August Fastrack out!

[dj10]

Look at how much ink they saved in writing the new rule! :026:

[lateapex911]

When this was discussed before I understood why if we could not go back to stock ecus then getting rid of the inside the stock box should be deleted. I figured not having to make the system so small would be cheaper. I just do not understand why the new sensors and the open harness rules. How is this not going to increase performance? How is this not going to upset the balance? [/b]

Dick, reread the rule, and, then tell me HOW, exactly, you will increase the performance.

In terms of "traction control", lets first define what TC is, and isn't. True TC is the ability of a car to adjust power (tq) to each individual traction patch in response to available friction (traction). Typically, this involves the use of wheel speed sensors, and real time comparative math to determine if one wheel has exceeded it's presumed proper rotational speed.

In what I'll call "Intermediate" TC, the engine power is adjusted , often via spark timing or cutout, to trim output power. This is often done, in leau of wheel speed sensors, by algorithms that monitor the rate of rise in revs the engine could be seeing in the different gears. In cruder conditions, gear selection isn't available.

Well, IIRC, thats being done now, through the use of various ignition control devices, made by firms like Accel.

So, how will this new rule enable any increase in allowable TC?

[Charlie Broring]

Jake, You are rightfully proud of your work on the Advisory Committee and the conclusions it reached but you are wrong to dismiss peoples comments and experience on this issue voice here. You also in the wrong if you don't acknowledge that there are more concerns about this rule change then the letters you received led you to believe.

I guess that I too am in the wrong by not voicing an opinion BASED ON EXPERIENCE when you asked for comments previously in Fastrack.

The issue here however is not how much a Bosh D-Jetronics fuel injection system will benefit. It is rules creep. Improved Touring is slowly turning into Production. But the rate of changes seems to be speeding up recently.

Charlie

[Spinnetti]

<Stands on soapbox>

IT continues to move away from its original intended (stated) purpose, which I suppose can be good or bad depending on your preference, yet still misses a big segment of the general populace that might want to go racing.

I think Cal club had a couple classes over the years which hit it right on the head for cheap fun:
> Leave most of the stock bits except springs/shocks/swaybars, but allow removal of every thing else that is non-essential. The big benefit of this approach is that the lighter you get, the better brakes work, the better the handling, and the less junk is in the way. More important than all of that, IT DOESN&#39;T COST ANYTHING! My goals are the best lap times for the least cost in my chosen steed. Why should that take complicated mods? Why not focus on the easy and free stuff so more people can get there - that will improve overall competitiveness and reduce cost. Money wins anyway, but I am against any ECU mods. Easy to police by simply making a claiming rule - you lose to somebody with the same car, you can swap ECU&#39;s with them (or buy one to swap!). Why are we not learning from other motorsports? We keep looking at our own navels, yet other forms (e.g. sportsman type roundy round stuff) have figured out these things before and we could learn from them.

I&#39;d like:
> The original IT ECU rules, with current engine rules.
> Free cage over minimum spec - It&#39;s dumb to limit how much cage you put in given a min weight
> Free Battery location - Better for safety and for handling in many cases, and is cheap to do if you want to.
> Gut whatever you want - thats what you have a min weight for.
> The original suspension rules
> Comp adjustments


They got most of it right in the first place. Why do we keep messing with it?

[GKR_17]

It seems there are a lot of folks who don&#39;t understand the change:

1. Crankfire is only legal if stock, this rule doesn&#39;t change that.
2. Fuel injectors must be stock, no change again. CIS cars will still have to use CIS.
3. Only two new sensors can be added (TPS and MAP), so this doesn&#39;t add any functionality that wasn&#39;t available to much of the catagory already. Traction control is possible on a limited scale, but no more than it already was.

[lateapex911]

<Stands on soapbox>

............, but I am against any ECU mods. Easy to police by simply making a claiming rule - you lose to somebody with the same car, you can swap ECU&#39;s with them (or buy one to swap!). Why are we not learning from other motorsports? We keep looking at our own navels, yet other forms (e.g. sportsman type roundy round stuff) have figured out these things before and we could learn from them.
[/b]

We ARE looking at our own navels, because our navels are different....

WE race a hundred different engines...and ECU combos. Even if we specified a mandatory ECU, even claiming an ECU would be rather pointless, as each engine has it&#39;s own tune. The ECU is only a part of the picture.

Jake, You are rightfully proud of your work on the Advisory Committee and the conclusions it reached but you are wrong to dismiss peoples comments and experience on this issue voice here. You also in the wrong if you don&#39;t acknowledge that there are more concerns about this rule change then the letters you received led you to believe.

I guess that I too am in the wrong by not voicing an opinion BASED ON EXPERIENCE when you asked for comments previously in Fastrack.

The issue here however is not how much a Bosh D-Jetronics fuel injection system will benefit. It is rules creep. Improved Touring is slowly turning into Production. But the rate of changes seems to be speeding up recently.

Charlie [/b]

Fogive me if I appear to be dismissing peoples comments, but what I&#39;m really trying to do is get people to prove their points. I really want to either understand the mechanics of the comments, or clear up mis conceptions.

Remember, this particular rule is merely an adjustment of a previous rules change that has been on the books for years. If people had problems with THAT change, (to my eyes, THAT was the REAL rules creep), then they should have spoken up, as we offered the return to chips as an option, and it was vastly unpopular.

[dickita15]

Dick, reread the rule, and, then tell me HOW, exactly, you will increase the performance.
[/b]

two new sensors can be added \

3. Only two new sensors can be added (TPS and MAP), so this doesn&#39;t add any functionality that wasn&#39;t available to much of the catagory already. [/b]

so does that mean performance potential increases for some of the ecu cars but not others?

i know I know little about ecu tuning but more allowances usually meas more performance

[zchris]

How about a 5% weight penalty for non stock ECU&#39;s. Anyone with the burning desire to spend the money on the open ECU will be slowed down an equal amount to what they might gain. That should end the problem of the wealthy outspending to win. And those IT guys that want more will sell there car and move to another class instead of getting on the ITAC and changing the rules to suit there needs. Remember, IT is the entry level class of the SCCA. These same poeple will next be asking for wings and ground effects, and hell, why not turbos while were at it.
Chris Howard

[tnord]

Remember, this particular rule is merely an adjustment of a previous rules change that has been on the books for years. If people had problems with THAT change, (to my eyes, THAT was the REAL rules creep), then they should have spoken up, as we offered the return to chips as an option, and it was vastly unpopular.
[/b]

this was pretty much the argument in my letter exactly iirc.

using rules creep to justify further allowances.....

[JeffYoung]

Guys, the way I see it, this door was opened a long time ago. We&#39;ve basically had free ECUs for a long time now. I see this change as one that simply makes it easier for everyone to take advantage of the rule.

I don&#39;t see anyway to go back to where we were -- stock chips (and before my time) and based on the member input received it seems like no on wants that anyway.

[dj10]

How about a 5% weight penalty for non stock ECU&#39;s. Anyone with the burning desire to spend the money on the open ECU will be slowed down an equal amount to what they might gain. That should end the problem of the wealthy outspending to win. And those IT guys that want more will sell there car and move to another class instead of getting on the ITAC and changing the rules to suit there needs. Remember, IT is the entry level class of the SCCA. These same poeple will next be asking for wings and ground effects, and hell, why not turbos while were at it.
Chris Howard [/b]

From the beginning of racing people have and will always will complain about someone spending more money than themselves to have a racing advantage, Do you complain when someone out spends you on a better diff, suspension, tires, brakes, etc. etc? Someone still has to dive what ever they build or have built! I&#39;m not wealthy, I just play the cards that are dealt to me and so should you. Put away the tourches and pitch forks.

[JoshS]

this was pretty much the argument in my letter exactly iirc.

using rules creep to justify further allowances.....
[/b]

Your letter was excellent.

Let&#39;s just be clear -- the ITAC didn&#39;t use the previous creep to justify further allowances. The #1 thing that justified further allowances (which, BTW, aren&#39;t believed to be significant -- they just make these existing allowances more accessible) was the dramatic preference for this option from the membership.

[lateapex911]

....And those IT guys that want more will sell there car and move to another class instead of getting on the ITAC and changing the rules to suit there needs. Remember, IT is the entry level class of the SCCA. These same poeple will next be asking for wings and ground effects, and hell, why not turbos while were at it.
Chris Howard [/b]

Chris, since I&#39;m one of two ITACers currently responding to this thread, I hope you&#39;re not suggesting by your insinuation, that we have changed the rules for personal gain.

First-
Personally, it&#39;s ludicrous that I would, as I race the much maligned ITA RX-7, a car thats total computational power is quadrupled when you tape a stopwatch to the steering wheel! IF this rules change were to affect parity, I, more than anyone, should be screaming bloody murder!

And I&#39;ll let Josh speak for himself, but I think you&#39;d be surprised if you were privy to the con call conversations.

Secondly, there are NINE guys on the ITAC...personal agendas don&#39;t fly. Period.

Third, our work, and discussions, are overseen by the CRB, and the CRB decides to further our suggestions to the BoD, or to deny them.

I seriously hope your writing was poorly crafted, and you aren&#39;t making accustations such as the one I read.

[Ron Earp]

I&#39;ll openly admit I favor the new rule. Darin made a statement many pages back indicating that the Wolf, Megasquirt, etc. won&#39;t compete with a Motec. However, with many of the fuel injection front running SE cars running Motec the precedent is set for aftermarket ECUs. At least opening the rule will allow ease of integration of aftermarket ECU (whatever you choose) without resorting to the smallest packaging or working around the OEM box requirement.

I&#39;d have to agree that the initial rule was poorly written and resulted in some unintended consequences. However, that is water under the bridge. People are using Motecs and other systems now and having a harder time doing it (read spent more money) than they would if the ECU rule were relaxed. All of us are interested in spending less money to get the same result, at least I thought we were.

Others have brought up ITR and more modern ECUs. I think you&#39;ll have to have a stand alone option to deal with some of the pitfalls of OBDI and OBDII in a race enviroment.

Ron

[Eric Parham]

I&#39;m 100% for the new rule, and I can&#39;t even benefit since both my old car and half-built new car are limited by non-electronic CIS injectors. The new rule levels the playing field for all of the EFI cars while allowing the addition of the two simple sensors in order to permit the most inexpensive solutions (e.g., Mega-squirt). The new rule also makes it much easier to run a newer car that would otherwise go into limp mode just from the required (not just allowed) mods. It&#39;s good for the class, but there&#39;s no good reason to make the switch on a well-running IT car just because it&#39;s allowed. The cars that will need it are the newer cars with OBD issues. The cars that will benefit on a real HP/$ basis are probably just the ones with variable valve timing (VVT), which will mainly be in ITR. The sky is not falling for ITC, ITB, ITA or even ITS. In fact, my forcast is that it&#39;s going to be a beautiful year Good work!

[Knestis]

...And those IT guys that want more will sell there car and move to another class instead of getting on the ITAC and changing the rules to suit there needs. ... Chris Howard [/b]

Jake was too polite: This is WAY out of line, Chris. The ITAC guys work too hard for the health of YOUR category for you to make an accusation like that - even a backhanded one. And do everyone a favor and get over the "poor me, getting outspent by all the big mean IT racers with programmable ECUs." At the end of the day, money buys speed in any kind of racing.

K

[tnord]

It&#39;s good for the class, but there&#39;s no good reason to make the switch on a well-running IT car just because it&#39;s allowed. The cars that will need it are the newer cars with OBD issues. The cars that will benefit on a real HP/$ basis are probably just the ones with variable valve timing (VVT), which will mainly be in ITR. The sky is not falling for ITC, ITB, ITA or even ITS. In fact, my forcast is that it&#39;s going to be a beautiful year Good work!
[/b]

really? you don&#39;t think people are willing to spend a couple grand for 5-10hp? i&#39;m pretty sure they are....i&#39;m pretty sure i would do that before spending a couple g&#39;s for .40 overs and port work. 5-10hp is a pretty standard gain for cars without any sort of variable valve timing....well, that would be my educated guess at least.

[zchris]

To both K and Jake. All I am saying is the rules creep by over zealous ITAC members is creating a non entry level group out of IT. In the long run they(ITAC) are doing more harm than good to bring in new members(my opinion). Now to build a competitive car I will also have to buy a Motec, something exclusively reserved for the dummies in PROD and GT. And yes I am both a GT and PROD driver. Also a SM driver, but I don&#39;t usually admit to that. I have never driven an IT car but installed hundreds of cages. I don&#39;t build many IT cars anymore. Makes me wonder about its future. I would have to admit when asked I tell poeple to start in SM as rules creep is so out of hand in IT. For sure GT and PROD are in that same boat. I am just concerned about the overall health of the club. And as I also like to recognize the good the ITAC does, they did a great job with the reclass or process classing of cars. If that process can be brought into PROD and GT, that would be great.
Chris Howard

[JeffYoung]

and of course, in SM, costs are in control, and there is no rules creep....not trying to be a smart ass, but I would say that:

1. $8k Sunbelt/Rebello/Race Engineering motors in SM is not a good sign.

2. The $2k clutches in SM was not a good trend (fixed, I understand).

3. The threads about the legality of what you GET for $8k for your motor was not a good sign.

Etc., etc., etc.

Honestly, given the car counts in IT I&#39;ve seen this year, I&#39;d tell a new racer to start with an ITA or B car. Hell, you can run decently to start with in a $5 to $10k ITS RX7 or Z car.

There have been rules changes in IT for sure since I started racing in 2003, but I still think the basic things that make IT, IT, have not changed:

1. No real modifications to motor or intake system.

2. Suspension must remain stock with bushings, springs and shocks/struts free.

4. Brakes remain stock, with pads (define pad! lol) free.

5. Body remains stock.

Pretty simple minded I know, but to me those are the core values of IT that make IT what it is, and have not been touched in the lasted round of rule modification.

I do think a cooling off period where we let the changes that have been made sink in for a few years is a good idea to evaluate them, and see where things stand.

[BlueStreak]

ITAC did exactly what its membership asked it to do. What more do you expect?

I&#39;m in a CIS car, so "in the box" or not means zip to me. I don&#39;t see this change having any impact on the finishing order in any event that I will be running.

I do have to wonder how many of the supportive letters came from people sponsored by dyno owners

If it opens up some chasm someone didn&#39;t forsee, there will be enough screaming that it will get changed back to the "in the box" rule or ????

I, for one, appreciate the efforts being made by ITAC.

If you&#39;re all freaked out over this to the point that you decide you are going to drop another 10k in your budget to stay up front, perhaps you might better serve your racing aspirations by selling everything and purchasing a part time ride in a "pro" series for a bit.

Eddie