September Fastrack

[rx7chris]

I got one of the ones I was asking for. Now if I could get them to say 1/2" is ok I"d be all set.

[GTIspirit]

2. IT – Allow a wide band 02 sensor (Bader). A wide band sensor functions differently than a narrow band sensor.

What does this mean? It's allowed, or not? Allowed only if used as a "gauge" and not as an input to the ECU?

[Greg Amy]

Allowed only if used as a "gauge" and not as an input to the ECU?

Correct.

But, given it can be added as a gauge, and the ECU is free, and wiring/connections to the ECU are free, it's gonna be damn hard to police, especially if a narrow-band ECU is also installed.

[Knestis]

Some items referred to the Board by the ITAC have been acted on but recommendations for weight changes on review - going back several months now - are on hold. You might want to check with your Board member for more information on this.

K

[seckerich]

Kirk is being politically correct because he has to deal with the comp board. I can be a little more open but respectful. There is a prevailing attitude on the comp board that the ITAC is doing too much and is always wanting something. I thought that was why we had the ITAC was to do this leg work for them so all they needed to do was vote? They miss the point that they did nothing with IT for many years and just used the "non competitive, tough noogie" clause. Now the comp board is looking at a "rules season" where future changes only happen during a set time period and then are static for the entire year. Good thing so you can build a car to a set target. Aimed more at some other classes that jerk with weights and specs almost weekly. I would guess all IT related changes are on hold until that time. Just a guess.

[lateapex911]

Thats a very interesting post, Steve.

[gran racing]

but recommendations for weight changes on review - going back several months now - are on hold.

What is meant by "on hold"? Waiting to publish the results or it might not move any further? I'm sure many of us would like to hear this from the comp board so we can voice our opinions.

I'm totally fine with not changing rules during mid-year and while sometimes it can be hard to wait, the not in effect till 1/1/10 clause is a good one. But publish the findings and results well before then so people can prepare accordingly.

[BruceG]

Kirk is being politically correct because he has to deal with the comp board. I can be a little more open but respectful. There is a prevailing attitude on the comp board that the ITAC is doing too much and is always wanting something. I thought that was why we had the ITAC was to do this leg work for them so all they needed to do was vote? They miss the point that they did nothing with IT for many years and just used the "non competitive, tough noogie" clause. Now the comp board is looking at a "rules season" where future changes only happen during a set time period and then are static for the entire year. Good thing so you can build a car to a set target. Aimed more at some other classes that jerk with weights and specs almost weekly. I would guess all IT related changes are on hold until that time. Just a guess.

Perhaps the Comp Board should take a look at the state of HP and Formula VEE before thinking that all change is bad. My last race at LRP, I think there was one car in HP! If Formula VEE had been to morph naturally into Formula First then we might have healthy VEE fields today, instead of a zillion VEE's for sale on the forum. Most folks can't afford to convert their cars and the existing parts supply(blocks,etc) is drying up.

Mazda recently stopped making rotor housings for the Ist gen(12a) engines(after 30 years). Will the Comp Board rule that we can't replace our engines with 13b's and doom the cars to extinction?

[tom91ita]

Correct.

But, given it can be added as a gauge, and the ECU is free, and wiring/connections to the ECU are free, it's gonna be damn hard to police, especially if a narrow-band ECU is also installed.

hey chuck, if you are reading this, all the O2 sensors i have seen are only about 13/16" across. that seems pretty narrow to me.

given tGA's comments above, what is the basis for it not being allowed?

[jdrago1]

I don't read the IT forum much.. But you guys are extremely fortunate two have two of the CRB members racing in IT. Jake's post above seems to touch on some of the issues. Believe it or not guys, the CRB wants what is best for your class! This is a work in progress. If the new process works and works for all, I think I can speak for the CRB that we will have no problem putting it into effect. While looking at the new process we also have to take into consideration that you have a pretty good ruleset now and to reschuffle the entire deck could end up with a season or two of growing pains until it sorts itself out. We have to weigh the upside vs downside there.

Steve
The following statement is just not true.

There is a prevailing attitude on the comp board that the ITAC is doing too much and is always wanting something


Hope that helps
Jim Drago
CRB
[email protected]

[gran racing]

Hi Jim,

Yes, we do have a great ruleset but the process hadn't been applied to many vehicles, just the "obvious" ones. I certainly do not see what is taking place as reshuffling the deck, just fixing a few damaged cards. It would be nice to see the process applied to more cars as there still are issues out there. Since we have something the majority of IT drivers believe in, it would be a shame not to use it.

[seckerich]

I don't read the IT forum much.. But you guys are extremely fortunate two have two of the CRB members racing in IT. Jake's post above seems to touch on some of the issues. Believe it or not guys, the CRB wants what is best for your class! This is a work in progress. If the new process works and works for all, I think I can speak for the CRB that we will have no problem putting it into effect. While looking at the new process we also have to take into consideration that you have a pretty good ruleset now and to reschuffle the entire deck could end up with a season or two of growing pains until it sorts itself out. We have to weigh the upside vs downside there.

Steve
The following statement is just not true.

There is a prevailing attitude on the comp board that the ITAC is doing too much and is always wanting something


Hope that helps
Jim Drago
CRB
[email protected]

Thanks for responding Jim. I took that from a direct conversation with a member of the BOD. It was not meant to be a bad comment on the CRB. I understand that some of these recent changes have somewhat swamped your group. This backlog while waiting to sort out the process is what I am referring to. The fact that IT is growing, and is one of the most popular groups in SCCA, should validate the work of the ITAC to this point. Keep working with them please.

[Bill Miller]

Correct.

But, given it can be added as a gauge, and the ECU is free, and wiring/connections to the ECU are free, it's gonna be damn hard to police, especially if a narrow-band ECU is also installed.

Greg,

The way I read FT, there was a request to allow a wide-band O2 sensor and it was not approved by the CRB. I didn't see any qualifications on there to the effect of 'only allowed if used as a gauge'. I understand that gauges are free, but here it would seem that you've had a specific request to allow a specific item, that has not been approved. I would think that since it explicitly addresses a wide-band O2 sensor, that you're not allowed to use one, period, not even as a gauge. Therefore, I'm not so sure your contention that it (W-B O2 sensor) is allowed as a gauge is correct.

I'm also not so sure how it would be hard to police, even if allowed. You've got wire(s) from the W-B O2 sensor going to some gauge, if you've got wires going from anything that the W-B O2 sensor is connected to (gauge, data-logger, etc.) going to the ECU, that's pretty much a no-no. Not to mention that this was expressly mentioned in one of the CoA rulings:

The Court reminds everyone that per GCR 9.1.7.D. “No permitted component/
modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function.”

If the use of a W-B O2 sensor was not approved (again, this is moot if that means it's not allowed at all, which is my interpretation), having it send a signal to the ECU would clearly be a prohibited function. Hard to police? I don't really think so. Cheating? Most definitely.

[seckerich]

Unless the rule on gauges is changed then a wide band O2 is OK. It is not OK to use a wide band O2 (4 or 5 wire) in place of a narrow band(2 or 3 wire) to feed a signal to the ECU. There is no rule that allows this addition of wire to that specific sensor. The opinion in fastrack that it is not going to be allowed for the ECU has no bearing on gauge rules.

[tnord]

guages are free
ecu is free

?

and how far do you want to take this? if using a WB O2 is illegal, how the hell are you supposed to dyno your car?

<---thinks he knows exactly what greg has in mind, because i think i was thinking about the same thing long ago.

[Bill Miller]

Unless the rule on gauges is changed then a wide band O2 is OK. It is not OK to use a wide band O2 (4 or 5 wire) in place of a narrow band(2 or 3 wire) to feed a signal to the ECU. There is no rule that allows this addition of wire to that specific sensor. The opinion in fastrack that it is not going to be allowed for the ECU has no bearing on gauge rules.

Steve,

That was my point. The way FT reads is just.

2. IT – Allow a wide band 02 sensor (Bader). A wide band sensor functions differently than a narrow band sensor.

Says nothing at all about using the WB to feed the ECU. The request is for the allowance of a W-B O2 sensor. Says nothing at all about what kind of function Chuck wants it allowed for. And by the same token, there is no qualification in the CRB dis-allowance that would allow it to be used in specific situations (i.e. not connected to the ECU).

If that's not what they meant, they need to add some clarification.

[Bill Miller]

Well Greg, given the way the response in FT was stated, you could make the case that a WB O2 sensor is currently not allowed (otherwise I would have expected a "rule is adequate as written" type response). Although, the free gauge and free ECU wiring does seem to say that you can have one.

As far as the failsafe map, touche'.


My whole point is, I think they need to clarify what they mean. It's just one more case where the GCR (and in this case, the ITCS) is inconsistent.

/edit

Maybe someone from the ITAC will weigh in on this and shed some light on it.

[Greg Amy]

First, you know this is just a mental exercise, right?

I understand that gauges are free, but here it would seem that you've had a specific request to allow a specific item, that has not been approved.

Roffe Corollary: "If it says you can, you bloody well can!" Gauges are free, my wide-band sensor ports to a gauge, thus it is free. Disagree? All of my cars run wideband gauges with outputs ported to data logging, you'll just be risking $25 to find out its legality.

Furthermore, ECUs are free, including their wiring.

Additionally, data acquisition is allowed (nothing more than gauges that write info to to a card; there's no limitation on "gauges are free" that indicate I have to look at the data in real-time.)

Finally, it just so happens that my ECU is also my data logger, thus (legal) wires are feeding "gauge" data to my (legal and open) ECU through (legal and open) wiring.

ERGO, since my (legal) data logger in inside my (legal) ECU, and everything inside that ECU is free, take your best shot at proving they don't interface - or even more importantly, prove to me how that would be illegal in the first place.

Damn, I love these rules games...

“No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function.”

See discussion above. What "prohibited function" to you suggest such an arrangement is doing? Feeding the (free) ECU air/fuel ratio info? A/F sensor came with the car stock. Replacing the narrow-band with a wide-band for better info? Nope, narrow-band is still there and wired up, but it's being ignored just like the MAF in the Miata that's being ignored because I'm using a (legal) TPS/MAP system.

Then, after all is said and done, if you still want to insist it's illegal and a prohibited function, my response is "fine, prove it's being done."



GA

[Charlie Broring]

Good Gosh!

Wide band O2, Data Acquisition, Open ECU, New Harness and Sensors!

I'm so behind the times. Still have the stock computer and a stopwatch taped to the steering wheel.

Charlie

[tom91ita]

Good Gosh!

Wide band O2, Data Acquisition, Open ECU, New Harness and Sensors!

I'm so behind the times. Still have the stock computer and a stopwatch taped to the steering wheel.

Charlie

you've got a stopwatch? i need to catch up!

but back to the wide band, we do not know the question or context. if the question was "can i feed an aftermarket wide band to the ECU?" that should not impact the use for gauges or data logging............