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?
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?
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
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.
Steve Eckerich
ITS 18 Speedsource RX7
ITR RX8 (under construction)
Thats a very interesting post, Steve.
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
for sale: 2003 Audi A4 Quattro, clean, serviced, dark green, auto, sunroof, tan leather with 75K miles.
IT-7 #57 RX-7 race car
Porsche 1973 911E street/fun car
BMW 2003 M3 cab, sun car.
GMC Sierra Tow Vehicle
New England Region
lateapex911(at)gmail(dot)com
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.but recommendations for weight changes on review - going back several months now - are on hold.
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.
Last edited by gran racing; 08-21-2009 at 11:20 AM.
Dave Gran
Real Roads, Real Car Guys – Real World Road Tests
Go Ahead - Take the Wheel's Free Guide to Racing
So should we be emailing our board members to support additonal actions?
Jeremy Billiel
That's what I don't actually know. Recommendations have gone in, answers have not come out.
I said so much to our Board liaisons in our last two con calls, so I'm totally comfortable repeating it here: I don't believe that it's an accurate characterization of the situation to suggest that we are "reshuffling the entire deck" or making "major changes" (as has been suggested elsewhere). As Jake describes, we've made the "process" and the practices around it more repeatable, more consistent, and less susceptible to biases or manipulation. With the exception of a percentage FWD adjuster rather than big chunk subtractors, the MATH is essentially the same as what was theoretically applied during the Great Realignment - with its roots in (Hi, Bill!) the "Miller Ratio" born in c.2000 discussions in this very forum.Originally Posted by Jim Drago
My personal take on the volume question is that IT racers are seeing that inequities - like very similar cars listed at very different weights - can now be rectified, so are requesting that we take a look at their issues. Like Steve (I think), I view that as a vote of confidence in the current situation. If it seems like there are a lot of "changes" being referred to the Board, it's because a lot of questions are coming in from members. The number of issues are finite, as are the lines in the ITCS, and I firmly believe that they will settle themselves down in short order - particularly if we implemented a "born on" date in each ITCS listing.
Now, my fear (old fart paranoid delusion, maybe?) is that some members might simply not be comfortable giving up the option of subjectively adjusting weights based on what they see on their local tracks. I've been watching the Club orient itself around that kind of thinking - what I called the "Doug Peterson Effect" in a response to a member survey back in the late '80s - for a quarter century. I hope I'm wrong about this.
K
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?
1985 CRX Si competed in Solo II: AS, CS, DS, GS
1986 CRX Si competed in: SCCA Solo II CSP, SCCA ITA, SCCA ITB, NASA H5
1988 CRX Si competed in ITA & STL
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]
Last edited by jdrago1; 08-21-2009 at 02:58 PM.
www.EASTSTREET.COM
crb member
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.
Dave Gran
Real Roads, Real Car Guys – Real World Road Tests
Go Ahead - Take the Wheel's Free Guide to Racing
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.
Steve Eckerich
ITS 18 Speedsource RX7
ITR RX8 (under construction)
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:
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.The Court reminds everyone that per GCR 9.1.7.D. “No permitted component/
modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function.”
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 Eckerich
ITS 18 Speedsource RX7
ITR RX8 (under construction)
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.
Travis Nordwald
1996 ITA Miata
KC Region
Steve,
That was my point. The way FT reads is just.
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).2. IT – Allow a wide band 02 sensor (Bader). A wide band sensor functions differently than a narrow band sensor.
If that's not what they meant, they need to add some clarification.
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.
Bill as Greg stated it was a denial to a request to use a wide band O2 in place of the narrow band. Unless it is a technical bullitin or from the court of appeals it is irrelevant to todays rule book. They did nothing to change the gray area Greg is exploiting. Your factory computer (if you have one) runs in both open and closed loop. Any replacement can do the same. I understand what you want it to say but it doesn't. Anyone is still free to run the WB setups as a stand alone gauge by todays rule book. I datalog every test session in my Motec and disconnect the O2 to race.
Steve Eckerich
ITS 18 Speedsource RX7
ITR RX8 (under construction)
First, you know this is just a mental exercise, right?
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...
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.“No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function.”
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
Bookmarks