ITAC News.

[Ron Earp]

I'm not kidding. There's a "rules season" now. There might still be a small opportunity to sneak something small and easy into the 2011 season, but not for something that's going to require this kind of effort and member input.

Josh, you are the chairman of the ITAC. Man up and run it - develop your vision for the ITAC, get members aligned with the direction or get new ones that are, work with the CRB, and get it done. It can be accomplished if you try and don't let the typical SCCA bureaucratic bullshit get in the way.

[JeffYoung]

Josh as chairman doesn't have any real authority to force anything. He basically is a coordinator, and so it is unlikely/impossible he/we can force things through.

Changing the classing rules for IT (which is really what we have to do if we want to process all cars) will take some time. But I agree, we need to be as forceful about this as we can. Josh took the lead to make it THE topic for June. There is going to be resistance to this both on the ITAC and elsewhere -- resistance to using an objective process for all cars. There will be a lot of discussion, and it will take time.

But we will push as hard as we can. And it still might not get through.

Josh, you are the chairman of the ITAC. Man up and run it. Develop your vision for the ITAC, get members aligned with the direction or get new ones that are, work with the CRB, and get it done. It can be done if you try and don't let typical SCCA bureaucratic bullshit get in the way.

[Andy Bettencourt]

We DO need to understand that there are deadlines that have to be met and things that must be done before the 2011 GCR goes to print. It will be tight but I bet it can be done.

[tom91ita]

................ and Peter Keane said,

Quote:
"Because that was the only way we would let 16V cars ito ITB, that was the deal we made to get that done, 16V cars in ITB get 30%"

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

if i can find a honda 16V head that fits on my engine, can i have a 30% factor instead?

[lateapex911]

There is going to be resistance to this both on the ITAC and elsewhere -- resistance to using an objective process for all cars. There will be a lot of discussion, and it will take time.

But we will push as hard as we can. And it still might not get through.

Well, certainly the ITAC already HAS the process, V2, and has used it, and knows it works. That's the JOY of it, it runs itself, you just fill in the blanks. (Which still take some doing at times)

So I see the issue being getting the GCR in line with the procedure. I'd HOPE the ITAC would be on board with the concept, and it would be the wording that would take a little time.

heck, if you want a place to start, I'll write it up and send it in,

[JoshS]

The next ITAC meeting is next Monday, June 28.

Included in the list of open letters are 5 rule change requests: crank position sensors, allow stock ABS brakes, allow 6.5" wheels in ITB, clarify the update/backdate allowance, and allow weight adjustments to old listings. There are 7 weight change or reclassification requests, which cover well more than 7 cars, and requests to create 7 new listings. It appears to be the month of 7s. (No, the RX-7 is not included in any letters!)

Some of these items remain tabled from last month and are likely to stay that way, since the original authors have not provided requested additional information. I think I might institute a new policy that if we don't hear from an author with requested additional info for 2 months, we will reject the request, because I dislike having old inactive items clogging up the agenda. Others will be tabled simply because we will not have enough time to cover all of this.

We will set aside some extra time specifically to discuss one of the rule change requests, which is to specifically authorize weight adjustments to old listings.

As always, I am happy to discuss any of this in depth with anyone, please talk to me directly.

[gran racing]

crank position sensors, allow stock ABS brakes, allow 6.5" wheels in ITB,

AHHHHHHH! ABS brakes in IT? Maybe in ITR where some cars have additional challenges associated with getting rid of ABS (think of the S2000) but NOT in other classes.

Then allow 6.5" wheels in ITB? Where in the world did this number come from? A TON of ITB drivers already have a boat load of 6" rims and they'd be at a disadvantage. Will next year's allowance be 7"?

[mc-integra111]

additional challenges associated with getting rid of ABS (think of the S2000)

I'll bite. Doesn't the ECU failsafe allow you to simply pull the ABS fuse and the entire braking system will act like no ABS? What is so different about the S2000?

my personal opinions on each (not that it matters):
crank position sensors - Sure.
allow stock ABS brakes - against.
allow 6.5" wheels in ITB - against. If anything, align it with the A and S spec at 7".
clarify the update/backdate allowance - I don't think I understand this one.
and allow weight adjustments to old listings - Yes.

[CRallo]

Well, atleast 3 of those rule change requests will be quick and easy...

Thanks for keeping us in the loop Josh!

[RacerBill]

The next ITAC meeting is next Monday, June 28.

Included in the list of open letters are 5 rule change requests: crank position sensors, allow stock ABS brakes, allow 6.5" wheels in ITB, clarify the update/backdate allowance, and allow weight adjustments to old listings. There are 7 weight change or reclassification requests, which cover well more than 7 cars, and requests to create 7 new listings. It appears to be the month of 7s. (No, the RX-7 is not included in any letters!)

Some of these items remain tabled from last month and are likely to stay that way, since the original authors have not provided requested additional information. I think I might institute a new policy that if we don't hear from an author with requested additional info for 2 months, we will reject the request, because I dislike having old inactive items clogging up the agenda. Others will be tabled simply because we will not have enough time to cover all of this.

We will set aside some extra time specifically to discuss one of the rule change requests, which is to specifically authorize weight adjustments to old listings.

As always, I am happy to discuss any of this in depth with anyone, please talk to me directly.

Josh: Thank you very much for your hard work and all the of the ITAC. I appreciate the efforts that the ITAC and the CRB are making towards allowing some of the cars that were classified many years ago to be classified on an equal footing with cars that are being classified today.

[tom91ita]

....Then allow 6.5" wheels in ITB? Where in the world did this number come from? ...........

Dave,

wasn't there a thread here or on the sandbox that mentioned some ITB cars came new with 6.5" rims? i think maybe the current generation VW bug?

my take on that is allow them 6.5" rims if they run the OEM rim. otherwise they run 6",

it strikes me as a bit absurd that one cannot use the OEM rims for a somewhat entry level race series. for my honda and maybe yours, going to the 6" rim was 20% wider than OEM, not ~10% narrower.

but the tire & rims of current production are much different than that of 25-30 years ago. Tim Suddard mentions this a bit sort of in this month's GRM.

i think the club needs to go this way and i would give some latitude to the ITAC on this as long as they can back it up with a reasonable rationale. otherwise, we are going to have to consider something akin to NASA's PT where you can go to x" rims with a weight increase of xy pounds. then we pick our poison and live with it.

tom

[dickita15]

Dave,

wasn't there a thread here or on the sandbox that mentioned some ITB cars came new with 6.5" rims? i think maybe the current generation VW bug?

my take on that is allow them 6.5" rims if they run the OEM rim. otherwise they run 6",

it strikes me as a bit absurd that one cannot use the OEM rims for a somewhat entry level race series. for my honda and maybe yours, going to the 6" rim was 20% wider than OEM, not ~10% narrower.

but the tire & rims of current production are much different than that of 25-30 years ago. Tim Suddard mentions this a bit sort of in this month's GRM.

i think the club needs to go this way and i would give some latitude to the ITAC on this as long as they can back it up with a reasonable rationale. otherwise, we are going to have to consider something akin to NASA's PT where you can go to x" rims with a weight increase of xy pounds. then we pick our poison and live with it.

tom

You have to be somewhat careful with that logic. With the way we can update backdate if one limited edition model that is part of the spec line has a wider wheel then all would be able to run them. As an example the second generation Rx7 GTU had an aluminum, hood and different transmission gears and because of update backdate they are legal on all Rx7s.

[gran racing]

my take on that is allow them 6.5" rims if they run the OEM rim. otherwise they run 6",

That's totally fair as long as this a consideration when establishing the weight of the car. It could just be a part of the spec line for that given make / model.

[tom91ita]

Dick,

i agree that the ITAC/we need to be careful since any changes will likely have unforeseen consequences.

Dave,

my first thought on this was that OEM wheels are likely "bad" from a weight/rotating mass perspective. but as Dick noted, there could be some great wheels that are part of a package, etc. and then my assumptions would make an ass out of me. come to think of it, many would assert that my assumptions are not necessary for that to be true.

but when thinking about the evolution of STS in Solo II and how it came to be in part because those were common modifications to cars on the street, i think that recognizing that some cars now come with wider wheels than "allowed" needs to be addressed.

i would hope that any such rules changes would be posted here for review/comment since many eyes and brains can identify potential problems.

and then the issue of more turbos in the mix will have to be addressed in the next several years as more cars likely come with them and get old enough to be eligible.

tom

[pfcs]

What's the problem with putting the (exceptional) wheel width on the New Beetle's spec line?
Thus keeping the ambiguity of "model" and update/backdate off the table.
This will come up again-wheel sizes are not what they were when the class began and I think (certainly in the case of the N allowing the (narrowest available) factory wheels is more in the spirit and intent than not.
Certainly it is NOT sensible to impose a cosmic change for every B car allowing 6.5" wheels.
If the factory wheel landscape/tire designs of the future becomes such that the differences between spec and stock are absurd, then will be the time to revisit it-in the future.

[StephenB]

What's the problem with putting the (exceptional) wheel width on the New Beetle's spec line?

This is what they did on the RX8...

[MMiskoe]

Josh:

Thanks for keep us in the loop.

Please be very judicious with the ABS. I have seen multiple cars in HDPE events get in trouble due to the ABS getting confused and ceasing brake input. Some cars will go into an 'ice mode' if a wheel instantly locks (think wheel hop under braking from a bump or a curb), the ABS thinks there is a problem and decides its best to just stop the brakes from being applied.

We also have enough problems with people not remembering the simple logic of "in a spin two feet in". ABS makes it a wee bit harder to accomplish 4 wheel lock up under any condition thus adding to the potential of a spinning car to act like a bottle rocket w/ no stick, shooting off in some random direction.

With ECU's being free, it should not be hard to disable the ABS. I think often you can just unplug the wheel sensors.

Matt

[JoshS]

I hope you all realize that these topics I listed are just the ones for which we received letters. The 6.5" width, for example, was proposed by the letter-writer, not by the ITAC. Absolutely no judgement has been placed on these topics yet, as they have not been discussed.

In my personal opinion (not speaking for the ITAC), ABS *should* be allowed somehow, because it bugs me that we have to disable stock go-fast equipment to race a car.

But obviously there are issues since allowing wheel speed sensors also makes traction control possible, and I don't think we want to go there. So there's no easy answer. And Matt, some cars really have an issue with their ABS systems when you unplug the wheel sensors, and on those cars you pretty much have to re-do the hydraulics to bypass the ABS systems entirely. It's a lot of work.

As far as the wheel size goes, I personally think (again, the ITAC has yet to discuss it) it's a silly restriction. We have restrictions on tire size already (has to fit under the fender) and on fender modifications, so, I say, let anyone run any size wheel that fits. But the obvious counter-argument to that is that some cars can probably fit much wider TIRES than others and the existing wheel width limits probably effectively limit tire width as well. Maybe if we're going to limit something, we should be limiting tire sizes and not wheel sizes?

Also the founding fathers of IT also apparently didn't want people running small diameter wheels since they explicitly put in a rule that says that you can't use a smaller diameter than that listed on the spec line. I'm not sure of the intent of that rule, since gearing is free (was gearing always free?) Sure, a smaller wheel has less spinning weight, but, so what if people squeeze small wheels over their brakes?

Anyway, I'm not sure there's a need to change the wheel rules at all. I am aware that there is difficulty with finding cheap, light wheels for some cars in 6" widths, but I *know* that they are available for less-than-cheap. Again, no easy answer.

[Knestis]

Also the founding fathers of IT also apparently didn't want people running small diameter wheels since they explicitly put in a rule that says that you can't use a smaller diameter than that listed on the spec line. I'm not sure of the intent of that rule, since gearing is free (was gearing always free?) Sure, a smaller wheel has less spinning weight, but, so what if people squeeze small wheels over their brakes?

Final drive gears have always been "free-ish" (originally restricted to a maximum numerical value of 4.11) but back in the olden days, there just weren't many - if any - options for final drives for most cars.

K

[xr4racer]

I hate the thoght of ABS in IT. The ABS systems on street cars are made for street car speeds and stock size and grip tires. A failure of this system is often very bad. I still think Jeff Degriecks specatacular wreck at Mid Ohio was a result of a confused ABS computer. Mike Tracy nearly was no longer with us as a result of what was quite possibly the "icing mode" at the runoffs. A STO Viper was braking at Mid Ohio last week on the backstraight and the ABS went insane and locked up the LR wheel only and you can guess how that ended. Grand Am ST and GS cars fight the ABS every week because a failure of a sytem that the driver relies on is generally not recoverable without a crash or at least a spin. Being that IT cars are by rule at least 5 years pld means that the parts will all need to be replaced at a great expense to be reliable . I cannot say how many times I have seen ABS failure on a racecar result in at least a severely flat spotted tire and at worse a month long hospital stay. Once again a street cars ABS is not designed for high speed and different diameter high adhesion tires.

matt

matt