August Fastrack out!

[Joe Harlan]

Darin, I like you and respect you but what you posted above makes my point.

You have decided you are the parents, and that the rest of the guys racing IT you disagree with are the kids.

The hubris!

Seriously man, look at what you just wrote. You are basically said that you and a few others who "know better" should run things. Trust me, that's been tried before. Usually leads to really bad results.
[/b]

Jeff you choose to ignore history. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. History proves this case out. Darin has some history to look back at and say this isn't a good deal.

[JeffYoung]

Sure, I understand that. I understand that rules creep kills classes. But history also shows that rules stasis kills classes too.

What I am really having trouble with is that a few folks seem to think they "know what's best" for the group. Like I said, history has seen that one before too. And it usually ain't pretty.

[Joe Harlan]

Sure, I understand that. I understand that rules creep kills classes. But history also shows that rules stasis kills classes too.

What I am really having trouble with is that a few folks seem to think they "know what's best" for the group. Like I said, history has seen that one before too. And it usually ain't pretty.
[/b]

But hat works both ways does it not? As stated without the fastrack being sent to all of our members not just the ones that go online and get it, are you not sampling a technology weighted sample of the 50 letters you got on the subject. I look at all of the threads here and I see a fairly big divide on this deal. Even you are divided and conflicted on what the rules should be. Stasis is not a problem in this case because major changes have been made over the last 3 years and many good ones at that. In my opinion the right thing to do was to step back to chips and flashing because the largest part of the catagory has not gotten there yet. History shows once you have enough people with expensive parts you will never take them back and rules creep moves forward. I would venture to say that Monoballs could have been taken back years ago if there was a will to go after it. So please don't think my being vocal is trying to be the "i know best" guy. If this is gonna happen there will be nothing I can do about but you can bet that I am being vocal so more people see what they are getting into and not the watered down version half of them have not even seen yet. After many conversations today it is my understanding that this is not a done deal.

[Knestis]

Yeah, Darin - I still have those same worries today. If you asked me about most any new allowance in IT, I'd take the same position as always.

But each of these issues is both a cost-benefit analysis and an exercise in policy making. Sometimes even if the policy is the "best" by objective measures, the act of MAKING the policy is constrained - even to the degree that if the right decision is made in the wrong way, the net result is negative.

Think Vietnam War. At some point, there were policies that would have helped but they couldn't be made in the context, time, etc.

That's the case with the ECU question. It's not possible to do the "right thing" - the thing consistent with what is arguably a majority view of what the category should be. Technology is the primary problem. My first choice has always been the lowest-tech answer available. In this case for many cars that means a plug-and-play chip.

Problem is, to my mind the membership needs a solution for ALL cars, to serve the greater goal of avoiding an ITCS that has separate rules for every car. One rule that applies across as broad a swath of spec lines as possible, and considers the foreseeable future as best it can.

I don't see a better choice considering all of these bigger issues than the one that's been presented.

K

[seckerich]

Everyone reading this board probably has a race in their area soon. Take the time to print some copies of this new rule in fastrack and hand them out to all the IT cars at the race. Do your part to let more drivers know what is going on instead of complaining. Just might get 200 letters this time or see most just don't really care either way.

[dickita15]

In defense of “parenthood”

I do not think it is wrong for those that here who have spent the effort and time understanding these issues to believe their opinion has more value than those with just a passing knowledge of the topics.

Decisions are made by those that show up. The large majority of racers can’t stand or won’t be bothered with the type of debates involved in this type of rule discussion. I can’t really blame them. I seriously doubt if fastrack being on line made any difference. Most racers never read it anyway. It takes a fair bit of effort to follow the issues though the process and understand the implications. Most just do not care that much, or it makes their head hurt.

I like the fact that those on this forum are better informed than almost anyone on these issues. I have no desire to put more weight on the opinions of the vast majority of racers who really have no understanding of the rules, their origin and the philosophy behind them. As big as a pain some of us on this BB are, no one outside of the ITAC and the CRB puts more thought into the topics that us.

The best argument against democracy is five minutes with the average voter.

[planet6racing]

And that is the point if everybody was limited to rechip then the playing ground is a lot closer to fair including the carbed cars Marty. Think about the difference in going from a stock 8/16 bit system to a 32 bit processer with much greater speed and resolution. Yes there is a difference. being able to adjust fuel and timing trim in ecah cylinder will produce more HP. You are never going to get this in an OE system because the hardware is not there to support the software.

[/b]

I'll admit that I'm no electronics expert, but I'm willing to bet that someone would find a way to chip a stock ECU to have all of this functionality. All it takes is $$$...

Joe, I think we all just have to agree to disagree. We're at, what, about 200 posts and, it's quite obvious, that most people here have their opinions (me too!) and aren't going to change them (why would I? I'm always right!! ).

I'll be writing my letter in support of my position. Does my position favor me? Yes. Am I looking at the big picture? I certainly hope so, but can admit that I don't have the history behind me that someone like Kirk does. Nonetheless, I'll make my position known to the powers that be.

As for the whole thing about FasTrack not being in the magazine anymore and no one reading it: No one read it before. Just like Supplemental Regulations. We (this board) and the prod board are probably the most avid readers of that document and have been since it was in print.

[lateapex911]

One other point, just as information.

This request for feedback occurred over months, and was printed in Fastrack twice. Response was very very strong, perhaps the strongest the ITAC has seen. (Which is why I am surprised when I see people responding to this thread who are shocked, or even enraged ...and who knew about the member request, yet never responded)

But whats really interesting, (and kind of rewarding, as an ITAC member), was that nearly every single letter we got was well reasoned, well written, and in many cases, did NOT align with the writers natural bias. In other words, we saw guys with carbed cars writing in support of an option that, to some here, would hurt their competitive standing. Some lettter writers discussed independent research they had done to come to their conclusion, others suggested tweaks to the option they felt best. To my eye, this was a very informed response.

So I'm not ready to dismiss the result (large majority in favor of open ECUs) based on people not knowing whats really good for them, or mounting campaigns to become a majority.

[Bill Miller]

Exactly Bill...


[/b]

My how times have changed!

Glad to see you posting again Darin, hope all is well w/ you.

[shwah]

My letter was in support of factory ecus/chips.

Since I wrote that letter I gave it more thought and actually believe what is proposed is correct. All the 'gains' could be had by at least some cars at very high cost regardless, some cars will not be able to compete without addressing modern ecu nannying. I don't beleive this will affect my ability to be competitive in ITB one way or another.

There are some very loud arguments taking place on the issue, but loud does not equal right.

[Greg Amy]

I'm against the rule, 'cause my NX2000 runs pretty damn good on the stock ECU...

GregA, who won the ARRC on the stock ECU programming (or something damned close) and 2 degrees bumped base timing. Can't wait to continue tuning with an open ECU...

[cmaclean]

This request for feedback occurred over months, and was printed in Fastrack twice. Response was very very strong, perhaps the strongest the ITAC has seen. (Which is why I am surprised when I see people responding to this thread who are shocked, or even enraged ...and who knew about the member request, yet never responded)
...
So I'm not ready to dismiss the result (large majority in favor of open ECUs) based on people not knowing whats really good for them, or mounting campaigns to become a majority.
[/b]

Jake, the vocal minority will always be heard I personally sent my letter to the CRB expressly asking that the ECU's NOT be open and instead restrict the rules to stock ECU. However, if the majority of the letters to the CRB asked for open ECU then that's what we should get. I think our time would now be better spent figuring out our options and reading megasquirt tuning manuals

[Banzai240]

You are basically said that you and a few others who "know better" should run things. Trust me, that's been tried before. Usually leads to really bad results.
[/b]

NO, that is NOT what I was saying... what I was saying is that, JUST like was the case with your parents, there are some here with knowledge and background that are willing to share their experiences in an effort to enlighten those with less experience/background, in an effort to help them see the path to success..... and JUST like teenagers, many of you are out getting tatoos and piercings and doing drugs and skipping class...

How many people wanting this change have EVER installed or tried to dial-in an ECU system?? Yet, when those that CLEARLY have speak up... well... a career path through you local McDonalds seems to be the result...


So, again, I'll ask you to quell my concerns... "replace or modify"... How again is that keeping the system "limited"??

What I'm reading here are people addressing direct concerns, and those who seem to favour this change hit back by dancing around the topic and addressing everything ELSE... (grammer, etc...)...

[Gregg]

Well, I read the proposed rule change, got upset about it and then started thinking about suspensions.

Why suspensions?

Well, the front suspension of my 88-91 CRX, as it comes from the factory, does not have a means of easily changing the front camber. Allowances are written into the ITCS for Macpherson strut cars and many other "double wishbone" types came from the factory with some means of adjustability.

Well, I do have the ability to modify each front corner's camber. First I pick up a new front knuckle for each corner. That's $165/corner. Then I take a torch to it, heat it and bend. Then I put it on the car and see what it does. Then I corner weight the car. Wash, repeat. All the while, I'm weakening a critical part of the car. In addition, there's absolutely no way I'm going to be able to make changes at the track. So, I carry multiple front knuckles, for both front corners, each with their own hub assembly pressed on. Hundreds more dollars.

You see, there's nothing in the rules that prevents that adjustability. In fact, I can guarantee that there are lots of CRX's (and Civics, and Integras, and Accords) that aren't running 0deg front camber. It's just VERY, VERY expensive to do it, you see--both in parts and labor.

So, why shouldn't I think it's not fair that I can't go and purchase two sets of these for ~ $110 and get easy and cheaper adjustability? After all, it's not giving me anything that I can't already do within the rules and it's allowing me to do it for about the same cost as everybody else.

For years mantra when rejecting rules proposals has been that they "don't adhere to the class philosophy." Well, by codifying something such as the ECU changes that are soooo far away from the class philosophy because some cars were capable of modification within the rules for far fewer dollars and far less effort than other platforms, the precendent has been set to allow all sorts of changes that completely alter the class philosophy.

9.1.3.B. INTENT
It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car. This class is intended to allow a variety of popular, inexpensive cars to be eligible; however, those determined by the Club to be outside of these parameters will not be classified. Entrants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car, and competition adjustments, other than as outlined in section 9.1.3.C, are not allowed. Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage.

Note: This new statement of purpose and intent eliminates the dual purpose version which does not accurately reflect the current IT technology. In addition, it emphasizes the philosophy that we will give you a place to race your car and have fun, but not guarantee that you will be competitive.[/b]

You choose a car to buy and build knowing that there are going to be simple fixes to complex problems and expensive fixes to complex problems. Each platform has its weakness, each its strengths, both on-track and in the garage, and the printed intent does not guarantee that every platform will be a competitive one. If you want to make it competitive, deal with the hand the platform deals you and adjust. Don't adjust the rules to make it remove those challenges.

[Domino]

Well, I read the proposed rule change, got upset about it and then started thinking about suspensions.

Why suspensions?

Well, the front suspension of my 88-91 CRX, as it comes from the factory, does not have a means of easily changing the front camber. Allowances are written into the ITCS for Macpherson strut cars and many other "double wishbone" types came from the factory with some means of adjustability.

Well, I do have the ability to modify each front corner's camber. First I pick up a new front knuckle for each corner. That's $165/corner. Then I take a torch to it, heat it and bend. Then I put it on the car and see what it does. Then I corner weight the car. Wash, repeat. All the while, I'm weakening a critical part of the car. In addition, there's absolutely no way I'm going to be able to make changes at the track. So, I carry multiple front knuckles, for both front corners, each with their own hub assembly pressed on. Hundreds more dollars.

You see, there's nothing in the rules that prevents that adjustability. In fact, I can guarantee that there are lots of CRX's (and Civics, and Integras, and Accords) that aren't running 0deg front camber. It's just VERY, VERY expensive to do it, you see--both in parts and labor.

So, why shouldn't I think it's not fair that I can't go and purchase two sets of these for ~ $110 and get easy and cheaper adjustability? After all, it's not giving me anything that I can't already do within the rules and it's allowing me to do it for about the same cost as everybody else.

For years mantra when rejecting rules proposals has been that they "don't adhere to the class philosophy." Well, by codifying something such as the ECU changes that are soooo far away from the class philosophy because some cars were capable of modification within the rules for far fewer dollars and far less effort than other platforms, the precendent has been set to allow all sorts of changes that completely alter the class philosophy.
You choose a car to buy and build knowing that there are going to be simple fixes to complex problems and expensive fixes to complex problems. Each platform has its weakness, each its strengths, both on-track and in the garage, and the printed intent does not guarantee that every platform will be a competitive one. If you want to make it competitive, deal with the hand the platform deals you and adjust. Don't adjust the rules to make it remove those challenges.
[/b]

Gregg ya kinda lost me on this one??! I have eccentric bushings that press into the stock front wishbone. They're well within the rules. Wish there was an easier way but it is what it is. Got them from OPM a long time ago for $40 a corner. What in the world have you been using?

[iambhooper]

ECM... SCHMEECM... lets get to the MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION regarding the new Fasttrack.... Does this change mean:

"2. Pontiac Fiero GT & Formula V-6 2.8 (1988), p. 320, add to the specs as follows: add the 85-87 model years, Wheel Dia.(in):
14, Gear Ratios: 3.31, 1.95, 1.24, 0.81, Brakes Std.(mm): (F)247 Solid Disc ®247 Solid Disc.
3. Pontiac Fiero V-6 2.8 (85-87), p. 320, delete the spec line in its entirety."

: I can finally take an earlier chassis and install an '88 rear cradle? Never mind the previous updating backdating thing... I'm interested in the interpretaion of them being on the same spec line.



hoop

[Knestis]

I sure don't know the model specifics but it LOOKS like that's exactly what you can do. They seem to have just consolidated all of the V6 Fieri on one spec line, allowing up/back-dating across the whole pile.

K

PS - there's a grass covered Fiero about a mile from Conover's new shop in Burlington. Call him and he'll point it out for you, I'll bet...

[iambhooper]

I sure don't know the model specifics but it LOOKS like that's exactly what you can do. They seem to have just consolidated all of the V6 Fieri on one spec line, allowing up/back-dating across the whole pile.

K

PS - there's a grass covered Fiero about a mile from Conover's new shop in Burlington. Call him and he'll point it out for you, I'll bet...
[/b]

fascinating!

hoop

[ScotMac]

ECM... SCHMEECM... lets get to the MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION regarding the new Fasttrack.... Does this change mean:

"2. Pontiac Fiero GT & Formula V-6 2.8 (1988), p. 320, add to the specs as follows: add the 85-87 model years, Wheel Dia.(in):
14, Gear Ratios: 3.31, 1.95, 1.24, 0.81, Brakes Std.(mm): (F)247 Solid Disc ®247 Solid Disc.
3. Pontiac Fiero V-6 2.8 (85-87), p. 320, delete the spec line in its entirety."

: I can finally take an earlier chassis and install an '88 rear cradle? Never mind the previous updating backdating thing... I'm interested in the interpretaion of them being on the same spec line.



hoop
[/b]

Hmmm...Why allow the v6 ITA's to mix and match between the different years, but NOT the ITB 4-bangers?!!?

Guess the ITBers need a better lobbyer!!!

[Gary L]

Fieros: I have to wonder about the intent here... this combines onto one spec line, two entirely different cars that happen to share the same plastic body parts.

Bad precedent, IMO.