For me the bottom line still is it is far eaiser to replumb a car (if I can do -- I couldn't even change brake pads when I started racing -- anyone can) than to deal with the issues this raises. It's a close call, with good points on either side. In that situation, I say no, but interested in the debate.
1. Point One -- Agreed. I don't see the safety issue. I see it as an advantage.
2. Point Two -- Agreed, but I still see driving aids (more below) like ABS as a fundamentally different.
3. Point Three -- Agreed, but it becomes just another factor we can't account for. I don't WANT to have an ABS adder/subtractor. The easiest way to do that is not allow ABS, especially given how easy it is, in my view, to just plumb a car normally.
4. Point Four -- Agreed. I do not see ABS as a safety issue.
5. Point Five -- Disagree. You aren't fundamentally changing a basic IT characteristic of a car by saying no ABS. We already say no traction control for example. I'll have to check, but wouldn't cockpit adjustable suspensions like with many cars with "sport" buttons that stiffen shocks, etc. be illegal, not allowed? I'm not saying a car has to put on smaller brakes. I'm saying it has to remove a computer based driver aid that is not NECESSARY to race.
6. Point Six -- Disagree. It's certainly easier to replumb a brake system than to say install a cage.
7. Point Seven -- Disagree. We already let it go too long. Some of the anti-letters were from guys with ABS equipped cars who don't want to deal with a rule change allowing them to put the stuff back on. So, we are already in the quagmire.....
8. Point Eight -- In concept, I almost always agree with this point. However, with electronic stuff, like with the ECU rule, we have considered the inability to have a reasonable means of checking legality/compliance. It got to the point with stock ECUs it was nearly impossible to check legality. The same would be true, is my understanding, with modern ABS and traction control systems.
9. Point Nine -- Disagree. Power brakes and steering are comfort items and in many cases, performance detriments. BUT, they are not (as newer ABS systems are) computer controlled driver aids that enhance performance. I agree the line is not black and white, but ABS certainly seems a hell of a lot more like traction control than power steering to me.
10. Point Ten -- Good discussion. Helps focus the debate.
** People who simultaneously argue that ABS is an advantage and a danger are moving from some different proposition entirely, and arguing points of convenience for rhetorical purposes. It's inconsistent to hold both positions, so evidence that they have a different agenda altogether.
** Fuel injected cars have an advantage over cars with carburetors, in that the former can self-adjust (damn nannies!) for atmospheric conditions. Disc brakes are an advantage over drums. I see arguments based on resistance to "new technology" argued by people who drive cars that take full advantage of it.
** Even when pushed to its purest form, the Process didn't try to equate cars that differed in technical terms described in the previous point. When someone would suggest that open ECUs were a "de facto competition adjustment for FI cars" (do a search here), we'd explain it away as either "pick your car warts and all" or "you can adjust the mixture with a carb, too." The difference between ABS-no-talent and no-ABS-with-talent is so small as to be lost in the noise of a hundred other variables that the ITAC doesn't try to account for.
** I keep seeing the "can't lock it down" argument trotted out. How often have any of you seen anyone successfully do that in a club race AND have it actually matter...? How many of the people in this conversation have ever done it? I've raced since 1986 and have *never* had to. Yes - it might make a positive safety difference in some minute number of situations but nothing like as often as would requiring H&N systems - and the membership has resisted that loudly.
** IT rules are founded on the assumption that the rules grant allowances for us to make changes to the otherwise stock configuration of our cars. A very limited number of safety rules MANDATE changes to the stock car. Forcing the disabling of ABS is inconsistent with that first assumption, imposing a "you must" standard where a "you may" standard has been the, well, standard since the inception of the category. How about "all cars in ITC and ITB are required to replace fuel injection systems with a Weber 32/36DGV carburetor, effective 1/1/2011. All ITA, ITS, and ITR cars are required to replace fuel injection system with side-draft carbs, not to exceed one venturi per cylinder." ...?
** Having re-plumbed my Golf's brake system, too, I agree that it's not a horrific job. It's not however a job similar in technical scope to the minimum modifications *required* for someone to go racing in IT. Further, I know damned well that a 2010 model year ABS system is going to be very much more resistant to that process than was my 1994 system, that essentially piggy-backed ABS hardware on an otherwise non-ABS master cylinder, etc.
** If we are "eventually" going to have to deal with it - and we are - we should deal with it NOW, before some people spend a bunch of time and money to comply with a rule that will eventually have to be changed.
** That something might make cheating easier is not a sufficient rationale for outlawing it. Offset keys make it a HELL of a lot easier to gain power with a twin-cam engine (e.g., Miata or VW 16v) by cheating the cam timing, than is possible with a single-cam engine (e.g., VW 8v). That has not resulted in a cry to take back that allowance.
** Got a philosophical disagreement with "driver aids?" I've got power steering and power brakes. Anyone else letting the technology make your job easier behind the wheel? Why no arguments with tools like data collection and video that (at substantial cost) allow some drivers to perform at higher levels than others?
K
