the engine running. How does one do that with ABS?

I am not sure how you would "Lock it down". I would argue that the ABS is safer due to accident avoidance rather than after your already into trouble and spinning.

I would try to simulate accident avoidance in a parking lot. Use cones if you must. Place a cone where I have an "I" marked below. When driving you must go between the cones. Drive (through this course starting from the bottom) using brakes without ABS and see how fast you can go through or see how late you can hit the brakes and still make it through. I suggest entering it at about 60MPH anything slower isn't really going to simulate track speeds. Then go back and do the same thing and brake later (less warning of incident) I bet you will be amazed at how much later you can brake and you will see how much faster you can go through it. To be honest I bet you can go through at least 15MPH faster. This is a very basic and simple example of how ABS can improve Accident avoidance. ABS gives you the power to utilize any given wheel at maximum threshold braking. This concept allows you to actually continue to steer the car while using your maximum braking power. Without ABS you can only use the brakes at the maximum threshold of the first tire to loose grip.



____________________I I___________________________



_________________I I____________________________




____________________I I__________________________
____________________I I__________________________
____________________I I__________________________
____________________I I__________________________
____________________I I__________________________
____________________I I__________________________
____________________I I__________________________

As I said above ABS is great for accident avoidance. If you are already spinning because you already messed up I am not sure how much of a help it would have.

Everyone views this differently and it was debated in another thread a while ago. I am interested in this topic so if you have any articles that site any ABS Vs. non ABS comparisons feel free to PM me. Also please note I am talking about newr model cars, I already get that 80's and 90's cars didn't have anything close to what exists nowadays and that they wouldn't benifit nearly as much and in fact I would argue the 80's Audis ABS was worse than having none!

Just a reminder that Grand-am, Continental Challenge, and World Challenge here in the states uses ABS, as well as SCCA Showroom stock and Touring.

Stephen

PS: If you want to experience this in a controlled safe environment they do this in most officer schools including Stevens Advanced Driving here in NH.

[lateapex911]

Ah, so THAT's the connection, Les. I never knew you raced a Civic. You're correct about the parallel. Seemed odd to see yours and Sams name on the item, along with Ricks. (Toms letter WAS in the pipeline for wayyyyyy too long)

[Knestis]

Here's what I believe is the math for how the 1G CRX Si/3G Civic Si's got adjusted to their current 1970lbs:

91hp * 1.30 * .98 * 17 = 1970.8

Tom Lamb's letter languished in the ITAC for years. I wrote mine over the winter in support of his and adding some new points of my own. It was well established the old weight was completely arbitrary when the car was moved down from A to B.

BTW, that previous weight of 2130lbs was a power multiplier of 40%+.

Let's remind ourselves that during the Version 2 years - or at least, over my tenure on the committee - we did *not* have any formally authorized power to revisit and change existing IT car weight specs. What we DID do, was under the auspices of correcting "errors," because (again, undocumented deal) the Great Realignment got sold to the CRB with the understanding that there wouldn't be any more changes beyond those done under the GR.

Tom's request got hung because the CRB got a few recommendations (e.g., the Audi Coupe) that they didn't like. (Or to be more accurate, that a couple of key members who paid attention to IT didn't like.) They were FINE with us - nudge, nudge, wink, wink - "correcting errors" as long as they didn't perceive those changes as inconsistent with their anecdotal observations of on-track performance. When we pushed, they threw out the anchor, and simply stopped acting (yea or nay) to our recommendations for more than a few months.

Tom's request came ahead of the October 2009 edict that the CRB wasn't going to entertain any "corrections" that weren't in line with observed on-track performance. That was problematic because the entire point of the Process was to take flawed observations of limited cases of on-track performance OUT of consideration. I sent him an email explaining that we'd been shut down on that front.

K

[jjjanos]

I am not sure how you would "Lock it down". I would argue that the ABS is safer due to accident avoidance rather than after your already into trouble and spinning.

After 20 years of flagging and 5 years of driving, I've seen far more accidents caused by someone going for a hole that vanished because the spinning car wasn't predictable than someone locking their brakes and hitting the spinning car.

Thank you, but I'll keep my own margin of error for entering a corner in regards to braking and prefer to have a predictable other car that I know where it will go.

[JLawton]

I am not sure how you would "Lock it down". I would argue that the ABS is safer due to accident avoidance rather than after your already into trouble and spinning.

I would try to simulate accident avoidance in a parking lot. Use cones if you must. Place a cone where I have an "I" marked below. When driving you must go between the cones. Drive (through this course starting from the bottom) using brakes without ABS and see how fast you can go through or see how late you can hit the brakes and still make it through. I suggest entering it at about 60MPH anything slower isn't really going to simulate track speeds. Then go back and do the same thing and brake later (less warning of incident) I bet you will be amazed at how much later you can brake and you will see how much faster you can go through it. To be honest I bet you can go through at least 15MPH faster. This is a very basic and simple example of how ABS can improve Accident avoidance. ABS gives you the power to utilize any given wheel at maximum threshold braking. This concept allows you to actually continue to steer the car while using your maximum braking power. Without ABS you can only use the brakes at the maximum threshold of the first tire to loose grip.



____________________I I___________________________



_________________I I____________________________




____________________I I__________________________
____________________I I__________________________
____________________I I__________________________
____________________I I__________________________
____________________I I__________________________
____________________I I__________________________
____________________I I__________________________

As I said above ABS is great for accident avoidance. If you are already spinning because you already messed up I am not sure how much of a help it would have.

Everyone views this differently and it was debated in another thread a while ago. I am interested in this topic so if you have any articles that site any ABS Vs. non ABS comparisons feel free to PM me. Also please note I am talking about newr model cars, I already get that 80's and 90's cars didn't have anything close to what exists nowadays and that they wouldn't benifit nearly as much and in fact I would argue the 80's Audis ABS was worse than having none!

Just a reminder that Grand-am, Continental Challenge, and World Challenge here in the states uses ABS, as well as SCCA Showroom stock and Touring.

Stephen

PS: If you want to experience this in a controlled safe environment they do this in most officer schools including Stevens Advanced Driving here in NH.

Having now raced a car with ABS, trust me, you do NOT want it. It sucks. And it is true, you can lock up the tires in a spin. We've all see what happens when a spinning car doesn't lock up its brakes.

Also, it takes longer distance to stop, unsettles the car much more when trail braking and much harder to modulate. When I noticed it the most was going to hot into turn 6 at NHMS. I kept trying to press harder on the brake and the more I did, the less it slowed.

Accident avoidence? We're racers........ keep your foot in it and don't lift..........

[Greg Amy]

ABS has been creating significant problems with many race cars in the Grand-Am Continental series. I saw it first-hand when I was doing data acq for a team: drivers were complaining that the cars were not braking no matter how hard they pushed on the pedals. In fact, a couple times drivers wrecked cars because they couldn't get the cars slowed down. Looking at the data I could see they were pushing on the brake pedal to save their life (high MC output pressure) but the decel g-forces just weren't there. Turns out the stock system just wasn't designed for the way the car was being driven (and, assuming, how it was modified) and just freaked out and gave up. Pobst briefly touched on this subject in his recent column in SportsCar.

It's not a snobby racing driver thing, either. Modern OEM street ABS systems just aren't designed for this. And unless you're a combo of braking engineer and software programmer, you just don't have the tools to make it right. True racing ABS systems, like on factory Porsche racing cars (GT3 and RS) are totally different animals.

GA

[StephenB]

Thanks for the feedback guys. These are some real life examples. I have not used it in racing conditions nor do I have access to that data. Great info.

Stephen

[StephenB]

Jeff, are you allowed to unplug a sensor and run it without the ABS?

[tnord]

However it is a fact that it is safer and I think it is a competitive advantage
.
.
.
.
Thanks for the feedback guys. These are some real life examples. I have not used it in racing conditions nor do I have access to that data. Great info.

Stephen

interesting.:rolleyes:

[JeffYoung]

Let me try to cover as much of the above as I can.

1. On the ITB Hondas. When we finally got the "go" to "reprocess" cars, we looked at the ITB CRX based on Tom's letter and others. The existing GCR weight (I can run th calc if someone wants) seemed to have no rational relation to any of the existing gain modifiers. So, honestly, in the absence of any real data, that car should be at 1.30 default rather than the 1.45 or whatever it was at.

We looked at Tom's data (which included dyno information if I recall correctly), Rob's and others. I'm not a Honda or ITB guy but the guys on the committee who are agreed we were not looking at a motor that would make ITA CRX gains.

So the vote was put it at default, or 1.3, for the class. The Civic then followed.

We do have to get away from the notion of "why did you lower weights on cars that are already competitive?" We had that discussion on the ITAC, but once you put something like the Process in place you have to trust it and use it. And that is what we did.

2. On ABS. My basic position on ABS is this. If allowed, we are going to have a performance issue between cars in ITR, and possibly ITS. The biggest issue for me is that some systems are good enough to be a performance enhancement, and some are complete crap that will be a detriment. There's no way for us on the ITAC to evaluate that and the best and easiest course for "all racers" in IT seemed (to me) to be just replumb the car without the ABS.

Stephen not sure what the rule says now, I'd have to check, but I would think anything that results in the ABS system not working would be fine, but if you want to propose language that makes it easier to disable the stuff shoot me a PM and let's talk.

[gran racing]

So it just took people to explain how ABS reacts differently in a racing environment than in street driving. Everything we are taught is that ABS is a huge advantage and safer than non-ABS cars.

I was happy Stephen listened and was open to something new. Not sure I'd call that interesting in sarcasm but whatever makes you happy.


I am sure it had supporting data from Kessler. How is it compaired to yours on a dyno Dave? (Gran)

I am sure both cars have been on the same dyno and both were built by Kessler. I'm honestly not sure what both numbers are (hell, I don't even know what mine is currently). I do know that Andy had the highest dyno numbers that my car has seen (the ITAC saw this too). I'm also not sure how much development the Civic has seen versus my car.

[tnord]

it sure as hell doesn't make me happy dave. think about the sequence of events. he writes a letter under the presumption of "fact" without having any experience, data, or really anything at all. then when he doesn't like the decision he decides to complain about it on the internet.

i'm not surprised or anything....it's not the first time it's happened, and it certainly won't be the last. i just thought it was a particularly illustrative example.

[Greg Amy]

it sure as hell doesn't make me happy dave.
Step off your high horse, Travis.

Maybe next time, instead of a curt "not consistent with current class philosophy" you consider taking a moment to send him an email or give him a call? Then maybe he won't have to turn to the Internet for an explanation? Almost all CRB requests have that info right there in front of you.

And try to keep in mind it's not all about you.

GA

[tnord]

consider taking a moment? please.......

the response was discussed amongst the group and is very intentional.

[924Guy]

ABS has been creating significant problems with many race cars in the Grand-Am Continental series. I saw it first-hand when I was doing data acq for a team: drivers were complaining that the cars were not braking no matter how hard they pushed on the pedals. In fact, a couple times drivers wrecked cars because they couldn't get the cars slowed down. Looking at the data I could see they were pushing on the brake pedal to save their life (high MC output pressure) but the decel g-forces just weren't there. Turns out the stock system just wasn't designed for the way the car was being driven (and, assuming, how it was modified) and just freaked out and gave up. Pobst briefly touched on this subject in his recent column in SportsCar.

It's not a snobby racing driver thing, either. Modern OEM street ABS systems just aren't designed for this. And unless you're a combo of braking engineer and software programmer, you just don't have the tools to make it right. True racing ABS systems, like on factory Porsche racing cars (GT3 and RS) are totally different animals.

GA

I'd say that the whole Grand Am (GA? ;) ) comparsion needs to be viewed through the light of cars modified substantially from stock (correctly or not), trying to run stock ABS systems. Proper race ABS systems work great in such circumstances, as do stock ABS systems on stock, unmodified cars (yes, on the racetrack).

Neither of which should be relevant here; there should be no intent to allow race ABS systems in any IT class, definitely not consistent with class philosophy. Strike 1 - doesn't belong in IT.

I have major concerns with trying to share the track with a shadetree mechanic trying to retrofit a stock ABS system to his car which didn't come with it, under the guise of trying to pick up a performance advantage. Chance of getting it right, safely, for all racing situations, are about 1%, unless this is your day job. In which case a) I already know you, and b) you'd know better. Strike 2 - doesn't belong in IT.

Stock systems are already available, and have been in production for a number of years, which can offer a substantial performance advantage over a manual prop valve and no ABS. You get a lot of performance-improving technology piggy-backed with what most here would consider just Anti-Lock Brakes. I'd be looking for a 100-200# hit for that advantage; I'd rate it on the same order as having 4-whl vented discs in a solid disc/drum world (like the 924 in ITB ). It's big (and the 924 runs heavy as a result - as it should). Simple fact - we stand to create another distinction of haves and have-nots. Strike 3 - doesn't belong in IT.

Any questions?

[Andy Bettencourt]

On ABS: SOME systems would be good. SOME systems would SUCK. You lift the inside rear wheel on a Neon and the entry-level system tells all 4 wheels to go into anti-lock mode. Guess what? You don't stop.

The next logical request is to modify how 'my' ABS system works. Maybe only the front two wheels or some hybrid that keeps it from sucking.

Then there are very advanced systems that most certainly give you an advantage in wet weather.

On the ITB Hondas: I understand that when a reprocess request comes in they look at it. It SEEMS to me that just because they can't make the numbers make sense, they have to understand that they are based on a previous decision and data. Just because that info is not under their nose doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I hope that they are assuming the number is correct and looking at data to prove that it ISN'T instead of ignoring the weight, starting from scratch and saying, do we have anything other than this letter - and then changing it. To me, that would be very short-sighted.

Whatever version Scott's Honda was, it was within 1whp IIRC of its process weight on it's V.1 development attempt.

On letters like the ABS one: They are indeed tiring for the committees. Don't make a request that requires volunteers to do work without supporting information. Make a request, explain how it helps IT, provide your documentation, run through potential unintended consiquenses and the ramifications of them, etc. It will help them get your answer much faster. Maybe we should go back to "Thank you for your input".

[Greg Amy]

Chance of getting it right, safely, for all racing situations, are about 1%, unless this is your day job.
Which, I'd like point out to the forum, is Vaughn's day job. - GA

[StephenB]

interesting.:rolleyes:

Travis, really... this isn't high school anymore.
Those other members put up some valid facts that i acnowledged and appreciated.

PS: you deleted some important words.... accident avoidance. Go re-read my posts again.
Stephen

[lateapex911]

Also, nobody has mentioned that, on cars with ABS, the combination of open computers and ABS can lead to incredibly complex solutions*, and while the committee, at the time, felt they HAD to allow alternate computers, (In many cases they are the simplest way to get AROUND intrusive modes) they wanted to limit the potential of them.
No ABS is a good call for IT at this point in time, considering the wide mix of cars in each class.

Trav, lighten up, jeeez. The guy felt a certain way, wrote a letter based on his experiences. Your JOB is to consider the letter, and respond. Sorry if it took ten of your precious minutes of your life. Then, later, he gets it explained a certain way, and is open minded enough to "See the light".....and is cool enough to admit it, rather than standing his ground to save face, yet you complain. You do realize that you come off looking rather jerkish for complaining about a guy who was open minded enough to agree with YOUR conclusion, right?

*Not to mention traction control, which is illegal, of course, but.....

[StephenB]

it sure as hell doesn't make me happy dave. think about the sequence of events. he writes a letter under the presumption of "fact" without having any experience, data, or really anything at all. then when he doesn't like the decision he decides to complain about it on the internet.

i'm not surprised or anything....it's not the first time it's happened, and it certainly won't be the last. i just thought it was a particularly illustrative example.

I didn't complain. I simply posted here because everyone on this forum would have had an opportunity to see my request. I figured I would comment acknowledging the fact that I think it is a competition adavantage and I think it would need added weight penalty. I also posted that I think it will become part of the class eventually.

Go re-read my posts.

Stephen

[gran racing]

This is one big issue with our club's communication system.


1. #4635 (Stephen Blethen) Allowance of ABS in ITR
Not consistent with current class philosophy.

People read that and don't understand the meaning behind it. It's great that it was discussed by the ITAC but it would be useful to members AND the ITAC to give some additional information about it. In this case in particular as it will be asked again.

then when he and others don't understand because information isn't communicated, he and others will complain about it on the internet.
I think that's more appropriate.

I really did like the SM "what do you think?" section which included background information about the discussion. Hats off to those who made that happen. I hope that going forward we'll continue to work on improving our communication.


Whatever version Scott's Honda was, it was within 1whp IIRC of its process weight on it's V.1 development attempt.

Is the same Honda that lost the 160 lbs in this month's Fastrack? I honestly don't know enough about the car and am just curious about it.

[StephenB]

On ABS: SOME systems would be good. SOME systems would SUCK. You lift the inside rear wheel on a Neon and the entry-level system tells all 4 wheels to go into anti-lock mode. Guess what? You don't stop.

The next logical request is to modify how 'my' ABS system works. Maybe only the front two wheels or some hybrid that keeps it from sucking.

Then there are very advanced systems that most certainly give you an advantage in wet weather.

On the ITB Hondas: I understand that when a reprocess request comes in they look at it. It SEEMS to me that just because they can't make the numbers make sense, they have to understand that they are based on a previous decision and data. Just because that info is not under their nose doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I hope that they are assuming the number is correct and looking at data to prove that it ISN'T instead of ignoring the weight, starting from scratch and saying, do we have anything other than this letter - and then changing it. To me, that would be very short-sighted.

Whatever version Scott's Honda was, it was within 1whp IIRC of its process weight on it's V.1 development attempt.

On letters like the ABS one: They are indeed tiring for the committees. Don't make a request that requires volunteers to do work without supporting information. Make a request, explain how it helps IT, provide your documentation, run through potential unintended consiquenses and the ramifications of them, etc. It will help them get your answer much faster. Maybe we should go back to "Thank you for your input".

Andy, I am on my phone and can't delete stuff. But I wanted to respond to the last paragraph. I put in a request honestly thinking it would be turned down. BUT it is something that the ITAC will need to look at over the next several years. As stated in above posts if it was on the agenda already I wanted to speed it up with a request. The last thing I wanted was to replumb my car then find out next year that it was going to be allowed. My letter and the answer served its pupose for me and I got the answer I needed. If the ITAC needed more info they could have easily e-mailed me back stating that. I got nothing and it never came up to the general community asking for input. Maybe the best solutions is your last statement or by saying we need more info.

Either way I know my answer and I am fine with it.
Stephen

[JeffYoung]

My personal opinion is we probably should have given more info on our thinking on ABS. It's a big issue, and there are pros and cons on both sides. I'm sure I voted for the "not consistent with class philosophy" response but looking back, I think we should have provided more detail.

I get lost in Honda world. Is Scott's Civic/CRX the same as Tom's?

As best we could tell Andy there was no basis for the gain number for that car. It was something like 43% (I can't remember, I can run the numbers later).

[StephenB]

To be honest I don't think you needed more of an explanation. The reason is fine. I only posted here to clarify that I wish we could add it with additional weight. I didnt want people to read it in fasttrack and not know that side of my story... simple. No complaint and I think the system worked fine, unless you wanted more input from me. If that was the case I had no clue.

Stephen

[JeffYoung]

I thought your letter was fine. We'd discussed it before at length. It is not a new issue.

On the additional weight, the problem is how much? With the variety of systems out there, the ABS is already a penalty in some cases, and in others not. That's really what drove my own thinking on saying no to this.

Maybe for ITNext that has cars that all have good systems we do it, but even then as Vaughan points out "street" ABS systems are very different from "race" ABS systems.

Personal anecdote. I had a Lotus Exige for a few years. Guys tracking them would routinely have the ABS go into "ice" mode which meant hard pedal/little braking action. Bad news.


To be honest I don't think you needed more of an explanation. The reason is fine. I only posted here to clarify that I wish we could add it with additional weight. I didnt want people to read it in fasttrack and not know that side of my story... simple. No complaint and I think the system worked fine, unless you wanted more input from me. If that was the case I had no clue.

Stephen

[Matt93SE]

Just to throw in my $0.02 about ABS on track..
My DD is a 2004 Infiniti G35. ABS and VSC (stability/traction control).
I decided just for grins to take it to the track while my STU was was in pieces...
The car has NISMO S-tune springs, shocks, sway bars, and a stoptech brake kit, so it's reasonably well-handling. I stuck some Hawk HT-10 pads on the front with freebie Hoosier take-offs and went to the track.

I did a few warm-up laps to get used to the car on track and everything felt great. nice and predictable at 75%. Then I dialed it up a bit.

I turned of VSC since the open diff was starting to spin coming off corners and the VSC kicked in and killed the throttle. my 300hp car damn near got rear-ended by an SM because he was following me through the turn and the car killed the throttle at exit.

So I turned off VSC and nailed the brakes in the next corner. WTF?! NO BRAKES!! it would run in about 50% of capacity and when I was about to drive off the end of the track, it would finally roll into the brakes and the car would nosedive and understeer the rest of the way around the corner.
After three 15 min sessions, I parked the car with no rear brakes because the VSC wouldn't completely disengage and was still eating the rear brakes while I was coming off corners rolling into the throttle. Stopwatch times say I never got within 5 sec of my STU lap times, with 100+hp more, "better" brakes, and Hoosiers vs. the R888s I run on my STU car.


I short, that system was definitely NOT track worthy, and this is a much more modern ABS system on a "sports car" that should be much more track-worthy than the cars that will be going into IT in the near future..

Unfortunately, many of the new ABS-equipped cars no longer have a true proportioning valve and use the ABS as a crutch to lower the parts count (and eat rear brake pads like my Infiniti). The Mazda RX-8 is like this. You can't pull the fuse to disable the ABS because you will then have no brake bias adjustment either.

This is something the ITAC is going to have to address in the next couple years as these cars come into radar range of IT..

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think there was an SCCA site where someone with authiority could go and post more extensive explanations to back up the neccessary short responses in the FT. Except now that the FT is exclusively electronic, proper reasoning could be posted, no?

[JeffYoung]

Stuff like this just reinforces my opinion that the best thing to do is pull it all out and replumb it with a stock master, no ABS, and your own prop valve.


Just to throw in my $0.02 about ABS on track..
My DD is a 2004 Infiniti G35. ABS and VSC (stability/traction control).
I decided just for grins to take it to the track while my STU was was in pieces...
The car has NISMO S-tune springs, shocks, sway bars, and a stoptech brake kit, so it's reasonably well-handling. I stuck some Hawk HT-10 pads on the front with Hoosiers and went to the track.

I did a few warm-up laps to get used to the car on track and everything felt great. nice and predictable at 75%. Then I dialed it up a bit.

I turned of VSC since the open diff was starting to spin coming off corners and the VSC kicked in and killed the throttle. my 300hp car damn near got rear-ended by an SM because he was following me through the turn and the car killed the throttle at exit.

So I turned off VSC and nailed the brakes in the next corner. WTF?! NO BRAKES!! it would run in about 50% of capacity and when I was about to drive off the end of the track, it would finally roll into the brakes and the car would nosedive and understeer the rest of the way around the corner.
After three 15 min sessions, I parked the car with no rear brakes because the VSC wouldn't completely disengage and was still eating the rear brakes while I was coming off corners rolling into the throttle.


I short, that system was definitely NOT track worthy, and this is a much more modern ABS system on a "sports car" that should be much more track-worthy than the cars that will be going into IT in the near future..

Unfortunately, many of the new ABS-equipped cars no longer have a true proportioning valve and use the ABS as a crutch to lower the parts count (and eat rear brake pads like my Infiniti). The Mazda RX-8 is like this. You can't pull the fuse to disable the ABS because you will then have no brake bias adjustment either.

This is something the ITAC is going to have to address in the next couple years as these cars come into radar range of IT..

[tom91ita]

..

I get lost in Honda world. Is Scott's Civic/CRX the same as Tom's?

As best we could tell Andy there was no basis for the gain number for that car. It was something like 43% (I can't remember, I can run the numbers later).

Scott's Civic is basically the same as the former Jeff Underwood's car and is not the same as mine. Scott's is the dual point injection / 16V car with the wishbone style suspension F & R (88-91 vintage).

i had included it in my note regarding the gain number comparisions between 16V ITA and the 12V ITB's as a reference (see the link i just posted a bit above).

and if you saw dyno numbers for the 85-87 1st gen cars, it was from someone else.

the weight reduction is welcome (no one likes having three 50 # blocks of steel bolted onto the floor) but it does not make the major difference in lap times one might expect.

i raced the car at tracks i know well with NASA Honda Challenge and the prep step that made the biggest change in times between HC and IT was the removal of ~12 #'s from the flywheel. that dropped lap times consistently, whereas the 130 #'s (2130 vs. 2000 for HC5) was mostly "noise" in the data.

[Greg Amy]

On the additional weight [for ABS], the problem is how much?
As long as the Club does not see its inclusion as dangerous - a point worthy of serious discussion - then your weight bogey is "enough so you're comfortable allowing them to compete, but not enough where you'll worry about performance domination". Then let them go play now and decide later whether to remove/disable it.

You can always adjust that weight down later.

[Matt93SE]

Isn't that kinda the philosophy with allowing the Honda Fit engine in FF or whatever? they're intentionally tuning it as an underdog so as to give the guys still running the old stuff a fighting chance and discourage the entire field from feeling they MUST change just to compete..

[Andy Bettencourt]

then your weight bogey is "enough so you're comfortable allowing them to compete, but not enough where you'll worry about performance domination". Then let them go play now and decide later whether to remove/disable it.

You can always adjust that weight down later.

Good luck with all that 'Prod-style' evaluation and adjustment. Not slamming you here Greg, the point is that you are probably right in it's implamentation, and that process in and of itself is against IT philosophy.

We can't even make significant movement on the 'proving a negative' situation we have now, nevermind something based almost entirely in on-track data.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Isn't that kinda the philosophy with allowing the Honda Fit engine in FF or whatever? they're intentionally tuning it as an underdog so as to give the guys still running the old stuff a fighting chance and discourage the entire field from feeling they MUST change just to compete..

Or said differently, setting a weight so that if you really want to win, you can't go with the new stuff.

[Greg Amy]

Good luck with all that 'Prod-style' evaluation and adjustment.
How do you figure? "Prod Style Adjustments" refers to micro-managing individual cars to all be competitive with themselves. What I'm proposing is a blanket allowance.

:shrug:


Or said differently, setting a weight so that if you really want to win, for now you can't go with the new technology.
Ding! See, he gets it. ;)

Eventually, (we)/(you)'ll have the data to make a rational decision. Right now, (y)our decisions on are based on ignorance.

GA

[JeffYoung]

Got it. Thanks Tom. So this is a different motor entirely from the Giles/Underwood car. I am starting to remember now.


Scott's Civic is basically the same as the former Jeff Underwood's car and is not the same as mine. Scott's is the dual point injection / 16V car with the wishbone style suspension F & R (88-91 vintage).

i had included it in my note regarding the gain number comparisions between 16V ITA and the 12V ITB's as a reference (see the link i just posted a bit above).

and if you saw dyno numbers for the 85-87 1st gen cars, it was from someone else.

the weight reduction is welcome (no one likes having three 50 # blocks of steel bolted onto the floor) but it does not make the major difference in lap times one might expect.

i raced the car at tracks i know well with NASA Honda Challenge and the prep step that made the biggest change in times between HC and IT was the removal of ~12 #'s from the flywheel. that dropped lap times consistently, whereas the 130 #'s (2130 vs. 2000 for HC5) was mostly "noise" in the data.

[Andy Bettencourt]

How do you figure? "Prod Style Adjustments" refers to micro-managing individual cars to all be competitive with themselves. What I'm proposing is a blanket allowance.

:shrug:




True, but it can also be used to describe a move like the one you describe. 'Throw too much weight on it so it isn't competitive and we will reduce it little by little until we think it's ok, based on what we see on track...' See Tom Patton's Tiger - but in reverse. Years getting to the front, wins once and they hit him with a restrictor that sent him back to the dark ages.

It may not be individual car specific but it's the same process, just applied to an allowance that applies to a limited amount of cars.

[preparedcivic]

Got it. Thanks Tom. So this is a different motor entirely from the Giles/Underwood car. I am starting to remember now.

Totally different motor and vehicle architecture for that matter. 3V per cylinder single cam head compared to 4V single cam; much more rustic chassis with a torsion bar/strut and rear beam axle instead of the later car's independent wishbones all around.

[924Guy]

Just to throw in my $0.02 about ABS on track..
My DD is a 2004 Infiniti G35. ABS and VSC (stability/traction control).
I decided just for grins to take it to the track while my STU was was in pieces...
The car has NISMO S-tune springs, shocks, sway bars, and a stoptech brake kit, so it's reasonably well-handling. I stuck some Hawk HT-10 pads on the front with freebie Hoosier take-offs and went to the track.

...
I short, that system was definitely NOT track worthy, and this is a much more modern ABS system on a "sports car" that should be much more track-worthy than the cars that will be going into IT in the near future..

Unfortunately, many of the new ABS-equipped cars no longer have a true proportioning valve and use the ABS as a crutch to lower the parts count (and eat rear brake pads like my Infiniti). The Mazda RX-8 is like this. You can't pull the fuse to disable the ABS because you will then have no brake bias adjustment either.

This is something the ITAC is going to have to address in the next couple years as these cars come into radar range of IT..

Actually... it's no crutch, the proportioning capabilities of a well-tuned system far exceed the capabilities of one analog pedal and a knob. That is, far and away, the issue I have as a racer against allowing these systems due to the performance benefit.

You didn't experience it, since you have a) a crappy Japanese car tune, and b) major mods from stock anyway... but trust me, as a professional/subject matter expert, I could make that car go deeper and more stable in the corners on a hot street tire than you can with R6 takeoffs and a prop valve.

I'm very familiar with the components in the RX8 and G35, among others...

But I agree with your closing statement, as Stephen said - this technology will continue to come at us, it isn't going away but rather is now required equipment on all street cars - so SCCA will continue to be faced with how to deal with it.

As a driver, and as an engineer - I don't support its use for racing.

[Matt93SE]

You didn't experience it, since you have a) a crappy Japanese car tune, and b) major mods from stock anyway... but trust me, as a professional/subject matter expert, I could make that car go deeper and more stable in the corners on a hot street tire than you can with R6 takeoffs and a prop valve.

I'm very familiar with the components in the RX8 and G35, among others...


What I don't get though is that the car was nowhere NEAR lockup when the ABS started getting mad. For several laps, I actually made a concerted effort to squeeze into the pedal from 100+ft back from my normal braking spot, and the damn brakes still didn't work. I did better just mashing my foot to the floor and waiting on the computer. you think it was just going into ice mode or whatever?

Given the existing tune of the ABS system I could drop 5+ seconds a lap by removing it from the G. that's effing frustrating!!

[924Guy]

What I don't get though is that the car was nowhere NEAR lockup when the ABS started getting mad. For several laps, I actually made a concerted effort to squeeze into the pedal from 100+ft back from my normal braking spot, and the damn brakes still didn't work. I did better just mashing my foot to the floor and waiting on the computer. you think it was just going into ice mode or whatever?
Actually, no... the so-called "ice mode" is just the control starting too early, at too little slip for dry/clear pavement. It can be triggered by many things... but the point is, you'd feel the pedal moving around a lot.

As for what the problem was... I can imagine some ideas, and we could discuss them, but send a PM - rather off-topic for the thread, and we've wandered pretty far already. Though I think this is still a good example of the negative side of allowing ABS in racing, at our level... and to think, this is still the system your car came with! Imagine if some genius figured he'd go faster by putting the ABS from a 911 or an E46 on your car... :wacko:



Given the existing tune of the ABS system I could drop 5+ seconds a lap by removing it from the G. that's effing frustrating!!Yep. :023:

[chuck baader]

There is still no computer that can out think the computer between your ears....just learn to use it. Chuck

[Matt93SE]

I can imagine some ideas, and we could discuss them, but send a PM - rather off-topic for the thread, and we've wandered pretty far already.
Thanks, but yeah I'll get back to the topic. I just won't drive that car at the track anymore and the problem is solved. :)

[JLawton]

Jeff, are you allowed to unplug a sensor and run it without the ABS?

You can't disable the ABS in SS. Plus, aren't the BMWs infamous for limp mode when puling sensors and fuses?

Although I would like to know how it's done since I won;t be running SSB next year. Anyone??

.

[Greg Amy]

Final is up.

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/11/11-fastrack-aug.pdf

[mc-integra111]

Page 15:

IMPROVED TOURING
1. #4187 (Grafton Robertson) List process math on each spec line
The process is listed in the IT Process Addendum to the Advisory Committee Manual on SCCA.com.Anybody got a link to this addendum and/or manual on SCCA.com? Google didn't turn up anything. Thanks.

[gsbaker]

Many thanks to those who supported the H&N restraint motions as forth on page 7.

[JeffYoung]

Attached


Page 15:
Anybody got a link to this addendum and/or manual on SCCA.com? Google didn't turn up anything. Thanks.

[dickita15]

Many thanks to those who supported the H&N restraint motions as forth on page 7.

Mr. Drago did as he promised he would before the CRB as did I at the BOD level. There was a thorough and spirited debate and everyone in the room voted in what they felt was the best interest of the club. It was not an easy decision for anyone. I am sorry we lost but it is what it is and I am afraid we have to move on.

[JeffYoung]

Everyone's efforts on this are appreciated. As you said, it's not an easy issue and it's not an easy decision to make.


Mr. Drago did as he promised he would before the CRB as did I at the BOD level. There was a thorough and spirited debate and everyone in the room voted in what they felt was the best interest of the club. It was not an easy decision for anyone. I am sorry we lost but it is what it is and I am afraid we have to move on.

[erlrich]

Mr. Drago did as he promised he would before the CRB as did I at the BOD level. There was a thorough and spirited debate and everyone in the room voted in what they felt was the best interest of the club. It was not an easy decision for anyone. I am sorry we lost but it is what it is and I am afraid we have to move on.

Thanks Dick, I appreciate your and the other board members efforts who tried to get this through.

[924Guy]

Everyone's efforts on this are appreciated. As you said, it's not an easy issue and it's not an easy decision to make.

+1 to that. Knowing that the issue was discussed thoroughly and exhaustively at all the appropriate levels goes a long way to boosting our faith in our representatives at that level, and the club in general. Hint: maybe this is something that might be well worth communicating to the wider membership, such as through a column in SportsCar???

[lateapex911]

Mr. Drago did as he promised he would before the CRB as did I at the BOD level. There was a thorough and spirited debate and everyone in the room voted in what they felt was the best interest of the club. It was not an easy decision for anyone. I am sorry we lost but it is what it is and I am afraid we have to move on.

Really appreciate the effort, the open mindedness (from a HANS wearer even!*) and you coming on here to keep us in the loop.



*Years ago, Dick and I were 'early adopters', and bought HNRs. I got an Isaac, thinking it was the better way to go. Dick got a HANS. We discussed. Dick, correct me if I'm wrong, but you were pragmatic, thinking it would become mandated eventually. Yet you debated in spite of you position, kudos.

[mc-integra111]

Attached
Thanks, much appreciated.

I do not use a HNR at this time. I haven't done any research, and all I think I know comes from these on-line forum discussions. However, I do know that I don't like being told what to do or what to buy. I will be doing everything I can to make sure a HNR stays a recommendation for MCSCC and that no rule exists that excludes perfectly acceptable devices. At least for racers in the Midwest that will provide an alternative.

[lateapex911]

^ Jeeeez, I can't believe I'm saying this: Part of me wishes I lived in the Midwest, LOL!

[924Guy]

Heh heh... well, the housing market's pretty ripe for a buy-in right now! LOL

[tom91ita]

Mr. Drago did as he promised he would before the CRB as did I at the BOD level. There was a thorough and spirited debate and everyone in the room voted in what they felt was the best interest of the club. It was not an easy decision for anyone. I am sorry we lost but it is what it is and I am afraid we have to move on.

Thanks. You did all we could ask.

[tom91ita]

Thanks, much appreciated.

I do not use a HNR at this time. I haven't done any research, and all I think I know comes from these on-line forum discussions. However, I do know that I don't like being told what to do or what to buy. I will be doing everything I can to make sure a HNR stays a recommendation for MCSCC and that no rule exists that excludes perfectly acceptable devices. At least for racers in the Midwest that will provide an alternative.

fyi, i find the second motion to be a very good alternate to SFI 38.1:



MOTION: to change 2012 GCR section 9.3.20. C.2 to read: As of 1/1/12, Head and neck restraints meeting SFI 38.1 or FIA 8858 will be required. The SCCA may also specify additional acceptable Head and Neck Restraint systems that are certified by manufacturers to exceed the performance standard described in SFI 38.1, or other appropriate industry standards as tested by one of the labs qualified to undertake such performance tests.


I am surprised that one vote to not require changed sides on this vote....(if i read that right...)

[Dave Burchfield]

Thank you to all those who supported the non SFI position. I will register my displeasure with this decision by taking my racing dollars to Midwest Council and other private events in the area. My PERSONAL enjoyment will not be diminished at all in my decision even though I will miss the many who I have come to know and respect during my 20 year affiliation with the club.

[Knestis]

Thank you to all those who supported the non SFI position. I will register my displeasure with this decision by taking my racing dollars to Midwest Council and other private events in the area. My PERSONAL enjoyment will not be diminished at all in my decision even though I will miss the many who I have come to know and respect during my 20 year affiliation with the club.

Technically, Dave, I perched that RX7 on TOP of the T2 wall at SEATTLE...

My thanks, too, to Dick and Jim D. and anyone else willing to try to look at the nuances of this important issue. I am sick about it but honestly don't know what I'm going to do next year.

K

[StephenB]

Purchased a Hans myself... didn't arrive in time for this weekend but I will have it for the future... strange How kids make you change your priorities.

Stephen

[lateapex911]

Purchased a Hans myself... didn't arrive in time for this weekend but I will have it for the future... strange How kids make you change your priorities.

Stephen
Why a HANS though? Other choices, even SFI ones, many with as good or better performance, exist.

[gran racing]

Exactly what Kirk said.

Will need a new helmet and a different H&NR system next year. Then ideally a seat and additional nets. Those won't happen.

[gsbaker]

Mr. Drago did as he promised he would before the CRB as did I at the BOD level. There was a thorough and spirited debate and everyone in the room voted in what they felt was the best interest of the club. It was not an easy decision for anyone. I am sorry we lost but it is what it is and I am afraid we have to move on.
Just one question, Dick: Was the Burgess death discussed?

[924Guy]

As with Stephen - picked up a good used HANS last week.

Then promptly went out and crashed my car in practice... without it connected to the helmet.

Not the first time I've used 'em, but still, the learning curve! LOL

Next step will be new aero-capable SAH10 helmet to attach to it... sounds like they'll be a little cheaper late this season, if you can avoid waiting till the last minute/plan ahead.

[Dave Zaslow]

Dick,

Thanks. You said you would try and, as always, you kept your word. I'm sure there were lots of letters along the lines of mine (below).

Is the Defnder still SFI 38.1?

DZ


Dear CRB and BOD members,


I advocate that the mandatory H&N requirement be modified to allow other systems that have proven to meet or exceed the reduction in H&N loading without regard as to whether they meet the SFI 38.1 spec for single point of release. There are far too many allowed devices tethering the driver to the car to make the single point of release the determining factor in selecting such a device. I further ask that SCCA maintain and publish a list of those devices meeting this requirement. Proof of the performance would be evidenced by the SFI certification or independent verification by the manufacturer of the performance by submission of valid testing procedures and results from the same certified testing laboratories as used by the SFI recognized manufacturers.


Yours,


Dave Zaslow
Member # 189195

[Harvey]

Dave

If you can find 1 with the sticker then it should be fine unless the Club goes to the recertification then you will have a problem.

[raffaelli]

Dick,



Is the Defnder still SFI 38.1?

DZ




http://www.defnderneckbrace.com/

Website still has the logo. Mine has the sticker on it.

[Bill Miller]

With respect, the whole "10/10ths build" thing was never the big deal that it's been made for you around the Toyota question. I think you've been led astray by post hoc rationalization of a weight spec on the MR2 that's based in bias and fear.

The Process v.2. simply asked the ITAC members to record their judgment of whatever evidence was presented for a non-standard - other than 1.25 - power multiplier. The idea from the outset, from a guy who helped craft that system, was to impose a pretty high expectation of confidence from the entire committee in order to shift us off of "SOP" and on to "what we know." If we had repeated dyno evidence of a reputable, pro build, that would have been taken into consideration differently than "I've never put it on a dyno but my friend built it and I know it makes like 120whp."

(I hate the term "what we know," by the way, because we NEVER actually KNOW anything.)

The actual change for the CRX Si happened after I left but we looked at a pretty good accumulation of evidence that generated substantial confidence around a 1.3 multiplier for that make/model (with 91 hp stock). Not coincidentally, that multiplier puts it at its current GCR weight. The Civic version should have been done at the same time but wasn't.

You are going to drive yourself crazy looking for a way to make classifications more generally - or the Process v.2 as it was applied c.2008-2010 and should still be applied - align with what happened with (or to) the MR2. That listing is crap. It's always been crap. It should be fixed. Until it is, my confidence in the ITAC is very low.

K

Kirk,

This is in no way a reflection on you, or directed at you, but based on things I've been told by various former ITAC members over the years, the bolded part really made me chuckle.


Here's what I believe is the math for how the 1G CRX Si/3G Civic Si's got adjusted to their current 1970lbs:

91hp * 1.30 * .98 * 17 = 1970.8

Tom Lamb's letter languished in the ITAC for years. I wrote mine over the winter in support of his and adding some new points of my own. It was well established the old weight was completely arbitrary when the car was moved down from A to B.

BTW, that previous weight of 2130lbs was a power multiplier of 40%+.

Rob,

The math seems right.

This math however, doesn't

90hp * X * .98 * 17 = 2080 lbs

Or, rearranged to solve for X:

X = 2080 / (.98 * 90 *17) = 1.39

And another:

90hp * X * .98 * .17 = 2130 lbs

X = 2130 (.98*90*.17) = 1.42


The second set of equations is for the 1.8 8v VW Scirocco II. That's a car w/ a 1.8L 8v SOHC engine running CIS. The first set of equations is for the Rabbit GTI. Same chassis as the Scirroco, just a square back vs a slope back, like the Civic Si / CRX Si.

It's well accepted that there's no performance advantage of the CRX body over the Civic body, in IT trim, yet the Rabbit / Scirocco pair is saddled w/ a 50# weight penalty for the slope back body (it's 60# for the 1.7 ITC versions of those cars). I realize that these differences pre-date the GR and were based on some perceived aero advantage, but it seems like such an obvious error and easy correction today.

In light of Jeff's comments, I'm not sure why the 1.39/1.42 power factor hasn't been addressed.


Let me try to cover as much of the above as I can.

1. On the ITB Hondas. When we finally got the "go" to "reprocess" cars, we looked at the ITB CRX based on Tom's letter and others. The existing GCR weight (I can run th calc if someone wants) seemed to have no rational relation to any of the existing gain modifiers. So, honestly, in the absence of any real data, that car should be at 1.30 default rather than the 1.45 or whatever it was at.

We looked at Tom's data (which included dyno information if I recall correctly), Rob's and others. I'm not a Honda or ITB guy but the guys on the committee who are agreed we were not looking at a motor that would make ITA CRX gains.

So the vote was put it at default, or 1.3, for the class. The Civic then followed.

We do have to get away from the notion of "why did you lower weights on cars that are already competitive?" We had that discussion on the ITAC, but once you put something like the Process in place you have to trust it and use it. And that is what we did.

[tom91ita]

Bill,

i would agree with you that the math you outlined does not seem right. that was the basic method i used to arrive at us having a 1.42ish mulitplier. we (ITB CRX si's) had one HP more than your 90 and we had 50 #'s more (2130 vs. your 2080).

my letter writing started in 2008 and continued in 2009 and 2010 and again in 2010 & then the website submission tool/method. one of the things that really bugged me was the 2008 request was not acted on and later i was told that i had missed a deadline. not that i submitted it too late but that they did not review/respond in time.

i recommend you submit the math/methods you outlined above.

did that vintage VW also drop from ITA to ITB about the same time the CRX moved? just curious if it was given an arbitrary amount of weight as well.

good luck (hope that does not sound sarcastic).

i really do wish you well!

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

i would agree with you that the math you outlined does not seem right. that was the basic method i used to arrive at us having a 1.42ish mulitplier. we (ITB CRX si's) had one HP more than your 90 and we had 50 #'s more (2130 vs. your 2080).

my letter writing started in 2008 and continued in 2009 and 2010 and again in 2010 & then the website submission tool/method. one of the things that really bugged me was the 2008 request was not acted on and later i was told that i had missed a deadline. not that i submitted it too late but that they did not review/respond in time.

i recommend you submit the math/methods you outlined above.

did that vintage VW also drop from ITA to ITB about the same time the CRX moved? just curious if it was given an arbitrary amount of weight as well.

good luck (hope that does not sound sarcastic).

i really do wish you well!

Tom,

I took your comments as sincere and genuine. Thanks. The 8v 1.8 VW's have been ITB cars since the mid to late 90's.

I've been banging the VW drum for a LONG time, just ask anyone that's been around here for a while. ;)

I have also championed an objective, repeatable classification process for IT cars for about as long as I've been on this site. (Has it really been 10 years???? :blink:)

I am truly glad to see where IT has come in that time, although it was a rough road.
A few folks put in some long hours, did some very heavy lifting, and often times got crap for it. They deserve a lot of credit for getting things done in the face of some tough (and often well connected) opposition.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The math doesn't have to be 'right' when you have an accepted WHP number. If you 'know' 115whp, it might come out to .32 or .27 or whatever.

Not saying this is the case here but the numbers don't always have to fit in a box to be 'correct' per the Process.

[Bill Miller]

The math doesn't have to be 'right' when you have an accepted WHP number. If you 'know' 115whp, it might come out to .32 or .27 or whatever.

Not saying this is the case here but the numbers don't always have to fit in a box to be 'correct' per the Process.


Andy,

I don't think anyone disagrees with that, or disputes it. I know I certainly don't.

However, per the ITAC Operations Manual, it's pretty well outlined what has to happen if you're going to use "Known Horsepower"



Known Horsepower
In this method, the horsepower number published by the manufacturer is ignored, and instead, the expected horsepower comes from another source. These days it is pretty common to have dynamometer results, usually from a chassis dyno. For chassis dynos, the ITAC standard is that RWD cars have an 18% drivetrain loss (from crank to wheels) and FWD cars have a 15% loss. Thus, for example, if a RWD car is “known” to make 150 horsepower on a chassis dyno, then the “expected horsepower” for power-to-weight calculation should be 150/.82, which is 183. Care should be taken that the highest dyno numbers seen are used, and that cars classed by this method should be at the limit of the IT rules.
In order to use this method, an ITAC member should put together a set of documentation that proves what the maximum known horsepower is. Then each member should say how confident he/she is in the documentation, considering the source, how well-prepared the measured cars are, etc. If the average confidence is 75% or greater, then the “known horsepower” method may be used to derive the expected horsepower.
A 75% confidence level is a pretty high level. It is expected that the committee would bring with them a healthy amount of skepticism when it comes to reviewing dyno sheets. One should take into account the source of the info, the shop that ran the dyno, information about how well-prepared the car and the engine car, who did the build, and any hidden motives of anyone involved in providing the data. In the best of circumstances, dyno results are hard to trust as they can be extremely variable even when all conditions are the same. It is reasonable to look at on-track results of the cars in question to see if the perceived acceleration matches what the dyno sheets appear to say.
All dyno sheets should be posted to the thread on the letter-tracking site that is associated with the letter under discussion. That way all information associated with the decision is saved and findable. The letter number is known by the author and also published in Fastrack. Any CRB or ITAC member can then find that letter number in the system and find all dyno sheets associated with its weight decision.
If that's followed, the 'alternative' multiplier will be well documented, and supported by data and a confidence vote by the ITAC


On the ITB Hondas: I understand that when a reprocess request comes in they look at it. It SEEMS to me that just because they can't make the numbers make sense, they have to understand that they are based on a previous decision and data. Just because that info is not under their nose doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I hope that they are assuming the number is correct and looking at data to prove that it ISN'T instead of ignoring the weight, starting from scratch and saying, do we have anything other than this letter - and then changing it. To me, that would be very short-sighted.

And there's the rub. I'm sure that deviations from the process were based on data and prior discussions. However, if that information was not archived and preserved, you (the ITAC) have two choices, either re-compile it and follow through with the "Known Horsepower" process, or, lacking that, follow the "Published Horsepower" process (essentially starting from scratch).

If you see Jeff's earlier comment that I quoted and bolded, you'll see that he states in the absence of an real data. Jeff's an ITAC member, and from what I can tell, a pretty thorough guy. I firmly believe that if the data and documentation used to determine the initial 2130# weight for the 3rd gen Civic/CRX Si were available, he (and the other ITAC members) would have used it.

So, I don't think anyone was short-sighted. I also don't think it's incumbent on the ITAC to disprove variations from the process that don't have supporting documentation. In fact, to not run a car through the "Published Horsepower" process, when the required "Known Horsepower" documentation and confidence vote is not in place, is subverting and 'going outside' the process.

This is why archiving prior decisions is so important. I believe Josh and the rest of the ITAC recognized this, which is why it was codified in the Ops manual.

As Jeff said, once you put something like The Process in place, you have to trust it and use it.

[JeffYoung]

I personally am not assuming the old weights are "correct" fi they don't follow the 15/20/25/30/35% gain ladder. If they don't that smacks of the weight just being POOMAed. The ITB CRX/Civic seems to be a prime example of this.

For these VWs the biggest issue is that no one with any knowledge about the motors has written in to request a reprocess. I know (literally) nothing aobut these cars and would need some one to put pen to paper in a formal submission to the ITAC before I'd be comfortable doing anything with them.

[Bill Miller]

With all due respect Jeff, and while I respect your position, it seems a bit backwards to me. On one hand, you say you don't assume the old weights are correct, and seemed to be POOMA'd if they don't follow the 15/20/25/30/35 progression, but on the other hand, you want someone else to initiate the re-process. The way I read the ITAC Ops Manual, it's an ITAC member that goes to the committee w/ a case as to why "Known Horsepower" should be used over "Published Horsepower". It's not something that's initiated by a member request.

The 1.8 8v VW weights don't follow the "Published Horsepower" process, and there seems to be no documentation that supports why a weight was apparently set via the "Known Horsepower" process. It would seem that no knowledge of those cars should be required. At best, it's a letter saying nothing more than "Please re-process the 1.8 8v VW's".

And at the risk of stirring up more old mud, I believe that's the way the Audi's should have been handled.

One of the things that I really applaud Josh, you, and the rest of the ITAC for is the high standard you set for using "Known Horsepower" over "Published Horsepower". It goes a long way to eliminate the infiltration of shenanigans. The way I see it, if you don't have the supporting evidence, as well as the confidence of the ITAC, you are required to set the weight based on "Published Horsepower". That should apply to every car in the ITCS.

[JeffYoung]

The reason for that is simply resources. A complete redo of ITB alone would take months.

If someone feels it is important enough to them (like Tom and Rob did with their generation of CRX/Civic) to write in and request a look at the Process weight, we do it. If not, we are leaving them alone.

It's initiated by member request.

In fact, we are approaching a point where we may delist the weights on some of the ITB cars and only calculate a weight if someone writes in with information about the cars.

Your last paragraph is how *I* prefer doing this. Others have different evidentiary standards, which is allowed by the Ops Manual and probably creates a decent balance.




With all due respect Jeff, and while I respect your position, it seems a bit backwards to me. On one hand, you say you don't assume the old weights are correct, and seemed to be POOMA'd if they don't follow the 15/20/25/30/35 progression, but on the other hand, you want someone else to initiate the re-process. The way I read the ITAC Ops Manual, it's an ITAC member that goes to the committee w/ a case as to why "Known Horsepower" should be used over "Published Horsepower". It's not something that's initiated by a member request.

The 1.8 8v VW weights don't follow the "Published Horsepower" process, and there seems to be no documentation that supports why a weight was apparently set via the "Known Horsepower" process. It would seem that no knowledge of those cars should be required. At best, it's a letter saying nothing more than "Please re-process the 1.8 8v VW's".

And at the risk of stirring up more old mud, I believe that's the way the Audi's should have been handled.

One of the things that I really applaud Josh, you, and the rest of the ITAC for is the high standard you set for using "Known Horsepower" over "Published Horsepower". It goes a long way to eliminate the infiltration of shenanigans. The way I see it, if you don't have the supporting evidence, as well as the confidence of the ITAC, you are required to set the weight based on "Published Horsepower". That should apply to every car in the ITCS.

[lateapex911]

So, Bill, what if i were to write in and request the ITA CRX be reprocessed?

I can assure you the ITAC....even if they looked really hard....won't find the documentation for that one. (That was two forum board changes ago).

[Bill Miller]

Jeff, I can understand and appreciate the resource issue. Valid point. However, doing one class a year shouldn't be that bad. Announce in the January FasTrack that ITx is going to be re-processed throughout the course of the year, and at the end of the year, the weights for all the cars in ITx will be established.

As far as de-listing weights for cars in the ITCS, I think that's a tricky situation. What happens if someone shows up at race w/ one of those cars and there's no weight spec?

Jake,

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Is it that there's no documentation / data that supports the ITA version of the Civic / CRX Si to have a multiplier other than 1.25?

[JeffYoung]

No, (I think) we aren't going to reprocess all cars. It's too much work. You have to have spent time on the committee to understand. It involves too much time out of committee doing research etc. and chews up a lot of time in committee on sharing the results and debating. I honestly doubt we could get through ITB in a year given everything else we are having to do at the same time.

Josh's solution on this is the best one. Delist the cars that we know aren't running (meaning remove their weights). Put a note in the ITCS saying if you want to run this car, you have to request that the ITCS determine PRocess weight and provide info on stock hp, etc.

If someone shows up with one of these cars, they get directed to the GCR, need to write the letter, and can run ITE until they do.

[ITEGT]

If someone shows up with one of these cars, they get directed to the GCR, need to write the letter, and can run ITE until they do.

:026: Woohoo more cars in ITE. Yeah like thats gonna ever happen! :dead_horse:

[lateapex911]

Jeff, I can understand and appreciate the resource issue. Valid point. However, doing one class a year shouldn't be that bad. Announce in the January FasTrack that ITx is going to be re-processed throughout the course of the year, and at the end of the year, the weights for all the cars in ITx will be established.

As far as de-listing weights for cars in the ITCS, I think that's a tricky situation. What happens if someone shows up at race w/ one of those cars and there's no weight spec?

Jake,

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Is it that there's no documentation / data that supports the ITA version of the Civic / CRX Si to have a multiplier other than 1.25?

Delisting: Print the warning in Fastrack over a long period. Delist. IF a car shows up, it goes to ITx or ITE or whatever catchall the region has. (I tend to doubt somebody that out of touch is going to be loaded for bear with sets of Hoosiers and visions of winning ITB when they show up with their barn find Simca). They get to run/shake down car, etc, then they request a classification.
There are SO many obscure listings that nobody has seen run in decades, that I really doubt that the situation will arise often, if at all.
On edit: Looks like I was typing at the same time Jeff was. (I got interrupted). Sounds like a good solution, Jeff. ;)

Bill, yea, the discussion seemed to have a component of "If no documentation exists, then reprocess", when in many cases there is documentation, (somewhere) and even lacking that, the classifications are legit. Some are Poomas (the VW thing, clearly, that disparity for body shape, (presumably) has been on the books since before our time!), but others, while they lack obvious or recent documentation are good legit listings.

Jeff earlier in the thread said the old (last generation) board was 'unavailable". That switch over was about a year ago. And Jeff, it seemed like you were operating as though it was the way it was, until Josh came on and said, "It's there, you need to get your sign on/whatever working". Regardless, it was alarming to think that that much institutional memory was gone. I'm not on the ITAC anymore, so I don't know how it operates, but I HOPE that the documentation...and the research and ability to look back through history via the board...are better than when I first joined.

[Bill Miller]

No, (I think) we aren't going to reprocess all cars. It's too much work. You have to have spent time on the committee to understand. It involves too much time out of committee doing research etc. and chews up a lot of time in committee on sharing the results and debating. I honestly doubt we could get through ITB in a year given everything else we are having to do at the same time.

Josh's solution on this is the best one. Delist the cars that we know aren't running (meaning remove their weights). Put a note in the ITCS saying if you want to run this car, you have to request that the ITCS determine PRocess weight and provide info on stock hp, etc.

If someone shows up with one of these cars, they get directed to the GCR, need to write the letter, and can run ITE until they do.

Sounds like a good approach Jeff, as long as you give people a decent lead time to let them know which cars are up for de-listing so that they can respond. I think you need to also put in some kind of minimum turn-around time when someone requests that a de-listed car gets re-processed (I think 1-2 months is reasonable).

[JeffYoung]

Sorry if I was not clear. No intent to delist cars that are actively being run (even one).


Sounds like a good approach Jeff, as long as you give people a decent lead time to let them know which cars are up for de-listing so that they can respond. I think you need to also put in some kind of minimum turn-around time when someone requests that a de-listed car gets re-processed (I think 1-2 months is reasonable).

[dickita15]

Dick,


Is the Defnder still SFI 38.1?

DZ




Dave as part of my due diligence on this issue I called Defender and asked to talk to the owner. A gentleman name Kevin called me back. I was told that the defender was certified in 2009-10 and that those certifications were still valid. He said that he chose not to recertify for 2011 because it was expensive and they are developing a new product for 2012. He told me he believed they would be certified and available in time for this Christmas.

[tom91ita]

Dave as part of my due diligence on this issue I called Defender and asked to talk to the owner. A gentleman name Kevin called me back. I was told that the defender was certified in 2009-10 and that those certifications were still valid. He said that he chose not to recertify for 2011 because it was expensive and they are developing a new product for 2012. He told me he believed they would be certified and available in time for this Christmas.

Dick,

i recently sent a note to DJSafety's website and received a response that they hope to have the unit tested within 6 weeks. i assume that after that, there is still some SFI review/approval process so your Christmas time frame seems consistent with what the info i received.

this is an interesting price-point compared to the typical HANs H&NR:

http://www.djsafety.com/

http://www.djsafety.com/hnr_all381%20copy.jpg

[Greg Amy]

I heard rumors of a new SFI-approved suit (spec # TBD) that incorporates firesuit, helmet, gloves, and H&NR, easy one-piece on/off, and may even include air cooling. To be announced at SEMA this year, but I found a spy photo (from testing at the Nordschliefe...)


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


http://www.partyoutfitters.com/itempics/games/sumo.jpg

[tom91ita]

looks like it will fit right in with the Captain Grannypants theme.....

[Dave Zaslow]

So was the Hans vs. Defnder patent lawsuit resolved?

http://lokikart.com/purplein1/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/hans-v-innovative-complaint.pdf

[Matt93SE]

Considering that was filed Dec 2010, I have a feeling that won't be resolved for another 2-3 years.

[Greg Amy]

So was the Hans vs. Defnder patent lawsuit resolved?
Rumor has it Defnder's new design is to get around that issue...

[gsbaker]

IIRC, the case was moved to Georgia and set for trial in ~ four years.