ABS in IT?

[CRallo]

Discuss.

This popped into my head while I was falling asleep last night... Being in 'A' I don't really have a dog in the fight at this point, but the topic interests me, as does the "slippery slope" many believe it may represent.

Some obvious pros and cons here, but lets hash it out!


I don't want to steer discussion too much but here is my view: most simply, racecars don't have nannies! Learn to drive the damn car... further more, I have safety concerns. For example how does one lock the brakes while in a spin if they have ABS?! We all know how dangerous that can get! And the some of the brake failures that confused ABS systems are rumored to have caused...

Whats the status of discussion on this topic in the ITAC?

Have letters been sent? If so, what seems to be the feedback?

thanks!

[Knestis]

...racecars don't have nannies! Learn to drive the damn car... further more, I have safety concerns. For example how does one lock the brakes while in a spin if they have ABS?! We all know how dangerous that can get! And the some of the brake failures that confused ABS systems have caused...

I'm glad you're receptive to discussion, Chris.

K

[dj10]

There should be nothing to hash out. ABS should not be allowed in IT racing because of the strides in technology. The ABS in a 2005 car are way better then the cars in 1990 due to faster computers, etc. it just wouldn't be fair so if nobody has abs then we are on the same playing field.

[betamotorsports]

Does IT stand for "Idle in Time?"

[CRallo]

I'm glad you're receptive to discussion, Chris.

K

I'm willing to listen...

Seriously though, unlike certain ex's of mine, I understand a logical argument and am interested to hear the other side(s).

[JeffYoung]

THis is an ITAC member speaking from personal opinion only.

I understand the position of the proponents of ABS in IT, and think most of what they have to say is reasonable. I also fully agree with the post above that IT can't be locked into 1980s technology.

That said, I come out on the opposed side by a fair amount. Dan makes a good point about the disparity in ABS systems. Some are detrimental to performance, and others add performance. It makes it harder for us to use a simple power weight formula to balance cars objectively.

I also understand that ABS sensors can also be used as traction control sensors making a traction control cheat much easier.

But the bottom line for me is this. I've plumbed an entire braking system on a car. It is not that hard; maybe a weekend's worth of work. Even assuming worst case you had to do this, and run a standalone ECU (which you pretty have to do anyway to run up front), it's still a small price to pay for keeping the braking field LEVEL.

IT does need to go forward in time. However, I'm not sure computer aided driving controls like ABS and tractions control are a step forward at all. AWD? Turbos? cars with 300 hp stock? Yes, at some point we are going to have to deal with and in my view adopt those technologies, but driver aids I see as being a very different situation.

[Z3_GoCar]

My take is that ABS should not be allowed. Newer ABS systems have the abillity to brake individual wheels, thus allowing a racer to brake aggessivly into the apex without worrying about spinning out. I don't care how tallented with the brakes one is, I don't know how anyone could individually control the brake bias on a per-wheel and per-corner basis with a conventional single hydraulic brake pedal. Stabillity control (aka ESP, DSC, et al) is a large performance advantage over conventional brake systems, and it's integral to all new ABS systems now.

[Knestis]

** People who simultaneously argue that ABS is an advantage and a danger are moving from some different proposition entirely, and arguing points of convenience for rhetorical purposes. It's inconsistent to hold both positions, so evidence that they have a different agenda altogether.

** Fuel injected cars have an advantage over cars with carburetors, in that the former can self-adjust (damn nannies!) for atmospheric conditions. Disc brakes are an advantage over drums. I see arguments based on resistance to "new technology" argued by people who drive cars that take full advantage of it.

** Even when pushed to its purest form, the Process didn't try to equate cars that differed in technical terms described in the previous point. When someone would suggest that open ECUs were a "de facto competition adjustment for FI cars" (do a search here), we'd explain it away as either "pick your car warts and all" or "you can adjust the mixture with a carb, too." The difference between ABS-no-talent and no-ABS-with-talent is so small as to be lost in the noise of a hundred other variables that the ITAC doesn't try to account for.

** I keep seeing the "can't lock it down" argument trotted out. How often have any of you seen anyone successfully do that in a club race AND have it actually matter...? How many of the people in this conversation have ever done it? I've raced since 1986 and have *never* had to. Yes - it might make a positive safety difference in some minute number of situations but nothing like as often as would requiring H&N systems - and the membership has resisted that loudly.

** IT rules are founded on the assumption that the rules grant allowances for us to make changes to the otherwise stock configuration of our cars. A very limited number of safety rules MANDATE changes to the stock car. Forcing the disabling of ABS is inconsistent with that first assumption, imposing a "you must" standard where a "you may" standard has been the, well, standard since the inception of the category. How about "all cars in ITC and ITB are required to replace fuel injection systems with a Weber 32/36DGV carburetor, effective 1/1/2011. All ITA, ITS, and ITR cars are required to replace fuel injection system with side-draft carbs, not to exceed one venturi per cylinder." ...?

** Having re-plumbed my Golf's brake system, too, I agree that it's not a horrific job. It's not however a job similar in technical scope to the minimum modifications *required* for someone to go racing in IT. Further, I know damned well that a 2010 model year ABS system is going to be very much more resistant to that process than was my 1994 system, that essentially piggy-backed ABS hardware on an otherwise non-ABS master cylinder, etc.

** If we are "eventually" going to have to deal with it - and we are - we should deal with it NOW, before some people spend a bunch of time and money to comply with a rule that will eventually have to be changed.

** That something might make cheating easier is not a sufficient rationale for outlawing it. Offset keys make it a HELL of a lot easier to gain power with a twin-cam engine (e.g., Miata or VW 16v) by cheating the cam timing, than is possible with a single-cam engine (e.g., VW 8v). That has not resulted in a cry to take back that allowance.

** Got a philosophical disagreement with "driver aids?" I've got power steering and power brakes. Anyone else letting the technology make your job easier behind the wheel? Why no arguments with tools like data collection and video that (at substantial cost) allow some drivers to perform at higher levels than others?

K

[Greg Amy]

YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!!!! (waving fist...)

[RacerBill]

YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!!!! (waving fist...)

But would you mind mowing the grass first?

Seriously, I know of at least two serious crashes in the last two months that resulted from ABS failures. So, my take is that they are a potential safety issue.

[Ralf]

Why not allow ABS? Have you ever driven in the snow and wished ABS wasn't working? Stopping distances seem to be longer with ABS releasing the brakes over and over again. Also, since I drive a VW, what about the three legged stance? What would ABS do when the inside rear locks up? I would think its going to want to release the brakes because of the lock up. So no real advantage of having ABS there.
As far as ASR, once it kicks in, it will apply the brake that is losing traction and reduce engine power.
My thinking is that one would want to disable ABS but it shouldn't be mandated. Someone may want it working so that ESP keeps them from spinning out of control and hitting something.

[Greg Amy]

I know of cars that crashed due to failures of:

- Wheels
- Hubs
- Struts
- Control arms
- Flywheels/clutches
- Bolts, nuts, screws, and other pieces of hardware
- Hood pins
- Quick release steering wheels
- Non-ABS-brake components (e.g., pads, rotors, caliprs, lines, etc)
- ...and many other pieces/parts that, as an extension to your logic, are bona fide safety issues.

Ergo, we should ban all that stuff too.

Ain't quite sure how we'll keep the cars off their bellies, but that's not important; after all, this is a safety issue!

Hey, if it saves the life of only one child (or the mother or father of that child, or maybe a sibling or their cousin) then it's worth it!

[JeffYoung]

For me the bottom line still is it is far eaiser to replumb a car (if I can do -- I couldn't even change brake pads when I started racing -- anyone can) than to deal with the issues this raises. It's a close call, with good points on either side. In that situation, I say no, but interested in the debate.

1. Point One -- Agreed. I don't see the safety issue. I see it as an advantage.

2. Point Two -- Agreed, but I still see driving aids (more below) like ABS as a fundamentally different.

3. Point Three -- Agreed, but it becomes just another factor we can't account for. I don't WANT to have an ABS adder/subtractor. The easiest way to do that is not allow ABS, especially given how easy it is, in my view, to just plumb a car normally.

4. Point Four -- Agreed. I do not see ABS as a safety issue.

5. Point Five -- Disagree. You aren't fundamentally changing a basic IT characteristic of a car by saying no ABS. We already say no traction control for example. I'll have to check, but wouldn't cockpit adjustable suspensions like with many cars with "sport" buttons that stiffen shocks, etc. be illegal, not allowed? I'm not saying a car has to put on smaller brakes. I'm saying it has to remove a computer based driver aid that is not NECESSARY to race.

6. Point Six -- Disagree. It's certainly easier to replumb a brake system than to say install a cage.

7. Point Seven -- Disagree. We already let it go too long. Some of the anti-letters were from guys with ABS equipped cars who don't want to deal with a rule change allowing them to put the stuff back on. So, we are already in the quagmire.....

8. Point Eight -- In concept, I almost always agree with this point. However, with electronic stuff, like with the ECU rule, we have considered the inability to have a reasonable means of checking legality/compliance. It got to the point with stock ECUs it was nearly impossible to check legality. The same would be true, is my understanding, with modern ABS and traction control systems.

9. Point Nine -- Disagree. Power brakes and steering are comfort items and in many cases, performance detriments. BUT, they are not (as newer ABS systems are) computer controlled driver aids that enhance performance. I agree the line is not black and white, but ABS certainly seems a hell of a lot more like traction control than power steering to me.

10. Point Ten -- Good discussion. Helps focus the debate.

** People who simultaneously argue that ABS is an advantage and a danger are moving from some different proposition entirely, and arguing points of convenience for rhetorical purposes. It's inconsistent to hold both positions, so evidence that they have a different agenda altogether.

** Fuel injected cars have an advantage over cars with carburetors, in that the former can self-adjust (damn nannies!) for atmospheric conditions. Disc brakes are an advantage over drums. I see arguments based on resistance to "new technology" argued by people who drive cars that take full advantage of it.

** Even when pushed to its purest form, the Process didn't try to equate cars that differed in technical terms described in the previous point. When someone would suggest that open ECUs were a "de facto competition adjustment for FI cars" (do a search here), we'd explain it away as either "pick your car warts and all" or "you can adjust the mixture with a carb, too." The difference between ABS-no-talent and no-ABS-with-talent is so small as to be lost in the noise of a hundred other variables that the ITAC doesn't try to account for.

** I keep seeing the "can't lock it down" argument trotted out. How often have any of you seen anyone successfully do that in a club race AND have it actually matter...? How many of the people in this conversation have ever done it? I've raced since 1986 and have *never* had to. Yes - it might make a positive safety difference in some minute number of situations but nothing like as often as would requiring H&N systems - and the membership has resisted that loudly.

** IT rules are founded on the assumption that the rules grant allowances for us to make changes to the otherwise stock configuration of our cars. A very limited number of safety rules MANDATE changes to the stock car. Forcing the disabling of ABS is inconsistent with that first assumption, imposing a "you must" standard where a "you may" standard has been the, well, standard since the inception of the category. How about "all cars in ITC and ITB are required to replace fuel injection systems with a Weber 32/36DGV carburetor, effective 1/1/2011. All ITA, ITS, and ITR cars are required to replace fuel injection system with side-draft carbs, not to exceed one venturi per cylinder." ...?

** Having re-plumbed my Golf's brake system, too, I agree that it's not a horrific job. It's not however a job similar in technical scope to the minimum modifications *required* for someone to go racing in IT. Further, I know damned well that a 2010 model year ABS system is going to be very much more resistant to that process than was my 1994 system, that essentially piggy-backed ABS hardware on an otherwise non-ABS master cylinder, etc.

** If we are "eventually" going to have to deal with it - and we are - we should deal with it NOW, before some people spend a bunch of time and money to comply with a rule that will eventually have to be changed.

** That something might make cheating easier is not a sufficient rationale for outlawing it. Offset keys make it a HELL of a lot easier to gain power with a twin-cam engine (e.g., Miata or VW 16v) by cheating the cam timing, than is possible with a single-cam engine (e.g., VW 8v). That has not resulted in a cry to take back that allowance.

** Got a philosophical disagreement with "driver aids?" I've got power steering and power brakes. Anyone else letting the technology make your job easier behind the wheel? Why no arguments with tools like data collection and video that (at substantial cost) allow some drivers to perform at higher levels than others?

K

[StephenB]

I am honestly on the fence and could go either way...

Pros. ***warning these pros are selfish***!
1.) I honestly think I could go faster with the ABS installed than without it. That gives me what I personally think would give ME an advantage over those without it.
2. I am lazy and don't really want to change it all out... I know what your thinking but I am being honest here
3. I think it is significantly safer and if you don't think it is please drive in Stevens Advanced Driving School and learn how to drive an ABS car! It is AMAZING how much more control you have in a car while applying brakes during turning... trail braking and utilizing weight transfer to gain grip while not loosing traction from brake lockup. This can ONLY be done with changing brake pressures to individual tires. If you have never tried it you really should... it is AMAZING the difference you have for accident avoidance and car control.

Cons:
it honestly takes a skill set away from the driver. Car control under braking while shifting and possibly trail braking is a skill that is awesome to feel when you get good at it. In road racing I love the aspect that you have to be good at braking! It will literally make or brake your lap time. (I had to get in that play on words!)

So in the end from a selfish point I don't want ABS and I would rather have the satisfaction and feeling of accomplishment when I outbrake a peer without driving aids. But I also selfishly can say that I want them because I think it will give me an advantage over others without it. And from a safety standpoint it isn't possibly or marginally safer it is significantly safer in an immeasurable amount. If you honestly don't think it is safer please go out and rent a car... something 1995 or newer and see what its like to drive a car with ABS in an accident avoidance situation.

That's my rant... in the end I don't really care but make a decision sooner than later... this decision is hr's of work and hundreds of dollars depending on your decision... so make it fast and make it stick.
Stephen

[Z3_GoCar]

....3. I think it is significantly safer and if you don't think it is please drive in Stevens Advanced Driving School and learn how to drive an ABS car! It is AMAZING how much more control you have in a car while applying brakes during turning... trail braking and utilizing weight transfer to gain grip while not loosing traction from brake lockup. This can ONLY be done with changing brake pressures to individual tires. If you have never tried it you really should... it is AMAZING the difference you have for accident avoidance and car control.....


Stephen

This is my point the early ABS systems are simple two/three channel systems. Basically they only release brakes on the front/rear axle or in the case of three channel, individually on the front. On the four channel systems, used with ESP/DSC, they can release brakes to an individual corner. With our current ban on ABS, no one has a performance advantage of individually braking each wheel. If it's lifted, we'll have some cars that are worse with the oe ABS, some that are slightly better, some that can update to or are way better than the current.

Now don't compare what we have to a class like T-1/3, because of their obsolesence of touring models aging out. Even in ITR, there are models where the ABS isn't as good as the 2000MY and later ABS systems.

YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!!!! (waving fist...)

Where I'm at it's more like "YOU KIDS GET OFF MY ROCKS!!!"

Oh, and lake testing doesn't work around here because everything floats in a dry lake.

[924Guy]

There's no question in my mind, both as a racer of an "obsolete" car and as an ABS/TCS/ESC engineer, that ABS doesn't belong in IT. It's far too much of an advantage. Pro racers know this.

If it were allowed in and I were still campaigning the 924, I would seriously consider fitting a Bosch Motorsport ABS unit (they go for, IIRC, around $10-15k a pop... though the employee discount would probably help).

Then I'd rework it a little to further suit my needs.

Who wants to race me now?

[Knestis]

...ABS doesn't belong in IT. It's far too much of an advantage.

There are our two issues, distilled down to one line.

1. A statement of belief. If you believe it, you do. If you don't, you don't. People tend not to change their beliefs - just ask any Internet board. There's little point in trying.

2. Acknowledgment that the question isn't WHETHER there is an advantage, but HOW MUCH of an advantage is too much. The ITAC deals with this all the time, when people say, "...but the Borgward has better gear ratios, so it should weigh more."

This is the policy environment in which the Club has got to deliver rules decisions. Decision-makes are inclined to (1) do what supports their beliefs first, and (2) what pisses off the fewest of their current constituents as a second choice. Since decision-makers tend to be active players, and active players tend to BE active because they like the way things are (currently), they are disinclined to like change (Satisfies 1, above). This is handy because "don't do anything" is generally a good way to satisfy intent 2, as well...

Short version: You don't need to worry very much, Chris. Yet. Because we'll put off cleaning this boo-boo until it's a festering, infected mess that HAS to get attention - at which point it will be a huge brouhaha rather than a policy decision.

K

[JeffYoung]

We are already past that pint Kirk (of dealing with it early on a policy basis). Not finger pointing at all, because you and I were both a big part of this, but probably the last clear chance we had to deal with this was when we created ITR (the first class in which the majority of cars probably have ABS of varying degrees of effectiveness).

The thought I had was only allow it in any new classes "above" ITR. That keeps it clean -- as clean as possible anyway.

[Knestis]

But if instituted RIGHT NOW for ITR, it would impact only a tiny handful of people. (Sorry, people.) Let it go and it WILL get changed eventually, impacting more and worse.

K

[JeffYoung]

I'd disagree. ITR fields this year in the SEDiv were 5-6 cars a race in many cases. Plus, we couldn't get the rule in for 11 - it would be 12 at the earliest.

There are many cars build without ABS right now. In fact, I think all existing ITR competitors who commented said no, including those with stock ABS systems.

It's a tough question, I agree with that.