September Fastrack

[Greg Amy]

Allowed only if used as a "gauge" and not as an input to the ECU?

Correct.

But, given it can be added as a gauge, and the ECU is free, and wiring/connections to the ECU are free, it's gonna be damn hard to police, especially if a narrow-band ECU is also installed.

[Knestis]

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

[seckerich]

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.

[lateapex911]

Thats a very interesting post, Steve.

[gran racing]

but recommendations for weight changes on review - going back several months now - are on hold.

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.

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.

[Jeremy Billiel]

So should we be emailing our board members to support additonal actions?

[lateapex911]

Here's *My* take on it. I'm not privy to the inside info Steve seems to have.

But, we've recently, as many of you know, spent a ton of time on ITAC con calls going over the Process. Certain areas were given attention with the goals to be consistent, repeatable, and transparent. "modules" of the process that were subjective are still a bit subjective, but we now have clear guidelines and a framework within which to apply the subjectivity and corrections/adjustments.

A major concern was to ensure that future ITACs would have a clear blueprint with which to operate.

Quick history. As mentioned above, in the beginning, IT was a 'second citizen" and was allowed to exist IF there were no weight changes and if it was a category that required no upkeep from the CRB.

But it got popular, and attracted a lot of racers. Who made waves, and pointed out how good it COULD be if just a few things were cleaned up, but that required a change in the original charter.

The ITAC fought for, and won that right, but the BoD was skeptical, and wanted minimal changes. So, we went through the ITCS, and hit the known issues, and the really out of whack stuff.. (The Great Realignment)

In the normal course of business, we get requests for changes, and they require some subjectivity, and sometimes actions that are outside the standard.

So, we've come up with the "Process 2.0". Same as before, now tighter, repeatable, and documented. And we want to do 'born on dating' too. (some of us, actually. A note on the ITCS spec line listing the last processed date would answer lots of racers questions)

While we were getting the house in order, requests stacked up. That flood of changes has gotten to the CRB/BoD, and they are wanting to see the actual 2.0 version. "Show us the math" so to speak, I guess. So we are presenting it to them.

At least thats what *I* think is going on. Just a standard housekeeping step that the BoD wants to do. (I guess/hope!)

As always, if you think the ITAC is on the right path, let 'em know! If we are going astray, let 'em know! It seems like now would be a good time to drop them a letter. If the BoD sees that the IT racing public is confident in their leaders, then perhaps they will be too.

[Knestis]

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. ...

That's what I don't actually know. Recommendations have gone in, answers have not come out.

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.

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.

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

[BruceG]

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.

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?

[tom91ita]

Correct.

But, given it can be added as a gauge, and the ECU is free, and wiring/connections to the ECU are free, it's gonna be damn hard to police, especially if a narrow-band ECU is also installed.

hey chuck, if you are reading this, all the O2 sensors i have seen are only about 13/16" across. that seems pretty narrow to me.

given tGA's comments above, what is the basis for it not being allowed?

[jdrago1]

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]

[gran racing]

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.

[seckerich]

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]

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.

[Bill Miller]

Correct.

But, given it can be added as a gauge, and the ECU is free, and wiring/connections to the ECU are free, it's gonna be damn hard to police, especially if a narrow-band ECU is also installed.

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:

The Court reminds everyone that per GCR 9.1.7.D. “No permitted component/
modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function.”

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.

[seckerich]

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.

[tnord]

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.

[Bill Miller]

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,

That was my point. The way FT reads is just.

2. IT – Allow a wide band 02 sensor (Bader). A wide band sensor functions differently than a narrow band sensor.

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).

If that's not what they meant, they need to add some clarification.

[Bill Miller]

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.

[seckerich]

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.

[Bill Miller]

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.

But that's not what's printed Steve. It says 'allow use of a W-B O2 sensor', nothing about 'in place of' anything. I know that the response talks about a W-B functioning different than a N-B, but it also says that the use of one is not approved. As I said, I think some clarification is needed. It's this kind of casualness w/ language that's gotten things so out of wack in the GCR. Not sure why they can't be a little more specific about things. Agreed re: point about TB and CoA.

As far as a gray area, there is none. I looked in the ITCS, and I don't see where wiring to the ECU is free, as Greg claims. I see that you can modify or replace the computer, and that you can add a TPS and its associated wiring, as well as a MAP and its associated wiring. The MAF can't be changed, and other sensors can be replaced w/ equivalent units. It goes on to state that wires in the engine wiring harness may be modified or replaced. Clearly, a W-B O2 sensor is not equivalent to a N-B O2 sensor.

Greg can use his ECU to do data logging, but please show me where the rules allow him to run additional wires to it, other than for a TPS and a MAP.