One...more....time...

[rlward]

Sorry guys, this all sounds too familiar, like how about wheel sizes; you know, diameter and width changes. I think I have learned to just go with the flow, 'cause the majority on this forum does not want to change anthing that may: 1. cost them money, 2. be an advantage to anyone else, 3. update to current practices of the rest of the racing world. We are, after all, Improved Touring, what other racing is out there that would be worth even looking at their rules? Nah!

However, there will be a rule change if you can't stop the cheating. (ECU) SO my suggestion is for all of you that want changes to cheat by making your change in the mounts or batteries or wheels or what ever. Then when enough racers are cheating, the non-cheating group will want to change the rules 'cause they can't enforce the old rules. simple.

[lateapex911]

Roger, the ECU is a terrible example. I was very involved in the current rule, and it's genesis has nothing to do with cheating.
The first rule that allowed chips in boxes might have had some people claiming that it was due to the difficulty in policing, but really, that's not logical either. If carbed cars had the ability to change mixture and timing, why shouldn't ECU cars have the same rule allowances?

I'll make it simple for you: The existing rule is in place mostly because modern day ECUS are, or will be, overly cumbersome and limiting when it comes to building a race car.
I bet you point to the spherical bearing rule next....

[rlward]

Carb cars can't change mixture or timing on the fly. That's a no brainer.

[gran racing]

You do realize that Jake's car is carbed, right?

The ECU rule is a fantastic example of why the three items you wrote are wrong. LOL

[Bill Miller]

Roger, the ECU is a terrible example. I was very involved in the current rule, and it's genesis has nothing to do with cheating.
The first rule that allowed chips in boxes might have had some people claiming that it was due to the difficulty in policing, but really, that's not logical either. If carbed cars had the ability to change mixture and timing, why shouldn't ECU cars have the same rule allowances?

I'll make it simple for you: The existing rule is in place mostly because modern day ECUS are, or will be, overly cumbersome and limiting when it comes to building a race car.
I bet you point to the spherical bearing rule next....

Jake,

I was around through most of the ECU issue. EFI cars already had the ability to change the resistance values. The way I remember it, the original iteration of the ECU rule was 'stuff whatever you can in the original box w/ the original connections'. That was in response to not being able to police re-flashed chips. The 'stuff it in the original box' thing was a great example of trying to 'legalize' the cheating w/o giving away the farm. The problem was, not all cars had the same size boxes, and you had guys adding vacuum circuits where none existed initially. The current 'use whatever you want' model was a reaction to the fact that the 'stuff it in the original box' version didn't work.

To claim that the open ECU rule was the result of wanting to give EFI folks the same flexibility as the carb'd folks is disingenuous and revisionist history. As far as looking to the future, what ever happened to 'warts and all'? And IT rules written for what may come down the road in the future? That's a new one.

[lateapex911]

Jake,

I was around through most of the ECU issue. EFI cars already had the ability to change the resistance values. The way I remember it, the original iteration of the ECU rule was 'stuff whatever you can in the original box w/ the original connections'. That was in response to not being able to police re-flashed chips. The 'stuff it in the original box' thing was a great example of trying to 'legalize' the cheating w/o giving away the farm. The problem was, not all cars had the same size boxes, and you had guys adding vacuum circuits where none existed initially. The current 'use whatever you want' model was a reaction to the fact that the 'stuff it in the original box' version didn't work.

To claim that the open ECU rule was the result of wanting to give EFI folks the same flexibility as the carb'd folks is disingenuous and revisionist history. As far as looking to the future, what ever happened to 'warts and all'? And IT rules written for what may come down the road in the future? That's a new one.

Actually Bill, the reason that the "whatever fits in the box" came to be, according to the people I spoke with who were involved in writing the rule, was to allow guys who had boards that had non removable chips an equal chance by allowing 'piggyback' boards. The idea was that as long as the piggy back board fit in the original box, the level of modification would be similar to a chip replacement or reflash.
Now, maybe some were concerned about cheating, but really, that's more a competitor issue, and the ITAC has always taken that stance. Yes, they try to write clear rules, but, it's not up to them to enforce them.

Anyway, I was the guy who brought he ECU rule into discussion, and one issue that was seriously considered WAS the fact that ECUs were getting more and more invasive, and cars were finding themselves in tough situations. (limp modes, etc). OBVIOUSLY, if we had a few issues then, we would have MORE issues in the future.
And we had issues with the rule as it stood, which was that some cars were using full blown replacement ECUs while others couldn't fit an extra atom of air in their box.
So, the reasons to change the rule had a lot to do with the availability of reasonable to program/buy/install ECUs, the increasing complexity of stock ECUs, and the desire to have rules that affect genres of cars as equitably as possible.

Roger, carbed cars have the ability to alter the fuel curve over the rpm and the load range.

[Bill Miller]

Actually Bill, the reason that the "whatever fits in the box" came to be, according to the people I spoke with who were involved in writing the rule, was to allow guys who had boards that had non removable chips an equal chance by allowing 'piggyback' boards. The idea was that as long as the piggy back board fit in the original box, the level of modification would be similar to a chip replacement or reflash.
Now, maybe some were concerned about cheating, but really, that's more a competitor issue, and the ITAC has always taken that stance. Yes, they try to write clear rules, but, it's not up to them to enforce them.

Jake, I don't really disagree with that. The issue is, there would have been no need for the "stuff it in the box" rule if people didn't feel that it was impossible to police the cheaters using re-flashed or swapped chips. Rather than leaving the rule as written, and letting the competitors deal w/ the cheating issue, they took the stance that people that could, would cheat, they couldn't / didn't want to try and deal with it, so they were going to 'legalize' the cheating so that everyone could do it. They thought that by keeping the original box w/ the original computer and connections, they could prevent people from coming up w/ full-blown systems like Motec, etc. History shows that they were wrong.

The end result is what has come to be the poster child for rules creep in IT.

I do understand and appreciate the need to 'look to the future' in terms of writing rules. And I guess the current ECU rule does address what would happen if you had a car that would only run in limp mode if you disable the ABS and traction control systems. You scrap the stock computer and go w/ something else.

Roger, carbed cars have the ability to alter the fuel curve over the rpm and the load range.

Dynamically?

[rlward]

Jake,
A carbed car does not have the computer, O2 sensor, MAF, or MAP (or any of the other acronyms) hence does not have the capability to calculate/change/adjust the A/F ratio during the race as conditions dictate as the FI cars do. We change jets and other hardware within the carb to get the best overal based on expected weather, current fuel. This is now pretty much a dead horse.

Chapter 2
I am not voicing a yea or a nay for the proposal at hand. I have seen a proposed change that seems perfectly logical for one person or group met with tremendous resistance from others that will not even be affected by the change. Respondents reply, "not on my watch" or suggest you go race production ....who the heck do they think they are? Are our number up enough we can chase these people away? Most rsponses are well thought out, but some are better left unsaid.

Chapter 3
IT was conceived and created years before I started racing. As time goes on, changes are made to accept newer cars. If those changes are not made, IT will die a slow death.
Consider when changes are made to rules that affect newer cars only, the older cars are automatically delt a competitive blow. Maybe the way to preserve our numbers is to let older cars evolve within the confines of the rules that affect the newer cars. That is, if the newer cars have FI stock, and there is a stock FI set up you could get from a wrecking yard or the dealer, maybe that should be allowed. It woul be an expansion of the update/backdate rule, I know, but food for thought. Additionally, it would allow racers to do what we do (continually develop our cars) and would still be sort of in line with the current philosphy. Just a thought, maybe not worth much, but my 2 centavos anyway.

Another note, I still want to have 7" wide rims in ITB.....easier to get, etc, same o, same o. No I don't want to go to prod, but could and would if ITB numbers keep falling off.

Thanks for letting me sound off. Hope things change for the better, cause right now it kinda sucks.

[lateapex911]

Jake,
A carbed car does not have the computer, O2 sensor, MAF, or MAP (or any of the other acronyms) hence does not have the capability to calculate/change/adjust the A/F ratio during the race as conditions dictate as the FI cars do. We change jets and other hardware within the carb to get the best overal based on expected weather, current fuel. This is now pretty much a dead horse.

Roger, keep in mind that both cars are classed based on stock HP. So a 2L carbed car likely starts out at a different hp (and weight) than a 2L injected car. Further, it could be argued that the injected car will have a more difficult time achieving the expected gains, but that's very dependent car to car, and I think it falls into the 'warts and all" and 'noise' aspects in most cases. So each car is allowed to make equivalent changes to it's fuel systems.

Chapter 2
Chapter 3:
Consider when changes are made to rules that affect newer cars only, the older cars are automatically delt a competitive blow. ..... No I don't want to go to prod, but could and would if ITB numbers keep falling off.

Thanks for letting me sound off. Hope things change for the better, cause right now it kinda sucks.

I disagree that old cars are automatically dealt a competitive blow...yes, that HAS happened in the past, (a decade or more ago) but it was due to the total lack of a systemic process. I see old cars running in lockstep with new ones quite often. Also, old cars DO disappear..naturally. I know certain old cars have 'issues' currently (like the Volvo, which has it's own special case in IT but I don't buy the 'new cars are screwing old cars' broad statements.

Also, in certain regions, ITB is THE most healthy class going. The NE sees big ITB fields and MARRS races are huge throwdowns in ITB. I bet the ARRC race saw the same ITB turnout as the ITS guys, or very close.

And by "right now it kinda sucks"....what do you mean?

[Bill Miller]

Roger, keep in mind that both cars are classed based on stock HP. So a 2L carbed car likely starts out at a different hp (and weight) than a 2L injected car. Further, it could be argued that the injected car will have a more difficult time achieving the expected gains, but that's very dependent car to car, and I think it falls into the 'warts and all" and 'noise' aspects in most cases. So each car is allowed to make equivalent changes to it's fuel systems.

Being able to drop in a Megasquirt system is the same as being able to change jets and adjust the fuel pressure? Really?

And I'd like to hear the argument that suggests that an EFI car would have a harder time getting a 25% gain over a carb'd car (all else being equal).