A Poll Regarding the IT Rules Set

[spawpoet]

I've tried, but I just can't contain myself anymore.

What Cameron said! lol......

I would agree with that as well. I only pointed out the ECU as an example of creep and something more threatening than a wash bottle, but it's done and we can't go back. If we are going to creep we gotta creep fairly. It's probably best (meaning most fair) that all the sensors be open.

 

[JeffYoung]

I have too much of a vested interest in the sensor rule to debate it objectively....I'll leave that one to you guys.....

 

[jjjanos]

The Problem With the ECU rule is that it wasn't truly opened up. The current Sensor rule heavily favors some cars and punishes others.

Not true. The sacred process which produces exact and correct weights without the need of human intervention must already be making adjustments for those with the correct sensors versus those that lack them versus those that drive antiques with carbs.

 

[spawpoet]

Not true. The sacred process which produces exact and correct weights without the need of human intervention must already be making adjustments for those with the correct sensors versus those that lack them versus those that drive antiques with carbs.

While I've been around a few years, I'm new enough that I'm not sure about this. Does the process already adjust for these variables? Did it adjust for carb vs. FI BEFORE opening up ECU's. Are the same adjustment still in play after the changes that have been made?

 

[lateapex911]

While I've been around a few years, I'm new enough that I'm not sure about this. Does the process already adjust for these variables? Did it adjust for carb vs. FI BEFORE opening up ECU's. Are the same adjustment still in play after the changes that have been made?

YEs, and no. Depends on the car, and the point in history. Certainly early on, weights were set, and THEN the ECU rule was opened to some degree. (chips, in the box). Now, it is assumed that ECU gains are part of the package.

As to sensor ease of installation/usage, no, the Process doesn't parse car models that fine. It is (the sensor package) under discussion.

 

[lateapex911]

..... ECU as an example of creep ....., but it's done and we can't go back. .

Just curious, should the ECU rule (assuming it never opened) remain "stock"?

 

[spawpoet]

Just curious, should the ECU rule (assuming it never opened) remain "stock"?

I think it was pointed out before that some ECU cars had no way of getting around rev limiters etc (that are integral to stock units) without changing/modifying the ECU's, so I'm not sure opening of ECU's could have been avoided. Call it inevitable creep. The cars we race have changed, and the rules have to change with them. As long as all cars are kept as close to equal as possible that is all we can ask for. I (selfishly) don't want to see carbd cars left behind as ECU's have opened up, but at the same time I don't see yet where they really have been. I.E. I see well built, well driven versions of my carbd car as currently competitive.

 

[JeffYoung]

In the last 18 months, I've done way more reading than I wanted to on EFI v. carb. I had to make the choice to spend the money to do the conversion on the TR8.

My car is a bit unique because the FI intake manifold is significanlty better than the carb one, which gives peak gains that would not be there otherwise.

Which leads me to my core point. EFI is not "magic." At the end of a day, and this is backed up by all kinds of data from muscle car land, EFI will probably not make any more peak power than a carb'ed car.

What EFI does give you is, at least in my case, more torque and far more area under the curve via being able to more precisely tune timing and mixture across the rev range.

Carbed cars can do this is "rough" fashion via messing with the advance curve and the neddles/jets, but it is always a trade off (better in one area of teh RPM than another, etc.).

But "old school" ECUs can be VERY bad. Mine in particular, which doesn't fuel over 4500 rpm on purpose and has a terrible stock advance curve for emissions reasons.

Based on this, for my car anyway, the way these things line up is:

"Open" EFI is significantly better than "open" Carbs which is WAY BETTER than stock EFI.

Where I am going with this is that I think many stock ECUs would actually be at a disadvantage to carb'ed cars wthout the ability to tune fuel and timing.

Make of that what you will. If we went back to stock ECUs, I'd have to ditch the ($15k) EFI conversion I did and go back to carbs.

 

[callard]

The Weber carb that is allowed for some IT-B cars has sequentially opening throttle plates. Within the present rules, changes can be made to idle air bleeds, main jets, air correctors and emulsion tubes. No matter what you do within these rules, the carb still goes a bit lean at high RPMs or runs like crap in the mid range. Since ECUs are free, shouldn't the drivers of these Weber carbed cars be allowed similar freedoms? High speed enrichment holes drilled into the carb body and concurrent opening throttle plates? If so, some of the existing cars will go faster and others won't. Just sayin'....
Chuck

 

[spawpoet]

"Where I am going with this is that I think many stock ECUs would actually be at a disadvantage to carb'ed cars wthout the ability to tune fuel and timing."


This is appropriate to one question I am asking. When weights were set for cars pre-open ECU was the fact that carbd cars had more tuning capability at the time factored in to how they were processed or have carbd cars had an edge all along?

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

The Weber carb that is allowed for some IT-B cars has sequentially opening throttle plates. Within the present rules, changes can be made to idle air bleeds, main jets, air correctors and emulsion tubes. No matter what you do within these rules, the carb still goes a bit lean at high RPMs or runs like crap in the mid range. Since ECUs are free, shouldn't the drivers of these Weber carbed cars be allowed similar freedoms? High speed enrichment holes drilled into the carb body and concurrent opening throttle plates? If so, some of the existing cars will go faster and others won't. Just sayin'....
Chuck

While I agree that cars with ECU's are able to tune significantly better, is it my imagination or is there a significant % of the cars with carbs making way more than 25% over stock? Think about that for a minute. While under a microscope they may be at a 'disadvantage', when you look big picture, they may be enjoying some power advantages (some of them).

Listen, I would take EFI over a carb any day (assuming you can get both to work right) but given the era that some of these cars came from, I bet they make a good bit of gains percentage-wise. We just did a request that asked to be re-run and the resultant weight was NOT lower.

 

[DavidM]

If we are going to creep we gotta creep fairly. It's probably best (meaning most fair) that all the sensors be open.

As to sensor ease of installation/usage, no, the Process doesn't parse car models that fine. It is (the sensor package) under discussion.

Since ECUs are free, shouldn't the drivers of these Weber carbed cars be allowed similar freedoms? High speed enrichment holes drilled into the carb body and concurrent opening throttle plates? Chuck

These are just from this last page. I didn't include JJJanos' sarcastic comment about the weighting process. Apparently he would like to spend all his time researching cars, motors, ECUs, etc. so that he can more correctly weight them. While he has valid arguments, at some point you have to say we've done the best we can. I think we've reached that point.

That sound you hear is the vortex spinning faster. Leave IT the f alone for at least a little while.

David

 

[spawpoet]

"Listen, I would take EFI over a carb any day (assuming you can get both to work right) but given the era that some of these cars came from, I bet they make a good bit of gains percentage-wise."

You mean the Mesozoic era? What you are saying is entirely possible. All we can ask is that significant variables between cars are either equalized within the rules (allowing all ECU cars free run on there sensors), or accounted for through the process. If the antiques have more power potential the process should account for this factor as much as it should account for the advantages of FI vs. carbs. In this case how would would you equalize a 280z with FI, with 240 and 260z's that have carbs? Engine architecture is the same, and supposedly the 280 has better flowing options in terms of head design (though lower comp.) and of course greater displacement.

 

[jjjanos]

These are just from this last page. I didn't include JJJanos' sarcastic comment about the weighting process. Apparently he would like to spend all his time researching cars, motors, ECUs, etc. so that he can more correctly weight them. While he has valid arguments, at some point you have to say we've done the best we can. I think we've reached that point.

Of course it was sarcasm and it's intent was to point out the foolishness of relying on a entirely objective process. While I like things to be transparent and repeatable, but not at the cost of rationality.

I'd like to change my vote - leave the damn bottles on the cars.

 

[lateapex911]

While he has valid arguments, at some point you have to say we've done the best we can. I think we've reached that point.

That sound you hear is the vortex spinning faster. Leave IT the f alone for at least a little while.

David

LOL, that sound has been playing for years. Sometimes it sounds off key, other times it's a pretty sweet harmony. But, it will always play.


We're looking at the sensor situation, and discussing it's merits.

Regarding the intricacies of car to car abilities to take advantage of their particular carb, or their particular fuel injection setup, it's just not in the cards for IT. 350 cars over a 42 year span.

We'll never get them all balanced on the head of a pin. Not going to happen. Ever.

In my opinion, I think we'd like to apply the process to each of them*, account for their individual physical properties to a somewhat medium fine level, and, in cases where they don't fit the standard (rotaries, cars under/over rated from the factory, overachievers, etc) apply repeatable corrections based on data and evidence.

If we can do that, we'll worry about washer bottles and other such stuff, but honestly, we have enough big picture stuff in the works that washer bottles is just noise.

We want to avoid overdogs, sure, but the cream will rise. And some cars, like mine, are just not going to fit the process.

And you know what? In most of the cases, that's ok. I fully accept that my car, for example (an ITA RX-7) has had it's day in the sun, and that fighting for greater equality is putting the of the few ahead of the needs of the many. Some cars just won't be top dogs, and there's not much that can be done, short of re-orging the classes. Which would just create other issues.

*(or more exactly, each that hasn't been processed, and is in need of processing. Member requests seem to be a good method of attending to that)

 

[JeffYoung]

Agree with most of Jake's post although feel the "washer bottle" issue is bigger picture than he does (honest disagreement) -- it's more about dual purpose vestiges of many kinds.

Spaw, to answer your question -- was the diffference between carb and EFI cars accounted for in the process -- the answer is not specifically.

As I understand the history, and understand how things work now, that is all rolled up in the expected power multiplier for a particular. For example, even though a 944 is EFI, it's been fairly well established via dyno sheets that you aren't going to get as much gain out of that motor as you would, for example, a Z car or a carb'ed TR8.

So in some ways, the process is "better" than a standard carb or EFI adder/subtractor, in that it does, in a very rough way, try to be car specific in determining power potential.

Now, again, Jake is right. There is no way we can do that with 100% accuracy for all cars. Not possible, but we try to get it as "right" as we can and go from there.

 

[callard]

Jeff,
Are you saying that the 944 (another Porsche) doesn't get the magical 25% horsepower increase that the process is based on?
Chuck

 

[JeffYoung]

I don't know for sure, but I think that is right. I think it was 15% but Jake can answer it definitively.

 

[Knestis]

The 944 hasn't been reviewed since February 2008, when we started keeping a consolidated record of reviews and recommendations.

K

 

[spawpoet]

Thank you Jake and Jeff. I agree the best you guys can do is get close, and that inevitably means some cars will be on the positive side of close, and others on the negative. And that what's in the best interest for the broadest group of IT racers is the direction the ITAC must push. IMHO most pro series could take a few lessons from how SCCA has achieved parity within IT. At the end of the day most IT competitors would be better served focusing on making themselves better drivers than worrying so much whether their car is fairly classed. I apologize for all the questions, and really appreciate you guys taking the time to answer them.