Preliminary Minutes
Preliminary Tech Bulletin
Printable View
interesting update to the "E" decal rules in minutes/GCR/5
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
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
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
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?
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.
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"
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
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.
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
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
Can Jeff run us through the process on the lightened Hondas?
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.
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?
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%+.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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
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.
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..........
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
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
Jeff, are you allowed to unplug a sensor and run it without the ABS?
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.
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 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.Quote:
I am sure it had supporting data from Kessler. How is it compaired to yours on a dyno Dave? (Gran)
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.
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
consider taking a moment? please.......
the response was discussed amongst the group and is very intentional.
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?
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".