ITAC News.

[pfcs]

"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."
I don't consider ABS a sensible allowance-let the driver control his braking. Sheesh!!

"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."
Absolutely!

"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."
I don't know of ANY car that doesn't default to old fashioned hydraulic brakes when ABS is defeated.
I invite you to provide the specific exception.

"So there's no easy answer"
There is. Disable ABS. If engine management demands VSS (vehicle speed sensor), allow the sensor or axle it requires (but not 2 axles). End of problem.

[Ron Earp]

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.

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.

Personally, I don't feel that running four hydraulic lines constitutes "a lot of work".

Hydraulic brakes are extremely simple systems. Even on an uber modern car you've got a master cylinder giving you mechanical leverage and out of that will come two lines - one for the front brakes and one for the rear - it is still a very simple setup. Sure, it goes through a lot of ABS mess after the master, but take that out and sell it on Ebay for mucho money. Then, buy $20 of brake line, two tees, and some end fittings and plumb it up from the master to the brakes.

And, even if it is "a lot of work" to someone that doesn't justify changing the rules. Racing is essentially one problem after another. As someone once said, "if you don't enjoy solving problems then maybe racing isn't for you".

R

[JoshS]

I don't know of ANY car that doesn't default to old fashioned hydraulic brakes when ABS is defeated.
I invite you to provide the specific exception.

The '04 Mazda3 w/ABS is very hard to brake effectively with the ABS defeated. But the non-ABS car (otherwise identical) brakes with the best of them.

We had one of each when we were in SSC. HUGE difference.

[Ron Earp]

The '04 Mazda3 w/ABS is very hard to brake effectively with the ABS defeated. But the non-ABS car (otherwise identical) brakes with the best of them.

We had one of each when we were in SSC. HUGE difference.

Two different cars, who knows? "Defeated" isn't the same as taking the ABS out, running new lines, and plumbing it up real simple. Mazda probably knows that too and I'd hazard to guess that the non-ABS Mazda line setup was a lot different. The 02 Mustang I had for ITR was a ABS car and it was a hell of a lot different in routing, lines, etc. than the non-ABS Mustang, huge difference and a lot of weight difference too, about 17 lbs.

Put lines from the master to the brakes, remove all the ABS valves etc, and I'm sure the "ABS" car will work fine.

[xr4racer]

The Mazda 3 also did not have a proportioning valve installed which is allowed in IT. The ABS cars with the fuse pulled seem to have a tremendous amount of rear brake bias. This could be balanced without ABS with a prop valve and pad compound.


matt

[JeffYoung]

At some point we are going to have to allow ABS in IT, but I'm not sure we are there yet.

Right now, for me, it is still simpler to require guys to defeat ABS than it is to try and figure out how ABS affects the balance in a particular class.

I've run all the brake lines in my car. It's just not that hard to do, and coupled with an open ECU rule there is no real reason -- other than a weekend's worth of work -- that guys with ABS cars should be able to work around any "ABS defeat issues."

[Z3_GoCar]

Maybe that time should come right about when the first drive-by-wire (not throttle by wire though they're already classed) cars are eligable for IT, or the ABS pump becomes integral to the master might be another mile stone to consider it.

[Ron Earp]

or the ABS pump becomes integral to the master might be another mile stone to consider it.

This is what I think might end up happening. And when it does the issue will be forced.

But, as of right now I'm pretty sure no OEM suppliers are making them in this fashion so we're at a minimum five years away from having to worry.

R

[Knestis]

At the end of the day, I'm still of the opinion that a lot of the arguments against ABS in IT are red herrings trotted out in lieu of "it'll be an advantage," "drivers should control their own brakes," or some combination of the two.

Accepting that it's going to eventually be allowed, I'd advocate for allowing it in ITR NOW, since it seems likely that every eligible car probably had ABS available. If we can overcome all of the other "safety issues" in the category (OMG, my wheel bearings! We're all gonna die!) we can overcome this one.

K

[lateapex911]

I would prefer that ABS isn't allowed. "Two feet in" in a spin is a significant reason for me. And F1 banned it, and I think for good reason.

I certainly don't find the workarounds needed to be all that daunting mechanically speaking, and prop valves have been standard fare for years.

I suppose my thinking on the 6.5" request is to allow that specific car to run them, but, at a weight penalty. Or just not allow it. (I'm on the fence on listing it at two weights....it SHOULD get a chunk if it gets wider rims, but many won't want to run the stock rims, so why should they have to carry more weight?)

[JoshS]

I suppose my thinking on the 6.5" request is to allow that specific car to run them, but, at a weight penalty. Or just not allow it. (I'm on the fence on listing it at two weights....it SHOULD get a chunk if it gets wider rims, but many won't want to run the stock rims, so why should they have to carry more weight?)

I don't think that the requester was asking for 6.5" wheels because his car came with them, I think he was asking because 6" wheels are hard to find for his car. It's an older ('80s) car. I'm not sure what it came with but this specific request is not about the New Beetle.

[lateapex911]

I've thought more about it. I'd think my response would be "go fish" Sorry, it's a problem everybody has in one form or another. Even ITR guys. It's solvable with money, usually.

Now, down the road, we might find that the wheels become impossible, (or nearly) for a vast number of ITV and ITB cars.
If we were to get to that point, I'd consider modifying the wheel rule to allow 7" wide wheels on B and C cars at a weight penalty of, say, 3 to 5%. I haven't thought through the actual weight amount for that long, and maybe (Close your ears, Jeff!) Lap Sim might shed some interesting clues about the real world projections, but, allowing existing cars options while making life easier for new builds via a size option might be a solution that wouldn't be instant pandemonium competition-wise.

[924Guy]

ABS definitely doesn't belong in IT cars, in my professional opinion.

There are some very valid safety issues raised here; while I'd like to say those shouldn't be problems, the realist in me knows that, with the level of technical sophistication of most IT builds, those problems will definitely be present.

Beyond safety, there are some very distinct performance advantages which are NOT appropriate to allow in IT.

Buy a prop valve, learn how to work on brake systems... or go race a Showroom Stock car.

Matt's dead-nuts right, most cars with ABS now have the proportioning done by the ABS system. Of course, there's plenty of IT-legal ways to screw up the proportioning on a non-ABS car anyway. You gotta have the technical side down, or pay someone else to do it, kids.

[JeffYoung]

This is a good discussion for a variety of reasons.

One of which is it really goes to a core question of what IT is, and where is it going:

1. Are we a bolt on class, basically taking stock cars with limited bolt on mods and going racing?

OR

2. Are we more of a prod like class with a limited rule set that has some areas of the car we just can't touch: stock engine essentially, stock brakes, stock suspension pick up points, stock body panels, etc.

"Where we are" may vary from region to region honestly -- in the SEDiv and NEDiv, clearly, IT is in category 2. It's not a bolt on category and takes significant engineering/work to get a car to the front of the field.

[quadzjr]

I personally think we need to get back to #1. but I doubt highly that after such a long time of expanding catagory 2 alot of resistance would arise if efforts are made to go back to catagory #1. But isn't there a saying along the lines of saving something from themselves.

[tom91ita]

i may have put a bit of a red herring in here with my reference to a VW since Josh has added a clarification.

i just wanted to make note that i think the cars have evolved some and the rules will have to as well.

if it is that someone does not want to pay $$ for hard to find 6" wheels, i don't feel that badly for them as many of us ponied up some serious $$ for 6" wheels. but for a newer classified car that came with something wider than 6" then they should be able to run the stock OEM wheels.

[Andy Bettencourt]

but for a newer classified car that came with something wider than 6" then they should be able to run the stock OEM wheels.

So is this also support for ANY car in ANY class that came with larger wheels than the spec line allows - width AND/OR diameter?

[GKR_17]

Accepting that it's going to eventually be allowed, I'd advocate for allowing it in ITR NOW, since it seems likely that every eligible car probably had ABS available.

Certainly not the 911 or 911SC. What about the early Cameros, Mustangs, and Firebirds?

This has similar ring to the RR shock issue. It is a bad deal for those of us who built all the initial cars (and ripped out the ABS systems) and then change the rule later? I know, in some cases there is no good answer, but please be careful here.

[Eagle7]

ABS definitely doesn't belong in IT cars, in my professional opinion.

There are some very valid safety issues raised here; while I'd like to say those shouldn't be problems, the realist in me knows that, with the level of technical sophistication of most IT builds, those problems will definitely be present.

Beyond safety, there are some very distinct performance advantages which are NOT appropriate to allow in IT.

Buy a prop valve, learn how to work on brake systems... or go race a Showroom Stock car.

Matt's dead-nuts right, most cars with ABS now have the proportioning done by the ABS system. Of course, there's plenty of IT-legal ways to screw up the proportioning on a non-ABS car anyway. You gotta have the technical side down, or pay someone else to do it, kids.

I don't have an opinion one way or the other on this issue, but why doesn't SS suffer from the safety concerns that are raised here?

[gran racing]

why doesn't SS suffer from the safety concerns that are raised here?

Totally a guess here but maybe because the fields are pretty small other than the runoffs?