ITAC News.

[IPRESS]

Like what?

OH I don't know maybe I was thinking that lately the CRB has opened back up consideration of things involving IT. Seems like some cars were classed or reclassed. Just from outside looking in it seems Josh and his crew have been able to overcome the "stop the presses" stalemate of late fall. I don't know if that is good or bad.


Travis I thought you quit and joined a country club.

[Andy Bettencourt]

OH I don't know maybe I was thinking that lately the CRB has opened back up consideration of things involving IT. Seems like some cars were classed or reclassed. Just from outside looking in it seems Josh and his crew have been able to overcome the "stop the presses" stalemate of late fall. I don't know if that is good or bad.

Using the Process was never a question for cars new to IT. The stalemate hinged on currently classed cars that were way outside their Process weight and the refusal of the CRB to apply the same measuring stick to both as well as the introduction of the concept of 'on-track performance' and 'like achitechture' to the classification equation.

I haven't seen any evidence that they have backed off that. Maybe the current ITAC believes in the concepts.

[IPRESS]

Using the Process was never a question for cars new to IT. The stalemate hinged on currently classed cars that were way outside their Process weight and the refusal of the CRB to apply the same measuring stick to both as well as the introduction of the concept of 'on-track performance' and 'like achitechture' to the classification equation.

I haven't seen any evidence that they have backed off that. Maybe the current ITAC believes in the concepts.

I wasn't talking about the process although it was the flashpoint. My view from afar was that the CRB & the old ITAC had come to a point that working together was not an option. Seems Josh's committee has the luxury of getting a fresh start. No reflection on past committtee members or their stance. As I stated before, I had quite the unhappy moment with the CRB myself one time. I was probably on the wrong side, but that doesn't mean you guys were, most on here think you were right, I think it was a little inbetween.

[Knestis]

I wasn't talking about the process although it was the flashpoint. My view from afar was that the CRB & the old ITAC had come to a point that working together was not an option. Seems Josh's committee has the luxury of getting a fresh start. No reflection on past committtee members or their stance. As I stated before, I had quite the unhappy moment with the CRB myself one time. I was probably on the wrong side, but that doesn't mean you guys were, most on here think you were right, I think it was a little inbetween.

I appreciate you acknowledging that the "old ITAC" had a lot of support for what it was trying to do. Ultimately, I see what went down as a conflict between what we heard the majority of members asking for and what the CRB was willing to do. I dare say that those of us who left the committee came down on what we saw as the members' side. The CRB does its job at the behest of the Board - that handful of people we all elect. That allows them to chase pesky ad hoc committee members back into the shadows but it doe NOT make them member-proof.

Josh is a GREAT consensus builder and he's pragmatic about things - probably the right qualities to unstick the situation - but we're asking for trouble, I think, if we mistake a lack of apparent conflict between the ITAC and CRB as IT being 100% AOK.

K

[tnord]

Travis I thought you quit and joined a country club.

well, i golf 2x/week and i am actually looking at a country club....and no racing thus far this year. i am headed back to the dyno this weekend though.

[JoshS]

The next ITAC meeting is coming up Monday, May 24, 2010.

The agenda covers:
3 topics on the IT Prep allowances (update/backdate, ABS, and crank-triggered ignition systems)
3 new listing requests
2 spec lines - data errors
12 spec lines - weight adjustments or reclass requests

I don't think it will be possible to get through all of these, but I hope we make good progress! I will summarize the results later next week and as always, please contact me directly if you have anything you'd like to discuss in more detail.

[quadzjr]

that is alot, hopefully some of it is cut and dry errors. Intereted in why crank trigger systems is even for discussion is beyond me.

[Marcus Miller]

that is alot, hopefully some of it is cut and dry errors. Intereted in why crank trigger systems is even for discussion is beyond me.

Duh, its cause the SCCA is run by Honda!
The Itac all got new S2K's...
:026:

M

[Chip42]

12 spec lines - weight adjustments or reclass requests

guilty - in part. the hondas are a mess. I'm sure some are volvos and dodges as per usual. I just started going through it all and the ITA/B line is not even blurry - it's just a grey region in many cases.

thanks to the ITAC for looking each of these through. - if I can help, add info, etc... please let me know. there's a lot more I see that needs cleaning and since member input is the starting point, I'm sending in what I find from what I know - I've got a newborn so I don't sleep anymore...

[JeffYoung]

No new S2k here....

Chip, the "out for member comment" on the crankfire rule came about this way. I've got a personal interest in it, so I may abstain from a vote, although I am opposed to it. Here's what I can tell you about the situation based solely on my opinion. I'd love to get you and others to comment on the situation. It's actually a more fundamental issue than it first appears.

The deal basically is that older distributor based (and some non-distributor) EFI systems do not work well with aftermarket ECUs. Essentially, the distributor based signal telling the ECU "where" the cam/crank are is weak -- much weaker and far less accurate than a cam or crank position sensor.

I spent a lot of time and money getting my distributor to work reliably with an aftermarket ECU. With a Haltech, I just could never get it right; with MSII, it works, although there is still signal drop out at lower RPMs. I'm working on boosting that signal -- all legal since it is distributor "guts" -- but the bottom line is it takes work.

The "easy" fix would be to allow the signal to come from the crank or a CPS. And that is less of a change to the rules than it might first appear. Basically, right now, your crank pulley is free, so you can load that sucker up with rare earth magnets and get it all setup to send a precise signal to the ECU....if you were allowed to add a pickup/sensor.

Now, the rule does say something like "sensors may be replaced" but it doesn't say moved. This particular discussiion came from a couple of letters asking if the position sensor inside the distributor that senses cam/crank location could be moved to the crank.

The ITAC's answer is no.

After spending a lot of time on this issue I agree. This is more than just moving a water temp or air temp sensor -- allowing pickup at the crank IS a peformance advantage and, if you work through it you can make the distributor based pick up work.

But that leads to the fundamental issue here -- should we allow "open" sensors to allow older EFI cars the same advantages as new? Note this was already done -- a mistake in my view -- for some cars (notably the Miata) to allow the addition of a MAP to make it work with some systems.

This opened up a can of worms I think. Open sensors would allow me to move my batch fired, distributor based system to running a full sequential setup off the crank. With a more accurate signal.

But that is the fundamental core issue I think: do we allow open sensors or not?

Moreover, the "rule" as sent out for comment goes even farther and would allow carb cars crankfire, (Electromotive has such a system) that would really clean up timing and spark.

My vote is no, but I'd love to hear what membership thinks although I think this one may have crossed the line over a "core IT philosophy" that we simply should not allow despite member opinion.

Current letters on this are solidly against, although I think there are only 5-6 or so of them.

[quadzjr]

I for one are against them. This will only provide an performance advantage that, if apporved would increase the money required to make a 10/10ths car. I mean some car this will help tremendously, others not so much. But, this is "improved" touring. Not "super" touring, or even worst "production". haha..

A question to the masses, is there any president to revoke a rule that has already been adopted? Yeah most rules that don't make sense, to me, now if revoked would decrease the peformace advantages of some. whcih I woudl imagine would be met with alot of resisitnace. I am more of the idea that you choose your dog in the race and deal with what comes with it.

Alot of allowing open sensors will allow people with the means to do so take advantage of what others can't afford.

[lawtonglenn]

...is there any precedent to revoke a rule that has already been adopted? ...

In 1933, the state conventions ratified the Twenty-first Amendment, which repealed Amendment XVIII. Federal Prohibitionary laws were then repealed. The amendment was fully ratified on December 5, 1933. Some States, however, continued Prohibition within their jurisdictions. Almost two-thirds of all states adopted some form of local option which enabled residents in political subdivisions to vote for or against local Prohibition; therefore, for a time, 38% of Americans lived in areas with Prohibition. By 1966, however, all states had fully repealed their state-level Prohibition laws, with Mississippi the last state to do so.

[Ron Earp]

Current letters on this are solidly against, although I think there are only 5-6 or so of them.

What difference do the letters make? They were solidly for the motor mount allowance but had no effect, the allowance was still turned down.

Hell yes I'm against it. As we know systems can be made to work as is.

The argument for allowance is "well, the newer cars have crank sensing systems and I should be allowed to have what newer cars in the class have to level the field". Too bad. You choose your car to race, you live with it, warts and all.

I'd like to race a fuel injected car with disc brakes. If I would like to do it badly enough I'll get a newer car, not ask for a rules change.

[spawpoet]

I'd like to race a fuel injected car with disc brakes.

That allowance will be submitted for member input next month . Crank fire would be great on our dinosaur cars. Like you pointed out, so would FI, and something more than Flintstone style brakes, but we kinda should try to keep this Genie as close to in the bottle as we can. This is a slippery slope defined. Count me as against.

[JoshS]

What difference do the letters make? They were solidly for the motor mount allowance but had no effect, the allowance was still turned down.

I personally am hoping the letters discuss pros and cons with their opinions. I actually think we made a mistake with proposing a specific wording with the engine mount request for input. We just got a lot of "yes" but other than the count of letters, got little actual input. The softer question with ignitions will hopefully elicit some more thoughtful feedback.

It's just input. It's not a public vote. The input needs to sway the committee one way or the other.

[erlrich]

What difference do the letters make? They were solidly for the motor mount allowance but had no effect, the allowance was still turned down.

^ this...I've written my last letter/email/whatever to the ITAC/CRB/BoD; why waste your time/breath when they're just going to do what they want anyway?

[lateapex911]

Current letters on this are solidly against, although I think there are only 5-6 or so of them.

Based on the ITAC and the CRBs response to the 40 nearly unanimous "for" letters on the engine mount request, it's not a surprise that people feel it's pointless to write a letter.

Simply, if the CRB says, "Here's a new rule as we're thinking about writing it, do you support it?" and 40 people read it, think about it, and support it, it boggles the mind how that can be ignored. I know some people suggested edits, or adjustments, others were fine with what they read.

But, why would the question even be asked if the committee wasn't supportive of the idea? After all, the committee voted supported it, or there's no point to ask in the first place. So, the committee supports the concept, 40 responders LOVE the idea, yet, somehow, that was ignored. It makes no sense at all. And it whacks at the confidence of the members in their leaders. What's doubling perplexing in this case is that not one but BOTH committees blew it.

I'll write in and say "no" but I can tell you I'm not going to spend the hours I used to crafting logical and passionate responses...it's obvious that at this point, it probably doesn't matter.

[JoshS]

Based on the ITAC and the CRBs response to the 40 nearly unanimous "for" letters on the engine mount request, it's not a surprise that people feel it's pointless to write a letter.

It probably has more to do with the fact that there's only been 1 business day since Fastrack was published. Business days are important because the ITAC doesn't see the feedback the moment you submit, the national office dispatches each letter to the board or committee that needs to see it.

[Chip42]

No new S2k here....
Chip,...
Current letters on this are solidly against, although I think there are only 5-6 or so of them.

Jeff, I don't think you were responding to my post, as I only mentioned having added a few honda error classification letters. having said that, the issue is pretty well understood on this end, but that's a good summary for anyone who isn't up on it. I deal with hondas and toyotas. the former would love to see the change, even the newer ones have a rather odd crank signal but the older, belt-driven cam-driven distributor bodies do weird things. on the MR2s it doesn't matter because the limiting issue is excess airflow, not ignition and fuel timing. it would make setup easier but it's not the secret to the other 25% gains we're expected to make.

but, WRT crank trigger,s I put my letter in on friday, #1476.

I am opposed to the allowance of crank fired ignition in IT. The allowance will add costs, yield unpredictable power gains unbalancing the IT field, and, I feel, violates the intent statement in the ITCS regarding stock basis.

No competitor is forced to run a specific car. If the stock ignition design is inadequate or sufficient pickups do not exist to permit the desired computer modifications, so be it. That is the basis the car chosen by the racer. The current distributor rules allow significant and sufficient, if imperfect, modifications to the needed signals.

While I feel that the club should endeavor to classify all cars equitably and fairly based on real world gains and abilities, so as to mitigate the imbalance of gains between models and years under allowed modifications, I do not feel the correct means to this end is by allowing upgrades to the benefit of all. It would only further widen any existing gaps in power potential while moving the class further from its roots, at the expense of its entrants.

[JeffYoung]

Chip, actually I was responding to your post. It was a good question -- the history of this important.

The post someone put up about how crankfire came to be in Prod is illuminating. Basically the same justifications.

THIS -- no washer bottles -- is (in my view) the "road to Prod."