HP vs. Torque and the System

[JeffYoung]

The folks who are newer to IT (I started in 03, but didn't really race much until 04) grew up in a culture of $50k turnkey race cars and Motec in a box, etc. We are getting to a point where we, the newer crowd, are for better or for worse in a majority.

A think a lot of us don't see anyway to go back to the stricter interpreation of the rules based on an intent -- minor mods to a street car -- that gave birth to IT. We're past that guys. You can't go home as Mr. Wolfe once said........

So what do we do? I think we need to reevaluate the "intent" of the rules. This is going to be highly controversial, but I think the goal of IT vis a vis other SCCA classes should be the following:

1. No guarantee of competiveness BUT logical car classing using the process. For this reason, I have come to believe that we should publish how each car was "weighed" so it is there for others to see going forward. Yes, folks will nit pick it and this is why I was opposed to it originally, but going forward, I am concerned in 10 years we end up with the story that Bill reminded us of which is that no one even remembers how IT cars were classed before.

2. A stable ruleset. I've been having an interesting e-mail exchange with Keith Thomas, crew chief on the famous or infamous to some orange BMW 325is. Illuminating to see things from his side. Rule instability drove them out of IT. First, they got a ruling on engine coatings (the same one that were used in SM) a few years back, that they were legal. SCCA then reversed course. Then, there was remote reservoir shocks. I don't have the $$ for these, but honestly, when a rule says something is free, well then, let the $$$ be spent -- and the were -- and then that spending was made useless by a rule change. Then there was the SIR. Enuff said.

You couple those two goals with the basic fundamentals of IT prep -- stock cam, stock heads, stock induction, stock body panels, generally free suspension within confines of existing mounting points, stock brakes, and let people have it with the development. Some of what we all love about IT is the ability to innovate. If you take that away, we lose something -- perhaps just as much as we do by "allowing" a tortured interpretation of the rules.

[Z3_GoCar]

Look at it again Bill.

One question is, does the 'outside of the OEM ECU housing' modifier apply to only 'piggybacked computers' or does it modify all the items in the list? I think you can make the case that it only modifies 'piggybacked computers'. If that's the case, you can't add additional wiring or sensors, regardless of their location.

The other issue that I mentioned was that the MAP on Andy's new ECU doesn't connect to the ECU through the stock, unmodified connection.

Another statement to look at is the one that allows a resistor to be placed between the sensor and the OEM wiring harness. That statement implies that sensors must be connected to the OEM wiring harness. And don't even try and say that the ECU is the resistor between the MAP and the OEM wiring harness, because that doesn't fly.

And I'm not trying to pile on Andy. As I said before, I like him. I just think what he's done is not legal, and I'm disappointed that someone in his position (as chair of the ITAC) would push things so far into the gray and claim that they are legal, when in fact, they've never been put to the test.

And Jeff's comment is indicative of a the way a lot of people think. How many times have we heard "I wouldn't protest anyone for xxx"? How many people say they'll go talk to someone before they will file a protest? So, while I think it was a good thing that Andy ran the idea past people he races with, they're not the ones that determine legality.
[/b]

That's funny Bill, because when I read that sentance: the wiring is listed with the sensor and piggyback computer outside the box. The piggyback is legal inside as is the wiring(how else is anyone going to hook up a daughter board if it's not?), why aren't the sensors legal too?? The fact that they are listed as illegal outside togeather implies that since two are legal inside they all are legal inside too. As for the vacume line, maybe it was there to run the cruise control. Who say's were a spare vacume line runs? I don't see anything that tells us that we can block removed vacume lines, and yet we do.

James

[Bill Miller]

That's the thing James, I believe that if 'outside the OEM ECU housing' were meant to modify all the items in that list (sensors, wires, or piggybacked computers), then there should be a comma between 'computers' and 'outside'. As it is written, I believe it only modifies piggyback computers. And if that's the case, no new sensors or wiring, either inside or outside the ECU housing.

And the part that you're missing, is "to gain a competitive advantage". And actually, by the rules, you have to block unused vacuum lines. Theres a rule that says all air entering the engine must pass through the throttle body/carb.

[GKR_17]

Theres a rule that says all air entering the engine must pass through the throttle body/carb.
[/b]

That rule hasn't been violated in this case.

[Bill Miller]

That rule hasn't been violated in this case.
[/b]

I never said it was. I simply pointed out to James that there is indeed a requirement that we plug unused vacuum connections.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Greg made a very telling comment before. He stated that he did not feel that Andy's mod met the spirit of the rule. I would imagine that his feelings about this came up in his conversations w/ Andy. What kind of message does it send when you have the chair of the ITAC taking that kind of approach?[/b]

You'd be wrong.

Now if you were to ask me if the 'MoTec in a box' concept was outside the original intent, I would agree wholeheartedly. But that horse has been out of the barn since before many here started racing. Everyone knows it's legal because teh rules say it's legal (the concept). If you want to hold me to a standard where I have to significantly handicap myself on pure principle, you are talking to the wrong guy. Argue my application of the concept all you want but don't expect me to bring a knife to a gunfight because of a poorly written rule from years back.

I will work, and HAVE worked, for the betterment of the majority of the category - even at my own expense...now THAT is what you should expect. Enough of this BS. I have put IT before myself for years. Why don't you work on some procative solutions.

[Bill Miller]

Then I was wrong. But, seems that it is a moot point, as you already knew that what you were doing was not consistent w/ the intent of the rules. And while each individual has to decide where they want to be w.r.t. letter vs. intent of the rules, that's where you're going to get people to hold you to a higher standard, as the chair of the ITAC. If you see that the letter of the rule is not consistent with the intent, I would think you would want to work on getting them more in line, rather than pushing the door even further open. As I said before Andy, it's all about perception. And it's about leading by example. If taking a more conservative approach to rules interpretation doesn't jive w/ how you want to run your racing program, maybe you should rethink your role.

And work on proactive solutions? IIRC, I was one of the early, vocal advocates of a standard, equally applied vehicle classification system. Kirk even dubbed the weight/power numbers, the 'Miller Ratio'. That was well before your tenure as ITAC chair, and possibly before your tenure on the committee. I was also a pretty strong advocate for the need to increase the granularity of the classes, and to get more cars classified. IIRC, you asked me to work on the ITR AdHoc. So don't give me any BS about working on proactive solutions. If I didn't think this stuff was important, I sure wouldn't spend my time with it.

[Greg Amy]

Greg made a very telling comment before...I would imagine that his feelings about this came up in his conversations w/ Andy.[/b]

Bill, with respect, please don't use this as ammunition; it's non-sequitor. While I don't doubt it happened, I do not recall this conversation, therefore please do not infer that I made my prior posts in regards to Andy's ECU mods with this in mind. I'm not saying the conversation didn't happen; as noted, I had considered doing the exact same thing for my MR2 project so I no doubt expressed this idea/mindset with others close.

At this point, I think everyone's had their say, and all sides have been expressed. It's extremely unlikely anyone's opinions will be changed.

[Bill Miller]

Bill, with respect, please don't use this as ammunition; it's non-sequitor. While I don't doubt it happened, I do not recall this conversation, therefore please do not infer that I made my prior posts in regards to Andy's ECU mods with this in mind. I'm not saying the conversation didn't happen; as noted, I had considered doing the exact same thing for my MR2 project so I no doubt expressed this idea/mindset with others close.

At this point, I think everyone's had their say, and all sides have been expressed. It's extremely unlikely anyone's opinions will be changed.


[/b]

Greg,

Sorry if I inferred something that did not happen, or put words in your mouth. That was certainly not my intent. Doesn't really matter though, as Andy has already stated that he felt that it was not consistent w/ the intent of the rule. But, I will still apologize for inferring that you did something that you did not do.

And while you may be right, there are certainly others besides myself that feel what Andy did was illegal. Furthermore, Kirk has stated that his position regarding non-electronic connections to the ECU may be changing. So, don't be so quick to dismiss this.

[pfcs49]

Andy-while I respect your comittment to serving ITs future, I disagree with the course you've set.
I find the idea of $50,000 IT cars obscene for a starter class that worked so well as envisoned 23 years ago.
The washer bottle argument is still around because it expresses better than most the "priciple" of IT rules.
You've "thrown the management system out with the washerbottle" to strain a phrase. My stand is that your rationalization that you can express manifold pressure to a sensor in the ECM is exactly the same as the argument about removing washer bottles. This has been a touchstone of IT rule integrity for years!
And you crossed that line. I'm starting to think too many have drunk the cool aid. If it doesn't say you can do it, you can't!! (Kirk-where are you when we need you?) That's why we still have original washer bottles in our cars! Make a rule that says you can (remove a washer bottle or create a performance enhancing
vacuum circuit) and it's legal. This is a perfect example of rules-creep and how it happens. I'm 60years old now, I ran the very first east coast IT race (LRP 83? 84?) and I think I must have enjoyed the golden age of amateur road racing (I ran FP before IT). Since wrecking my car 3 years ago at ARRC open pract, I think/dream daily of how to come back. I think it's over; yuppies with enough money to pour large amounts of it into a class with bugeoning possibilities have taken over a class that once belonged to simpler folks.
I am sad to see it go phil

[Andy Bettencourt]

Then I was wrong. But, seems that it is a moot point, as you already knew that what you were doing was not consistent w/ the intent of the rules. And while each individual has to decide where they want to be w.r.t. letter vs. intent of the rules, that's where you're going to get people to hold you to a higher standard, as the chair of the ITAC. If you see that the letter of the rule is not consistent with the intent, I would think you would want to work on getting them more in line, rather than pushing the door even further open. As I said before Andy, it's all about perception. And it's about leading by example. If taking a more conservative approach to rules interpretation doesn't jive w/ how you want to run your racing program, maybe you should rethink your role.[/b]

That's the beauty of this Bill. Once that the process proved it was working, we set off to look into one of the last 'crap' rules in IT - the ECU rule. Just because the rule didn't go the way you wanted doesn't make it the wrong decision. It wasn't just the ITAC and CRB who thought it was the right thing given the facts, it was the overwhelming majority of those who cared enough to voice their opinion after two requests. We worked on it, it's the result that has you missing the action. I don't remember you sending in a letter on the subject actually...

I think you also don't read my posts well enough. I could go over a list of grey items - done to many of the fastest ITA cars in the country that I won't touch. This is different. Everyone knows 'MoTec in a box' is legal. It's not grey. Many do it. Why? Because it's legal. Again, we will agree to disagree on my application of the rule but don't critisize me for running a max-prepped car. This horse has been out of the barn - it's not like this is a new, earth shattering concept I should be tip-toeing around. I build, prep and race to win, as do many. I will never apoligize for that. Point in fact, I could have used a 100% plug-and play unit from AEM to do what I did - and more. I saved some bucks and did something I think is legal.

And work on proactive solutions? IIRC, I was one of the early, vocal advocates of a standard, equally applied vehicle classification system. Kirk even dubbed the weight/power numbers, the 'Miller Ratio'. That was well before your tenure as ITAC chair, and possibly before your tenure on the committee. I was also a pretty strong advocate for the need to increase the granularity of the classes, and to get more cars classified. IIRC, you asked me to work on the ITR AdHoc. So don't give me any BS about working on proactive solutions. If I didn't think this stuff was important, I sure wouldn't spend my time with it. [/b]

I'm not BSing you Bill. All I am going to say is that you are one of the most critical and negative guys on this BB - and there is nothing wrong with that as long as it is accompanied by solutions - something I haven't seem from you since I asked you to be part of the ITR group.

I guess I am dissappointed that you don't understand that I think of IT first, and myself second. I was ready to shit-can my ECU program if going backward was determined to be the better solution...and said so as much on this forum 2 years ago. Oh well. You know where to find me if you have more to say.

And Paul - what people don't understand is that the 'washer bottle rule' isn't about the washer bottle. It's about the beginning of the endless stream of requests that it will set off. Side windows, headlights, dashboards, front and rear glass...the line has to be drawn somehwere on these things - and what is acceptable is different for everyone. If you 'freeze' the stupid stuff, the worms stay in the can on that front. Technology and a stupid rule have forced the issue WRT ECU's, not people. And remeber, if it says you can, you can. Tell me again how you install that vacuum gauge that is legal?

Again guys - like minds disagree. It's moot now. If you have any doubts as to my committment to a legal car and the IT rules, you havn't seen my car and you certainly don't know me. Signing off.

[Z3_GoCar]

That's the thing James, I believe that if 'outside the OEM ECU housing' were meant to modify all the items in that list (sensors, wires, or piggybacked computers), then there should be a comma between 'computers' and 'outside'. As it is written, I believe it only modifies piggyback computers. And if that's the case, no new sensors or wiring, either inside or outside the ECU housing.

And the part that you're missing, is "to gain a competitive advantage". And actually, by the rules, you have to block unused vacuum lines. Theres a rule that says all air entering the engine must pass through the throttle body/carb.
[/b]

Alright Bill,

let's look at it this way; it's listed "Wiring, Sensors, or Piggyback Computer Outside the OEM ECU housing"

Now you'll agree that the piggyback computer is legal inside the OEM ECU housing, but how do you hook it into the OEM ECU? Or what if you replace the OEM ECU with a MoTEC, how do you connect it? You have to change the wiring inside the ECU housing, possibly add wiring inside the housing, in the case of mounting a daughter board. You'll agree that mounting a daughter board was part of the original intent, and that to do so added wiring inside the ECU housing.

So now wiring inside the ECU housing and piggyback computers are allowed inside the housing, but they are on either side of the list of unallowed additions out side of the housing, which implies that all are allowed inside the OEM ECU housing.

Back to the vacume hose issue, where does it say that unused vacume openings are allowed to be blocked? You gave me the "All air must enter through the TB/carb" but how do you account for a idle by pass system where the air by passes the TB for idle speed control? So then technically any car running a stock injection system with its idle by pass is illegal?? It's just "assumed" that you'll plug the unused openings with plugs, but it doesn't say you can.

Now to really blow your mind. Internal coatings: Simply stated internal coatings are not allowed. Yet From the factory pistons are coated with an anti-friction coating. So replacement pistons must be factory equivellant, but only factory pistons have this anti-friction coatings, which are not allowed because internal coatings are not allowed. So factory built motors are illegal because they have an internal coating, and motors with aftermaket pistons are illegal because their pistons aren't "factory equivellant"


Ja_

[Bill Miller]

Alright Bill,

let's look at it this way; it's listed "Wiring, Sensors, or Piggyback Computer Outside the OEM ECU housing"

Now you'll agree that the piggyback computer is legal inside the OEM ECU housing, but how do you hook it into the OEM ECU? Or what if you replace the OEM ECU with a MoTEC, how do you connect it? You have to change the wiring inside the ECU housing, possibly add wiring inside the housing, in the case of mounting a daughter board. You'll agree that mounting a daughter board was part of the original intent, and that to do so added wiring inside the ECU housing.

So now wiring inside the ECU housing and piggyback computers are allowed inside the housing, but they are on either side of the list of unallowed additions out side of the housing, which implies that all are allowed inside the OEM ECU housing.[/b]

You have to use the stock, unmodified OEM connector

Back to the vacume hose issue, where does it say that unused vacume openings are allowed to be blocked? You gave me the "All air must enter through the TB/carb" but how do you account for a idle by pass system where the air by passes the TB for idle speed control? So then technically any car running a stock injection system with its idle by pass is illegal?? It's just "assumed" that you'll plug the unused openings with plugs, but it doesn't say you can.
[/b]

If ALL of the air doesn't pass through the carb or the throttle body, yes, it's illegal. By the rules, you have to block off the idle air bypass. I don't make this stuff up, it's right there in the rules.

Now to really blow your mind. Internal coatings: Simply stated internal coatings are not allowed. Yet From the factory pistons are coated with an anti-friction coating. So replacement pistons must be factory equivellant, but only factory pistons have this anti-friction coatings, which are not allowed because internal coatings are not allowed. So factory built motors are illegal because they have an internal coating, and motors with aftermaket pistons are illegal because their pistons aren't "factory equivellant"
Ja_
[/b]

It says "the application/use.... to any internal engine surface..."

Pistons are not internal engine surfaces, they are pistons. They are components that installed in an engine. And how do you know that aftermarket pistons are not coated w/ an anti-friction coating? Nice try though, I'll give you that.

[Eagle7]

If ALL of the air doesn't pass through the carb or the throttle body, yes, it's illegal. By the rules, you have to block off the idle air bypass. I don't make this stuff up, it's right there in the rules. [/b]

Well maybe you didn't make it up, but the person you qouted did. The rule is:

"The throttle body is not the fuel injection air inlet on most (all?) FI cars. The idle air bypas has always been totally legal.</span>

[lateapex911]

Andy-while I respect your comittment to serving ITs future, I disagree with the course you&#39;ve set.
I find the idea of $50,000 IT cars obscene for a starter class that worked so well as envisoned 23 years ago.
..........Since wrecking my car 3 years ago at ARRC open pract, I think/dream daily of how to come back. I think it&#39;s over; yuppies with enough money to pour large amounts of it into a class with bugeoning possibilities have taken over a class that once belonged to simpler folks.
I am sad to see it go phil [/b]

Phil....it&#39;s not 1985 any more, and the cars are different. I freaked out when I saw the ECU rule in the first place, I jumped up and down and called the CRB chair and said, "HOW can you open a rule up that is performance enhancing POST classification!?!?! You just dinked with the entire balance of the class!"
His response was "We had to, there is no way to enforce the previous rule"

I was pissed.

Then people started putting more than chips in the box. Why? Because it says you can. Duh. (Technology changed, and the rules writers failed to remeber teh famous computer theory that states that hardware will become half the size, twice as powerful and half as expensive every 18 months ..or something like that.) And because people neded to, in some cases because the darn cars wouldn&#39;t run right with the stock ecu and racing mods, and in some cases because the bar they wanted to clear was high...and the ecu mod gave them the last bit to clear the hurdle.

Call them yuppies if you want, but the truth is that they are people who want to race in a category, and there are more than one of them. Like an auction, people will spend what they have to get something, and if that something is popular, the price goes up.

IT has gotten where it has gotten largely because of the fact that the world, and the cars, and the technology have changed.

Everyone:
With regards to Andy. I have to draw the line when I hear that people are criticising his methods as self serving and not in the best interests of IT at large. As an ITAC member, Andy and I discuss the direction and the staffing of the ITAC from time to time. One thing we are 100% in sync with is that we have no tolerance for ITAC members who are self serving, and ONLY those we feel are capable of seeing and acting for the greater good are ever invited to serve. The ECU rules change was an internal action on the part of the ITAC, and while it&#39;s not important to identify the author, I will tell you that it wasn&#39;t Andy. During discussions, Andy, who at the time had a standalone ECu already in his Miatas box, was 100% in support of going to a "chips and reflashes" option. IF it was felt that that was the best option for IT now and in the future, he would have ripped up the money and started over.

I hope that if people feel that Andy has crossed the line they can at least be respectful enough to phrase it in a balanced manner, as Bill Denton did a few posts up.

[Knestis]

...If it doesn&#39;t say you can do it, you can&#39;t!! (Kirk-where are you when we need you?) ...[/b]

I&#39;m right here, Phil - posting along with the rest of the crowd.

I&#39;m all about IIDSYCYC but the point at which the book says YC(an), then we sure as hell C(an).

I won&#39;t rehash it all but as someone else who was there in the early years of IT, I&#39;ve made my peace with the cost issue. There&#39;s just NO way that rules can contain costs. They can impose diminishing returns but that&#39;s about it. And the truth of the matter is that those diminishing returns dictate that in most classes in most areas, one can get to within 95% of the the exemplar car for a heck of a lot less than 95% of the $$.

K

[trhoppe]

There&#39;s just NO way that rules can contain costs. They can impose diminishing returns but that&#39;s about it. And the truth of the matter is that those diminishing returns dictate that in most classes in most areas, one can get to within 95% of the the exemplar car for a heck of a lot less than 95% of the $$.

K
[/b]

Someone take this, print it, and laminate it. Maybe make a website with just this quote that we can refer people to.



-Tom

[seckerich]

Keep one thing in mind when you discuss cost. Some of these cars running have 10 seasons on them. Every year they do something else to make it better. Do not expect to start out even--wont happen without a ton of money. I hope I never add up what I have in my car. Or better yet I hope my wife never does.

[its66]

As long as you make sure Vickie has the faster car, she might let you by with it.

[JeffYoung]

You ever see the Twin Turbo RX7 she used to drive? I would definitely say she had the faster car. Damn thing shot flames out the back, no lie.

I&#39;ve now been to the Eckerich Mad Laboratory up in the hills. All kinds of evil stuff up there. Right hand drive Miatas, bodys on rotisseries, I even hear he is working on a Frankendriver who is actually plugged into the motec system on the car!