ABS in IT?

[betamotorsports]

NASA Pro Touring is the closest they have to IT and their rule set is nothing like IT. Its a base class, point mod concept and ABS is considered a no-point modification if your car came with it.

59) ABS (anti-lock braking system)--Only OEM systems offered specifically for the car model as a factory option. No OEM systems offered for a different car model or aftermarket systems are permitted.

[seckerich]

Grand Am allows it in ST and GS. Not allowed in Daytona Prototype and GT cars. Traction control banned as well. It is allowed in cars that came with it factory but all purpose built cars have it banned.

Too bad it was not instituted in ITR in the beginning. I would guess it was a little much for the CRB to swallow when they did not want the class in the first place. If you are ever going to give it a try ITR is the least amount of cars of the classes. I remember throwing away perfectly good remote res shocks and the CRB did not bat an eye. Not near as bad to add ABS from a junk yard car. Don't wait a year until everyone builds more cars and then add it back. Many of the ITR cars are just old ITS BMW's or PCA, etc. They already had it jerked anyway. Yes, some are new builds but very few. I bet 20 nationwide.

[JeffYoung]

Practically speaking, the earliest we could get this online is for 2012, so that is another year of ITR cars being built without ABS.

I still think we are in too deep with ITR to change the rule on them now.

Next class up the chain is an easier call, although I still have doubts/reservations about ABS and traction control in IT (which is the next "we have to deal with it" driver aid).

[StephenB]

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

K

Sorry for the delayed reply I was at work all day. When I was younger I did drive a bunch of Audi's with ABS, now that I think about it, I did always turn off the ABS with the button on the dash because "real drivers" didn't need ABS... well at least that is what I thought when I was in my teens

The controlled environment situation is from instructing at the Stevens Advanced Driver Education Program. I think they use a Ford Taures or Sable. Whatever that late 90's Ford passenger car was. Disabling the ABS is simply done by removing a fuse. We did accident avoidance over and over again in the exact same situation with and without ABS active. Honestly eye opening for me in what is most likely not an advanced system.

I now own a speed3 that has traction control and is HP limited to prevent torque steer... seems complex but interesting... it will barely scuff the tires now matter how hard I try even in the rain and in turns.

As far as my position on to allow it or not... not really sure. I agree with every post here except that it is less safe. Every other argument for and against I support.

Stephen

[Greg Amy]

my...lawn...get...off...my...lawn!!!!

[dickita15]

Practically speaking, the earliest we could get this online is for 2012, so that is another year of ITR cars being built without ABS.

I still think we are in too deep with ITR to change the rule on them now.

Next class up the chain is an easier call, although I still have doubts/reservations about ABS and traction control in IT (which is the next "we have to deal with it" driver aid).

The only problem with that is ITQ, the next class after R is a few years away in my mind.

I wish there was a way to pole the active R drivers.

[Greg Amy]

Pick a number - 150, 200 pounds? - and toss it on any car wishing to retain factory ABS. Then you can kick that can down the road, dealing with it later and avoid having to MANDATE removal of a stock components.

Call me "full of myself" (shockers, it'd be a first ) but were I pitted in a non-ABS car against someone with the same car with ABS, I'd bet a case of our favorite on the outcome...but I would need to ensure sobriety...after all, I don't want you claiming later you had a hangover...just sayin'...

[Ron Earp]

I wish there was a way to pole the active R drivers.

Jeezus Dick......keep that to yourself.....

[JeffYoung]

We've gotten 8? maybe 10? letters? I think all were opposed, I need to check.

The only problem with that is ITQ, the next class after R is a few years away in my mind.

I wish there was a way to pole the active R drivers.

[JoshS]

I've been avoiding getting involved with this thread because I'm both an ITR driver and also on the ITAC, and I don't want my personal opinion construed as "the plan of the ITAC." It isn't.

But I think Kirk has it totally right. I think there aren't that many ITR cars and it's not that big a deal for those who have removed it, to add it back if they want to. We have to do it someday, so why not now? In the interest of full disclosure though, I did a brand new build in winter '06/'07, and I chose to keep the ABS hardware in the car just in case this rule ever changed. I think it's a performance advantage and I'd use it if I could.

Now ... I really hate the idea of "pick which rules you want to follow, and that will determine your weight." As in, one ITR BMW 325i might have a minimum weight of 2765, and that other one that looks just like it might have a minimum of 2965. I hate it. One weight per make/model/year/engine please!

I don't think there's an ITR car for which the factory ABS would not be an advantage, therefore, I'd give weight breaks to the *3* (now 6, with those old 911s we added) cars listed that never had any ABS available, as part of the weight-assignment process (it would be a subtractor if there was no ABS available). For cars that had it available but for which the driver thinks it's not an improvement, well, go ahead and remove it, it would still be allowable. For the people that did a new build and tossed the parts, well, nothing would be forcing them to go put it back before their next race, but if they felt it would be an advantage, sure, they would want to go back and re-acquire those parts sooner rather than later. I see the inconvenience, but for the good of the class & category, this would be my vote.

However, we put this out for member input, and got very little. But with one exception, every letter we got was from someone in that last category, who didn't want to be inconvenienced like that. The other letter was from someone without an ITR car but who felt that it was a bad step down a slippery slope. Add that to the original letter requesting the change, and we have exactly one member writing in requesting the change. That's not enough positive feedback to support a change, as, as Kirk pointed out, the status quo wins without compelling arguments and support.

[Ron Earp]

However, we put this out for member input, and got very little. But with one exception, every letter we got was from someone in that last category, who didn't want to be inconvenienced like that. The other letter was from someone without an ITR car but who felt that it was a bad step down a slippery slope. Add that to the original letter requesting the change, and we have exactly one member writing in requesting the change. That's not enough positive feedback to support a change, as, as Kirk pointed out, the status quo wins without compelling arguments and support.

I hate to bring it up, but after the motor mount fiasco should the membership still believe that member input has a bearing on the ITAC recommendations? I really shouldn't beat that horse but I'm still weary that the ITAC can/will do what the ITAC wishes and that may or may not agree with the majority of member input.

[lateapex911]

Well, I know which letter Josh was describing was mine, LOL.

I see both sides of the issue, but, as a guy who loves the unpredictable challenge rain racing brings, I really want ABS kept off our cars.

Yea, in many cases, it won't make a difference, BUT, two equal cars, and two equal drivers, ...there ARE situations where it can be advantageous. But more than that, we have open ECUs. Allow 4 wheel speed sensors, and suddenly, guys like Vaughn Scott will have a whole kettle of fish that most of us can not even imagine.

That's a slippery slope, and it ups the game....for everyone.

Braking is a skill, like throttle modulation, steering modulation, timing, and clutch modulation in downshifting. And it's forbidden in all the top racing series, even the technological leader, F1. And I'm very glad it is, as the racing is far better. Separates the men from the boys.

[Terry Hanushek]

Josh

I think there aren't that many ITR cars and it's not that big a deal for those who have removed it, to add it back if they want to.

FYI

We had fourteen ITR cars enter one or more rounds of our Northeast Division Pro IT series this year. I don't know how many of them were ITS cars which were 'promoted' and I don't know how much effort / expense it would by to retrofit ABS on these cars.

Terry

[dj10]

I will say this one damn last time! BECAUSE OF THE DISPARITY BETWEEN ABS SYSTEMS & YEARS THERE IS NO WAY YOU SHOULD ALLOW ABS IN IT RACING!!! If you want to run ABS go production, National racing, SPO or SPU. If you can't drive without ABS you shouldn't be allowed to be on a race track, unless you drive Porsche, BMW, Corvette etc. driving schools.

[madrabbit15]

Why does there seem to be this push from the club to have ABS in ITR, when from what I am hearing, all of the reponses were "NO". Isnt this a club to serve its members or are we working from a representative democracy here?

In any case, having built an ITR car in the last year, with the rules in the last year, I am against ABS. If for no other reason than to replumb/wire and find a good abs unit, that is not out of some yard car with 100k on it. Which I am sure is the same reason for most of the responses, but whats wrong with that?

It is just like the emission systems on IT cars, that is some of the stuff that we just know has to go when we start building. There is nothing wrong with just saying IT cars will not have ABS from now on.

From all of the BMW guys I have talked to that raced an E46 in Grand Am with ABS, they claimed it was a huge advantage. If I have to because members on committees want us to now add it back, then whatever, lets just not change our mind back the other way 2 years from now, like the shock deal a few years ago. I would like it to be made part of the record as to how many were for and against and which way the committee chose to go.

I do like the idea of the weight addition for ABS or without. Makes complete sense.

[Spec Volcanic]

BECAUSE OF THE DISPARITY BETWEEN ABS SYSTEMS & YEARS THERE IS NO WAY YOU SHOULD ALLOW ABS IN IT RACING!!!

But near is a disparity between all types of things...
Engine type, displacement, valve size, susp. type, more things then I care to list.

That's why we have different Class and weights...

Up here in Canada (WMCA) OEM ABS (no aftermarket)is aloud in IT, removal is also aloud. I don't have ABS and about 1/2 the cars do, is there some advange? Likely, but it has never cost me a spot is a race.

I look at IT this why, It is IMPROVED Touring, meaning with the expection of safety we are taking a street car and a making some small improvements to it. If it a car has OEM ABS, T/C, Varible valve timing, that's the way in goes. We/you can try and adjust weights and class to correct for it, but there will always be cars that are more competive and there will always be underdogs.

If rules don't move forward with time they will die, we won't be able to race CRX's, E30, FB and FC forever and some point it will be 2010 civic's and 370Z, at which time ABS and DCT's will have to be considered.
Today may not be the day the rules have to change, but that day will come.

[JoshS]

Why does there seem to be this push from the club to have ABS in ITR, when from what I am hearing, all of the reponses were "NO". Isnt this a club to serve its members or are we working from a representative democracy here?

There is no push from the club. The background is that a member (not an ITAC member, or anyone even close to an ITAC member from what I can tell) wrote in a letter asking us to allow it. The ITAC published the request as a "WDYT" (What Do You Think?) to see if other people agreed with the author. There has been no rule change recommendation. I'm not sure why you think there is any pressure. This idea did NOT come from the ITAC.

The stuff I posted above should not be construed as a "push from the club" ... it was just my personal opinion. It's true that I think it's a good idea to allow it. But I'm just one voice of 8 on the ITAC. As you have seen in this thread, other ITAC members completely disagree with me. Please work with me to try to separate my opinions from those of the ITAC as a body.

[madrabbit15]

Josh,

My mistake, from my misunderstanding. I appologize.

I still dont want ABS.........

[dj10]

Traction control is illegal, why is that? What is ABS? It's another form of traction control. He who has the latest car model, the highest cost per vehichle will have the best ABS System especially in the rain/ or snow. :~)

[GKR_17]

with one exception, every letter we got was from someone in that last category, who didn't want to be inconvenienced like that.

That was only one of the six reasons I listed to oppose this idea.

What about the cars already classed (more to come) that have ESC? They get traction control even though it's not legal for anyone else. Then there's Vaughan's custom ABS unit from Bosch. Do you really think stuff like that won't creep in somehow? Anybody remember how we got to open ECUs? The exact same logic applies to ABS.