ABS in IT?

[jimmyc]

My take on it...

you will see MANY if not ALL of the *new* cars (ie that 06 honda civic SI that was recently classed), HAVING to dissable the ABS/stability control. If not have fun dealling with the brake issues it creates.

And same goes for the 2010+ Mazda products.. You don't remove/dissable/re-pumb the car and you will be sent into limp mode often.

I am sure Greg could speak further on some of the issues that the VW where having.... (i think he was around at that time).

IMO you have a few years where the ABS systems where/are good, and still work in the IT type race car enviornment.

The new cars?? Yep not so much, people are going to be dissabiling them because they make things worse.

ABS an advantage?? I'd dissagree, especially in a FWD car where the rear tires lock up long before the fronts it is IMO a disadvatage.

What is an advatage?? installing a rear brake bias valve THOSE things rock!

[Knestis]

My take on it...

you will see MANY if not ALL of the *new* cars (ie that 06 honda civic SI that was recently classed), HAVING to dissable the ABS/stability control. If not have fun dealling with the brake issues it creates.

And same goes for the 2010+ Mazda products.. You don't remove/dissable/re-pumb the car and you will be sent into limp mode often. ... ABS an advantage?? I'd dissagree, especially in a FWD car where the rear tires lock up long before the fronts it is IMO a disadvatage. ...

NO WAY! ABS is magic. It will make bad drivers into WINNARS...!!!



K

[StephenB]

My take on it...

ABS an advantage?? I'd dissagree, especially in a FWD car where the rear tires lock up long before the fronts it is IMO a disadvatage.

What is an advatage?? installing a rear brake bias valve THOSE things rock!

Even with a brake bias you can only apply 2 different amounts of pressures to the brakes. 1 equal amount to the front and 1 equal amount to the rear. The very instant that ANY 1 of the 4 wheels locks up you are at your maximum braking regardless of the bias. Agreed the bias helps reduce the brake force to the rear however you are still only able to apply the maximum braking force up until the first tire locks up regardless if its inside, outside, front or rear. With ABS all 4 wheels work individually and allow maximum braking to each and every wheel.

I am not an expert but I have tested both with and without ABS in the exact same scenario in the exact same car on the exact same day in a controlled environment. The comparison was mind boggling to me and I instantly became a believer and more importantly an understander.

STEPHEN

[Z3_GoCar]

NO WAY! ABS is magic. It will make bad drivers into WINNARS...!!!



K

"Any sufficintly advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke



I can't wait untill we start arguing about SMG/PDK/DCT. Then it will be dynamic steering by wire. At some point the race car can click off fast and consistant laps minus the driver At that point I think I'll just stay home and watch it on the screen.

[Chip42]

Its all about the disperity of advantage, real or imagined, between various ABS system designs and no ABS. as the general term "ABS" includes both useless hinderances and inteligent massively beneficial systems, the rule for how to deal with one must encompas the others.

YES - the same is true of various EFI/MFI/carbed fuel delivery and distributorless vs. distributed ignitions - some benefit more than others when moved away from the stock settings, or are able to make more use of the stock sensors, or whatever. so power gain is not as predictable as "25%" for example.

Remove ABS fromt he category in its entirety, and the variety of performance potentials it can encompas is removed with it. I'm sure the same argument was made against fuel injection, or open computers, or whatever. but replumbing the brakes requires a lot less technical savvy and cost than adding carbs to a wide variety of motors, many without available carb mounts. it also doesn't radically alter the power potential of the cars like carburation MIGHT, which seems to be the main crux of classification over other beneficial and derogatory factors a car may posess.

the rule making process seems easy from my perspective (as a non rules maker): no ABS. done.

yes - in some applications ECU replacement is required in order to disable ABS. what was it "warts and all" this is hardly a massive difficulty anymore, and you probobly would need or want to do so anyway to get away from the nannies built in to newer ECUs anyhow.

yes - there could come a time when master cylinder replacement is required in order to have a fully functional system. I don't know if this is currently the case with anything in production, but with all of the electronic brake force distribution systems and the comon availability of traction control, ESP, etc etc I'm sure there will be such a system. THAT is the difficult rule as it will force an addition currently outside of the class philosophy (alternate master cyclinders).

Like james said though - the big scary issues are the drive by wire systems beyond the throttle that are headed to the 5 year old mark. that's a set of issues that needs dealing with to keep IT from imposed obsolescence.

[Knestis]

...I am not an expert but I have tested both with and without ABS in the exact same scenario in the exact same car on the exact same day in a controlled environment. ...

STEPHEN

I'm going to guess that was possible because you could disable ABS on a car that had it...?

K

[Z3_GoCar]

I'm going to guess that was possible because you could disable ABS on a car that had it...?

K

Seriously Kirk,

Sounds like you've not driven a car with a good ABS system. You gotta try something with stabillity control.

[betamotorsports]

Luddites.

Every car in every class has advantages and disadvantages when compared to other members of its class. In ITS the 240Z has 1960's brake technology and they require a lot of attention compared to the 2nd gen RX7. The ITS 240Z driver learns how to use the brakes in such a way as to minimize his disadvantage. The 240Z's advantage over the second get RX7 is weight and mid range torque. The RX7 driver's learn to minimize that disadvantage in one way by making sure the starts are fast so the rotary is in its power band.

The same will be true when (not if) ABS is allowed in IT. Its going to happen, it has to happen. Might as well get it done now and let the competitors make the adjustments.

[924Guy]

Luddites.

Hardly - quite the opposite, in fact. I know how much faster I can make a car go with good ABS/EBD tuning.

I agree, Kirk - you need to drive something with newer-than-10-yr-old technology. Also - don't forget, Audis used to come with an ABS switch, factory - and last I heard, Stephen's an Audi guy... so...

I still can't believe there's any question.

This would be a distinct competitive advantage that applies only to certain cars. There's no question this would need a weight adder applied.

And then there's still the question about reprogramming. Oh, wait - we'll just allow that to open up after a few years, just like engine management - can't control it.

Now we will have TCS, if needed, and custom tuneable. And if you think I can't make a car faster with TCS and ABS, you need to read some car magazines...

I'm pretty sure that's not consistent with IT philosophy. It's not even consistent with DSR philosophy!!

[Knestis]

Seriously Kirk,

Sounds like you've not driven a car with a good ABS system. You gotta try something with stabillity control.

I'm not saying it doesn't make a difference. I'm saying that we have to decide whether (1) that difference is small enough that it's lost in the noise of factors not considered by the IT classification/specification process, or (2) that it's big enough to take into consideration when determining weights.

Our first instinct - to try to keep the genie in the bottle by reframing a first assumption of the category - is indeed Luddite. Forcing people to tear perfectly good parts off of a stock car SOLELY to prevent them gaining an advantage, to keep current entrants happy, is ludicrous.

Putting off the decision doesn't make it easier. This is where some of that leadership stuff that the Club is supposed to have somewhere would come into play. The CRB ought to frame a big-picture strategy for incorporating new technologies and provide broad guidance to the ad hocs. The ITAC ought to understand that they make decisions that impact the category 10 years from now, and act in anticipation of having to deal with it eventually - so sooner rather than later...

...and it should not be a major policy consideration, what a half-dozen drivers have done to this point. I'm sorry but it's a national rule set. As long as we continue to be reactive to a handful of voices - half of whom won't even be racing in 5 years - we're always playing catch-up and making mistakes that will be substantially harder to deal with once we have no choice.

KK

[steve b]

If we are going to let our cars threshold brake for themselves, we need to let them shift for themselves. I assume everyone in favor of ABS is also in favor of automatic transmissions. Or how about the transmissions in the 370Z?

[Ron Earp]

If we are going to let our cars threshold brake for themselves, we need to let them shift for themselves. I assume everyone in favor of ABS is also in favor of automatic transmissions. Or how about the transmissions in the 370Z?

Exactly. And as a side benefit so you'll open up a whole lot of cars to IT that never had manual trannys.

No ABS in IT.

[betamotorsports]

There are so many straw men being built and torn down in this thread that I feel like I'm in the Wizard of Oz. I'm just waiting for the Nazi comparison so I can invoke Goodwin's Law. Oh wait! I just did!

ABS is coming gentlemen probably within the next two years. We should figure out how to accommodate it and not fight it.

[Chip42]

simple question:
why accomodate ABS? what is the purpose?

[steve b]

... and we keep on embracing all new technology as it comes along. In 30 years we won't even need to be in the car. Just program in the course and send out our drone cars.

[MMiskoe]

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.

Greg - I will counter this to saying this. Being able to keep averything locked down so you spin in a straight line safer than zig-zaggin across the track. I don't think there's an argument there. Although everything you list there can fail and create a safety hazard. However, they all have to fail first. ABS systems in their normal course of their SOP can create lack of braking when you want to just get the car stopped.

- Bolts, nuts, screws, and other pieces of hardware

I assume this includes the nut at the wheel, the component that is responsible for most problems after they fail.

ABS can be a significant performance advantage. There is little or no way currently to police it to see that it is not being used for traction control now that we have open ECU's.

Unlike carbs vrs FI or better vrs worse suspension set ups, there is no reasonable way to retrofit an ABS system into a car that never had it. Therefore there is no way to allow a non-abs car to catch up to those that have it. Conversely, an ABS car can be made to run w/o it.

I can see that in the future there could be a need for alternate brake master cylinders to be allowed if the ABS systems of the future get more intergral w/ the master cyl.

ABS is an active driver assistance component. We don't even allow sway bars that we can adjust from the cockpit. From this stand point I'm surprised it even gets considered.

[Z3_GoCar]

I see it less of a rules creep for IT to accept Tilton adjustable master cylinders than to allow ABS and it's follow on stabillity augmented braking control. Imagine just stopping on the brakes and not have to every worry about releasing the pressure for bumps in the brake zone, being able to move the brake zone into the turn in and not worry about spinning out because one wheel will release enough pressure to keep you from spinning out.

[Bill Miller]

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.

Jeff,

Last I looked, the wording in the ITCS says that cockpit adjustable suspension is not allowed, unless originally fitted from the factory. So I'm thinking that if your car came w/ cockpit adjustable suspension, you're good to go. And what it doesn't say, is that you have to use the factory stuff.

As far as the ABS in IT thing, I'm really undecided. Some very good points on both sides of the issue.

[JeffYoung]

Good point about cockpit adjustability. I will check that rule.

We have a lot of ITR cars built -- way more than 5 or 6. We are in my view doing them a disservice by ignoring their situation.

The cleanest thing in my view is to allow ABS in the "next" class above ITR.

[Ron Earp]

[Sarcasm]

The SCCA has been doing just fine with its head in the sand. Why change things now?

[/Sarcasm]

Damn, all the other stuff I wrote went missing.

In short, while I don't wish to see ABS in existing IT classes ABS certainly isn't going anywhere as far as production cars are concerned. Sooner or later the SCCA will have to deal with it. What are pro series racing classes doing or planning to do? What is NASA doing or planning? NASA seems a bit more forward thinking on some items than the SCCA, be interesting to know what they are planning.