Trial Balloon - Retaining ABS?

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by GKR_17:
If that is true, then they can argue that they should be able to leave it on, since traction control is allowed.

Grafton

2003 GCR, Page 85, section 11.2.1.DD:
Traction control systems, as installed by the automobile manufacturer and unmodified, are allowed only in Touring, Showroom Stock and Improved Touring.

It says nothing there about allowing you to modify your system to obtain traction control... It's only allowed if it is factory stock...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited July 12, 2004).]

[GKR_17]

Originally posted by Banzai240:

It says nothing there about allowing you to modify your system to obtain traction control... It's only allowed if it is factory stock...

The "they" I was referring to were the cars you said came with TC as stock.

[Knestis]

There's an interesting question. Is there a rule in the ITCS that requires traction control to be disabled? I honestly have no clue.

K

[shwah]

All the new cars have airbags too, so somehow the argument that all the new cars will have ABS does not hold water for me. I can understand several of the other points, but IMO no cars come from the factory with a braking system that is properly balance for IT racing.

So what's the difference if I have to replumb the brakes on my 1986 Golf using a design that allows me to use what I think is appropriate brake balance, and someone else doing this on a newer car, and losing 20# of ABS components? Seems to me that the 20# is the biggest difference.

Of course, I do acknowledge that the cost is different. I would expect that someone pulling ABS from a newer car will end up spending more than I did, but the cost for just about everything on an 18 year old car will be lower than that of a 10 or 8 year old car. Not a huge surprise there.

Finally, watching the rate at which changes take place in IT, and how much howling goes on before during and after changes - I just don't realistically expect that this would be a successful endeavor (petitioning for the change).

[tderonne]

It's called dynamic proportioning, electronic brake force distribution, or a couple other names.

Ford Focus is a perfect example. Pull the ABS fuse, or disable enough stuff (wheel speed sensors, brake pedal switch, couple others) and you get no proportioning. There is some base/default proportioning built in via hydraulic sizing of components, but chances are you ain't gonna like it. I've got the pictures of the rear wheels locked up to prove it.

And it gets worse. Knock out the right stuff in a yet to be released car, and the ABS module thinks you're driving a different car (brakes/powertrain info coming over a data bus).

And that snow/ice mode sounds just plain dangerous on a racetrack, yikes!

Vaughan would definitely have further thoughts, Vaughan?

[Banzai240]

Kirk,

I'd go ahead and write your letter. I think enough talking has taken place to warrent an investigation into the future of this rule and the ramifications of not addressing it...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[GKR_17]

Originally posted by Knestis:
There's an interesting question. Is there a rule in the ITCS that requires traction control to be disabled? I honestly have no clue.
K

Per the GCR, traction control is allowed in IT. Under strict interpretation of the ITCS it must NOT be disabled...

Grafton

edit: Except of course if there was a model on the spec line without it.


[This message has been edited by GKR_17 (edited July 13, 2004).]

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
... I think enough talking has taken place to warrent an investigation into the future of this rule and the ramifications of not addressing it...

That's a little different than "we'll consider the proposed rule change" but I'll get that put together and send it off. Thanks everyone for the input.

K

[MMiskoe]

Hang guys, one thing that has not been mentioned here is the dangers of running WITH ABS. While doing some instructing with COM (a north east based time trial club) which has a majority of its cars as daily drivers, most have ABS, I have seen some spectacular crashes as a result of the ABS getting involved.

When you spin and stamp the brake to keep the thing from sling-shotting back across the track to collect oncoming traffic, it fights back & allows the wheels to continue rolling. Not good. Also some cars have an "ice mode" which when it senses instant wheel stop, it tries to back off the brake force to get the wheel(s) rolling again, assuming you just hit a patch of ice, or something equally slipery. Again, not good.

I'd rather flat spot tires than body work any day.

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis:
That's a little different than "we'll consider the proposed rule change" but I'll get that put together and send it off. Thanks everyone for the input.

K

I think that is what Darin meant Kirk. We discuss every letter received by the CRB regarding rules affecting IT.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[Knestis]

I believe you Geo but I work in a discipline that understands the importance of the words that people choose when they say things...

K

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Knestis:
I believe you Geo but I work in a discipline that understands the importance of the words that people choose when they say things...

K

Exactly what are you implying Kirk? I said exactly what I meant... We've talked about it enough that it warrents further action... I'm convinced that there may be an issue... Enough information has been presented to make me believe that there may truely be an issue that needs to be discussed officially...

Why is it everything has to be assumed to be of an evil nature??? I'm a pretty level headed guy who has proven, or has been trying to prove, that I have the best interests of the IT community at heart, and I've always been open to listening to concerns... Why would you assume that I meant anything other than what I said in this case?

Write you letter, because I think that <we've discussed this enough and brought further information to light> to warrent <an official> investigation to consider the future of this rule and the ramifications of NOT addressing it...

I think there could really be an issue here and it helps when there is an official CRB letter to document the case and get it on the agenda...

There... is that clear enough?? Sheesh...

The black helicopter has landed...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited July 14, 2004).]

[Knestis]

I obviously need to use more smilies and winkies. I know that you said exactly what you meant - that was my point. It just struck me that it was just a somewhat sideways way to respond.

Why is it assumed that I am assuming that it is of some evil nature?

K

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Knestis:
It just struck me that it was just a somewhat sideways way to respond.

Why is it assumed that I am assuming that it is of some evil nature?

K

Because you didn't use enough smilies, and you admit that you thought it was a sideways way to resond...

I don't always have time to sugar-coat my posts, and I simply and very generally encouraged you to send in a letter so we could officially respond to the issue at hand...

That's the best way to assure that it gets on the agenda...

Now... go forth and begin removing that ABS system so you can get your butt into IT trim!




------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[ChrisCamadella]

I'd love to weigh in on this one... But I won't.

Go ahead and write your letter - I can certainly see both sides of the coin, especially the points that Greg A pointed out. As Darin already pointed out, if we get a letter, we discuss it, and usually at much greater length than you can imagine.

Just for my edification, however, can anyone cite an IT car that's currently classified of which NO non-ABS examples were produced, i.e., ALL of them came with ABS?

Thanks in advance,

Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944S

[JoelG]

All BMWs 325's classified in ITS had ABS. This includes both the E30s (87-91) and the E36s (92-95).

[Knestis]

It's my understanding that all Integra GSRs came only w/ABS. The ITA-eligible Civic (the EX) started coming only with ABS at some point before the current generation which is not available with old-school brakes.

K

[Banzai240]

I'll again bring up a simple point...

Our ABS brake systems were NOT designed to work with mix-n-match racing brake pads, other-than-stock rotors, or any number of other currently allowed modifications that we are allowed to do to our cars... All of these items can throw off the proportioning of the system, therefore, any argument concerning removing/disabling the ABS causing the system to not proportion correctly really needs to consider that we are, in fact, already having this effect on our brake systems through other allowed modifications.

We ARE currently allowed to add a brake proportioning valve, should we deem it necessary. Many of us have done this in order to maximize our selected brake pads' effectiveness.

It is currently my opinion that if disabling the ABS causes the system to not propotion itself correctly, then we have several means of correcting this problem that are currently quite legal. Prop valves and Pads are the first two things that come to mind...

I'm not saying that I don't think that this rule doesn't need to be evaluated, but I am saying that we should do that without trying to concocked arguements that try to show that the current rule is in some way causing danger or an unsafe condition, when if fact it is not contributing to this any more than we already are by other means...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[Knestis]

So, the guy with the GSR asking questions about this issue on honda-tech.com wants to know which of the four lines that come off of his master cylinder should have the prop valve - or valves - in them. He can't use any other master cylinder because none of the cars on his spec line came without ABS.

Since Darin gets to restate his point, I'll do the same: The whole purpose of IT was to create a relatively easy route to road racing, with minimal bolt-on modifications to stock vehicles.

Technology of "stock vehicles" has advanced so we are faced with a situation where the current brake requirements demand that the original philosophy gets bent to adhere to the letter of rules that didn't anticipate the future.

It seems like a new IT entrant should have the OPTION of re-engineering things (e.g., diff choice, suspension bushings, roll bars) if he or she wants to, or as funds allow. The current ABS rule REQUIRES the newbie to essentially re-engineer - or at least dick with - a system that the manufacturer has spent millions on.

K

[ChrisCamadella]

I can certainly see your point on this one - the rule certainly needs to be reevaluated. I, for one, will be bummed if we eventually allow ABS, since I took all of that stuff off my car and threw it away...

I completely understand your point about one having to re-plumb the braking system even if you're a newbie to racing - This seems like a lot of work, not to mention the fact that brake plumbing requires a certain amount of mechanical finesse to get right.

I used to race a '93 Camaro in World Challenge, and we ran the ABS - It was incredibly better in the rain, not to mention the rear wheel hop that it helped to eliminate. But I do recall that the ABS master cylinder was a different part than the non-ABS version - I've got to go back and look at my notes and see if I wrote down what the difference was - but Mr. Chevrolet doesn't make two different parts if he doesn't have to - there must have been a reason that the ABS cars had a different MC than the non-ABS ones. It really could be that the MC piston and port sizes were different in ABS cars because it was not expected that the MC would ever be connected directly to the brake calipers, and the piston and/or port sizes are in some way inappropriate together. But then again, I could be completely wrong about that.

I will certainly at least admit that we are creating a braking system other than the one that the manufacturer had in mind. But, as Darin already pointed out, we are doing that anyway by changing pads, adding ducting, changing the weight distribution, springs, shocks, and a host of other items, so this might be a small difference in the grand scheme of things.

If we were to allow ABS in IT cars, it would completely change the competitiveness of those cars that don't have it, at least in the rain, IMO. So this is sort of a big deal compared to, say, allowing a different pulley size on the crankshaft.

All I can say is, write your letter....

Cheers,

Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944S