Carburated IT Cars - Balancing the system

[Banzai240]

Guys,

I would suggest that everyone running a Carburated IT car submit a letter similiar to the one I sent in (see below):

Originally posted by Darin E. Jordan

Dear members of the CRB,

With the current opening of the ECU rules, I contend that you have created a situation that will make EFI cars more competitive than carburated cars. Please either allow unlimited alternate carbs for carbureted models or allow carbureted cars to use an aftermarket EFI system. If these are not acceptable choices then please rerun to formula used for classification to include 100lbs for all EFI cars.

Thanks for your consideration on this matter.

Sincerely,
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080

The "Process" does not take into consideration all of the gains in the "middle" that a fully programable ECU can achieve, which NO carburated car ever could... Even a fully "Weber'd" car can only adjust the low, mid, and upper RPM ranges to a certain degree... There is NO way that a Carb'd car will every be able to achieve the tune that an EFI car with fully programable ECU can, so there needs to be some balance regained here...

Since the "Process" works off of estimated "potential" peak HP, and now all the ECU cars will have unlimited tuning potential at every possible RPM range using Stand-alone ECUs and aftermarket computers, etc., there should be some allowance for older cars to upgrade and achieve the same benefits...

Those who disregard the significance of the tune in the "middle" need to go back and re-evaluate what they think they know about car racing... the race is NOT won at WOT... NOT in Road-Racing...

If you have a voice, USE it and see if there can be some measure of "balance" restored to IT...

Good Luck!

[Knestis]

You are totally allowed to disagree with proposals and decisions, and to voice concern but...

With the current opening of the ECU rules, I contend that you have created a situation that will make EFI cars more competitive than carburated cars. ...[/b]

Objection, your Honor - proceeds from facts not in evidence. I've yet to see any explanation of how the proposed change gives anyone any performance that we aren't already allowed. Is the fact that those advantages are not limited to the super-rich under the new rule the real problem? That more people will be able to take advantage of an allowance already in the books?

...Please either allow unlimited alternate carbs for carbureted models or allow carbureted cars to use an aftermarket EFI system. ...[/b]

With whatever size air holes you want, eh? The limiting factor in most engines is how many O2 molecules can get in there before fluid dynamics shuts down the intake system. The proposed ECU (and existing one, not accidentally) both limit EFI cars to the mechanical constraints of the stock intake. You're proposing whatever venturi or throttle body (bodies?) diameter you want on cars that came with carbs? REALLY?

... If these are not acceptable choices then please rerun to formula used for classification to include 100lbs for all EFI cars. [/b]

I love the strategy of presenting two unacceptable choices (see above), then leaving only the option of misusing the existing classification/specification process! If a blanket 100# penalty is assessed on every EFI car, then that isn't a "rerun of the formula used for classification."

Now, if your contention were that the existing "shove it in a black box" EFI rules upset the balance of weight/classifications in IT and that the assumptions behind that system should be examined, THAT idea moves from a sound set of assumptions. It should also have done so when that allowance happened. Or propose that cars not processed in the Great Realignment have their day under the ITAC's calculators - no problem.

K

[charrbq]

Well, to compensate, they could let those of us with carbs adjust our cam timing.

[grjones1]

I remember arguing at some point years ago that newer cars with integrated plastic bumpers have an aero and weight advantage and so older cars should be allowed to remove our non-integrated metal bumpers (if we could remain within weight parameters). I was hit with the old "can't stand in the way of progress" and "no guarantee of competitiveness" rebuttals.

The rich get richer and the remainder can suck it up.

Good luck.
G

[JeffYoung]

Hmmmm....you give me that, and I bolt on 30-40 hp and better throttle response to my S car, and you may actually have a class killer.

Except that if the Z cars get triple Webers, they probably get another 20 hp too.

For me, engine is the "size of the hole" (the intake) going into the "pump" (the size of the combustion chamber) and the parameters of the rube goldberg device that runs the mechanical side of the pump (the cam and valves). Those in IT don't change.

But affecting, modifying and metering the air going in the intake hole is now free, both for carbs and ECU cars. I can do anything I want to my stock needles and jets, I just don't have the tunability that EFI allows. But the concept is the same, no?

Changing the carb would be like changing the AFM and intake on an ECU car.

[lateapex911]

Wow.

[Banzai240]

But the concept is the same, no?[/b]

NO...

I just don't have the tunability that EFI allows.
[/b]

You said it all right there...

Area under the curve guys... area under the curve...

Good Luck!

[JeffYoung]

Darin, I actually agree that EFI is an advantage in tuning under the curve, and getting precise fuel/air mixture at the right time, in the right place -- see KThomas and his development efforts on Z carb tuning, damping of the piston.

But I guess my point was I don't see a fix for the carb deficiency in comparison to EFI that doesn't muck up the system. You pick a carb car, and you are stuck with that carb and intake. That's fair, don't pick the car if you don't want to deal with them. EFI, you get more tuneability. Just how it goes.

[Joe Harlan]

Darin, I actually agree that EFI is an advantage in tuning under the curve, and getting precise fuel/air mixture at the right time, in the right place -- see KThomas and his development efforts on Z carb tuning, damping of the piston.

But I guess my point was I don't see a fix for the carb deficiency in comparison to EFI that doesn't muck up the system. You pick a carb car, and you are stuck with that carb and intake. That's fair, don't pick the car if you don't want to deal with them. EFI, you get more tuneability. Just how it goes.
[/b]

Bull shit Jeff, Most folks picked a carb car long before the EFI stuff was classed. And when the EFI stuff was clssed it was originally limited to tricking sensors. I think the argument should be " Pick EFI and get what you can get"

[JeffYoung]

Um, you're wrong?

Lots of Z cars, my car, and quite a few other carb'ed cars have been built since the ECU rule came into being. Maybe we didn't make informed choices, but we made the choice just the same.

Look guys, I understand and agree with your concept -- the EFI with an open ECU is going to be an advantage over carburetors. Just like a good a-arm suspension is over struts, or an independent rear is over a live axle, or discs are over drum brakes.

You pick a car with carbs, and you are at a disadvantage. This rule doesn't change that, it just makes it easier for the EFI cars to take advantage of that advantage. So, in a purely theoretical sense, I (in my carb'ed car) am no worse off than before.

[Joe Harlan]

Jeff, you are worse off than you would have been had the original rule never be touched to allow the stuff it in the box rule. I admire your rose colored glasses look at things but you are not considering how this will effect the catagory as a whole. Poor rules have driven away car from IT time and time again. Trust me when I say I am not wrong, you chose to take your personal choice as an argument but the fact is that type of carburated car was built long before the first EFI rule was written. Big difference. in the light of today I would NOT built a carbed car for a customer with out them signing a no promise of being competitive agreement. And believe me as far as how this rule will personally effect me....I will make money after money on it...installing and programming so my argument actually takes money out of my home.

[Bill Miller]

I've yet to see any explanation of how the proposed change gives anyone any performance that we aren't already allowed. Is the fact that those advantages are not limited to the super-rich under the new rule the real problem? That more people will be able to take advantage of an allowance already in the books? [/b]

And there we have one of the finest examples of how the rules creep mechanism works. A 'questionable' (bad?) rule gets put in the books. It's not corrected. Then after a certain period of time, its existence is used to justify opening things up even further. People accept the original mistake as correct, and then will move forward from that position.

That's how it works folks.

As somebody said, sometimes you just have to say no, because it's the right thing to do.

Mistakes happen in the rules evolution process. When they do, they should be corrected. Preferably sooner rather than later, but nonetheless, still corrected. It happened w/ engine coatings and RR 3x adjustable shocks in IT. It happened w/ sequential gearboxes in Prod. Things can be fixed, it just takes courage to do it.

Full-blown stand-alone engine mgmt systems are so far outside the IT philosophy it's not even funny.

[JeffYoung]

Joe, just to clarify:

1. We aren't talking about the original rule; we're talking about the change the ITAC just made. In my view, the cat is out of the bag. We are never going back to stock ECUs and that decision was made long ago.

2. Carb'ed cars are plenty competitive. Lots of Z cars still kickin ass here in the SEDiv. Mine has run well this year. 1st Gen RX7s do ok here in the SEDiv in ITA.

But I agree the general trend is that EFI cars have an advantage and that advantage is increasing. That's not unfair, that's just an accurate "picture" of the world of cars circa 1990 or so, which is what IT racing should be focused on.

No real way in my view to preserve the dinosaurs forever, competively.

[Knestis]

So (again) - propose that all carburetor-fed cars that haven't been aligned to the current weight standards be run through the process again, with a critical eye to the assumptions on which the math is based.

Out of curiousness - and because I am pretty sure Joe can tell us - what is the ratio of IT-prepared race power and torque to the manufacturers' stated stock figures for significant carb'd IT cars (e.g., Datsun Z, 510, or ??) For that matter, whatever carb'd cars you are worried about obsoleting...?

K

[JeffYoung]

Kirk, I see where you are going I think....

The older carb'ed cars respond quite well to an IT clean up and removal of smog stuff -- perhaps even more so than the FI cars in pure percentage increase.

Examples I am aware of:

240z -- 150 crank hp per manufacturer (and that is gross) -- 170ish at the wheels in IT trim
260z -- 138 crank hp per the manufacturer (net) -- same
TR8 -- 133 crank hp per the manufacturer (net) -- 160 rwhp on not a full build

Doubt you see gains like that out of the 240sx, Integra, etc.

[lateapex911]

And there we have one of the finest examples of how the rules creep mechanism works. A 'questionable' (bad?) rule gets put in the books. It's not corrected. Then after a certain period of time, its existence is used to justify opening things up even further. People accept the original mistake as correct, and then will move forward from that position.

That's how it works folks.

As somebody said, sometimes you just have to say no, because it's the right thing to do.

Mistakes happen in the rules evolution process. When they do, they should be corrected. Preferably sooner rather than later, but nonetheless, still corrected. It happened w/ engine coatings and RR 3x adjustable shocks in IT. It happened w/ sequential gearboxes in Prod. Things can be fixed, it just takes courage to do it.

Full-blown stand-alone engine mgmt systems are so far outside the IT philosophy it's not even funny. [/b]

Well, Bill, I'm not privy to info of the ITACs and the CRBs workings 4 or 5 years ago, (or more) when the "in the box" thing hit the rulebooks, but i can tell you I wasn't pleased. It was one of my main reasons for pushing for the whole process and adjustment thing so hard. I saw it as a post classification competition adjustment.

Since that time, the process and adjustment HAVE occured. Those have essentially cemented in the rocks of the rules as they existed at the time. This new rule is a rewording of an existing allowance.

I appreciate your philosiphical issues. I don't know if you wrote at the time the original "in the box" rule came out, but I saw no letter from you this time urging us to chose any option, (correct me if I am wrong and I will re-search the archives) and the open option was only one. The others were quite different.

Are you suggestig that we:
1- Remove 5 years of installed units from the field. What does your research indicate in regards to the number and cost of installed units?
2- Rewrite the rule allowing NO ECU swapping. (Would you like stock or chips?)
3- Go through the ITCS and adjust every car again?

Do you-
Think that would be better for the customer base? Why, or why not?
Think that is a workable solution two or five ears from now?

I understand your points, but it's not exactly cut and dry. And you are discussing things that have long since gone under the bridge.

[Joe Harlan]

Joe, just to clarify:

1. We aren't talking about the original rule; we're talking about the change the ITAC just made. In my view, the cat is out of the bag. We are never going back to stock ECUs and that decision was made long ago.

2. Carb'ed cars are plenty competitive. Lots of Z cars still kickin ass here in the SEDiv. Mine has run well this year. 1st Gen RX7s do ok here in the SEDiv in ITA.

But I agree the general trend is that EFI cars have an advantage and that advantage is increasing. That's not unfair, that's just an accurate "picture" of the world of cars circa 1990 or so, which is what IT racing should be focused on.

No real way in my view to preserve the dinosaurs forever, competively.
[/b]

NO Jeff once again you are having a conversattion all by yourself cause I have been talking about putting the rule back to where it should have been from the begining. Please stop trying to confuse that. The same thing goes for Kirk. It is not about this being better different or anything wlse its about fixing the original screw up without killing the catagory.

[JeffYoung]

Actually Joe, everyone seems to be talking about the new rule vis a vis the old one, and recognizes we ain't going back to IT circa 1988. I know it was great and all, but dude, I was just in diapers......

[Bill Miller]

Jake,

I don't have all the old GCRs at my fingertips, but IIRC, it's been more like 3-4 years that this 'stuff it in the box' BS has been around. And you know what, yes, if the rule is wrong, you change it and make people take the stuff out. Or, as a concession to not wanting people to throw away a ton of $$$, you add xxx lbs to a car (or xx % of spec weight) if you're running anything other than a stock/flashed/chipped ECU. I know that some will cry comp. adjustment, but that's exactly what was done when the whole thing was allowed to begin with.

Oh, and I didn't send a letter because I'm not a member.

BTW, I did notice how you totally avoided the fact that what's happened w/ this is rules creep at its finest.

And I really don't know how you can say that this is just a re-wording of an existing rule. Adding MAP sensors? Modifying the harness and connectors? Please. I'll refer you to that story about ears and rain.

BTW, I was one of the early people on this site that pushed for a 'process'.

[Joe Harlan]

Actually Joe, everyone seems to be talking about the new rule vis a vis the old one, and recognizes we ain't going back to IT circa 1988. I know it was great and all, but dude, I was just in diapers......
[/b]

OK I see talking too is worthless. At times I believe you may still be wearing diapers. From the beginning this deal has been about going back to chipping or reflashing. Now we can load on a bunch of hardware half these cars never came with. As for the ITA 240SX making gains wait and see once this rule goes through. As I have said this is not about this beeing better or worse than the last rule is about both being outside the intent of the class.