April Fastrack

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Yep... I guess "up to" really doesn't mean "down to" after all...
Click to expand...

Just remember that we've got a bunch of interpreters here (and out there). I for one would've interpreted it as any size "up to" 15" (as a limiting term), rather than "sizing up" to 15" (as a directive). I would tell ya how I'd have written it, but we've already armchair quarterbacked that thing to death...

So hey Darin, George, or Andy- can you tell us about these mystical "proposed changes to the ECU rule" that were mentioned in the CRB minutes? Or at least, can you tell us if the ITAC is in on the discussion? It would really be nice to know some of this stuff in being discussed, even if we don't know what the discussion is...



------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."
 
Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
So hey Darin, George, or Andy- can you tell us about these mystical "proposed changes to the ECU rule" that were mentioned in the CRB minutes? Or at least, can you tell us if the ITAC is in on the discussion?
Click to expand...

We've talked about everything that we've talked about here, and the conclusion works out about the same...

The only changes to the ECU rule that I believe we've recommended is the re-institution of the wording to allow the variance to resistance values of sensors feeding the ECUs fuel mixture circuits, just like it was in 2001 or 2002... prior to the current form of the rule...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited February 26, 2005).]
 
Another disturbing issue, one that I've brought up before, is the new fuel requirements. The April Fastrack pretty much put a hole in the brain of using regular fuel bought from "down the street":

GCR change request:

"Allow pump gas (Cohen). Pump gas
would be inconsistent due to blending
and seasonal changes, and a number of
pump gases do not pass our current fuel
testing procedures."

...and...

"...the 2005 Runoffs supplemental
regulations will require a spec
fuel for all competitors in all classes." (Including Showroom Stock - GA)

Finally, from the 2005 Runoffs Supps:

"9.12 All cars shall use fuel purchased from the track as follows:
* All SRF, rotary engine cars, SSB, SSC, FSCCA and SRSCCA cars shall use Sunoco/CAM2 93 Octane Unleaded."

So, what we have here is the apparent total inability to buy fuel from our local retail outlet, instead being forced to buy "approved" fuel only from the track. I know most tracks offer street fuels, but has anyone found a track selling street fuel for anything less than 50% markup over what it costs down the street?

I love that first reference, that "a number of pump gases do not pass our current fuel
testing procedures." Uh, wasn't those tests supposed to be designed to verify that we're using straight-up street fuel? So now you're saying that our tests can accurately verify this, so instead of changing the tests we specify a fuel that meets the bad testing procedures?

<sigh>
 
Well, since my post was one of the ones lost in the server move, I'll ask the question again.

Darin/Andy/George,

Can you shed some light on the Rabbit GTI issue? I see that the reclassification request was denied. Was that the ITAC position, or did the CRB overturn you recommendation?

Based on the reason given for the denial of the reclassification, it seems that individual, on-track performance is being used to approve/deny reclassification/adjustment requests. So much for an objective process.

Also, it appears that the request to correct the weight, should the car not be reclassified, was ignored. You folks encourage us to write letters, yet when we do, sometimes we get no response. The response I got from John Bauer, was that I could write another letter (and wait another 3 - 4 months).



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Originally posted by Banzai240:
We've talked about everything that we've talked about here, and the conclusion works out about the same...

The only changes to the ECU rule that I believe we've recommended is the re-institution of the wording to allow the variance to resistance values of sensors feeding the ECUs fuel mixture circuits, just like it was in 2001 or 2002... prior to the current form of the rule...

Click to expand...

Thank you very much, I appreciate the response. I do kind of giggle at the concept of passive resistors as this is a very "stone age" concept. I guess however it does offer an increased range of methods to make adjustments, versus changing the whole ECU...

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."
 
Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
I do kind of giggle at the concept of passive resistors as this is a very "stone age" concept.
Click to expand...

Matt,

The reason this was added back is because it was brought to our attention that there are some cars out there that were made "illegal" by this sections elimination... Many out there still use a variance in resistance from the water temp sensor to help control/correct their fuel mixture on ECU controlled cars...

As for Bill's question, which as everyone here knows is a no-win to try to answer here, the ITAC does not deny that the GTI is not the most competitive car in ITB... HOWEVER, it's TOO much car for ITC. Let's not forget that one of the ITAC members is a VERY successful and well respected ITB Rabbit GTI driver, so it's not like we are making this stuff up...

There are some cars that some of us on the committee feel should have some in-class adjustments, and this may be one of them. However, it hasn't been decided as to whether or not these kinds of adjustments are part of the "strategic plan" for IT. Again, I am meeting with the CRB shortly to discuss this very issue...

Freak out if you must, but realize that you don't know everything that is going on behind the scenes, so draw your conclusions with an understanding of that...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Matt,

The reason this was added back is because it was brought to our attention that there are some cars out there that were made "illegal" by this sections elimination... Many out there still use a variance in resistance from the water temp sensor to help control/correct their fuel mixture on ECU controlled cars...

As for Bill's question, which as everyone here knows is a no-win to try to answer here, the ITAC does not deny that the GTI is not the most competitive car in ITB... HOWEVER, it's TOO much car for ITC. Let's not forget that one of the ITAC members is a VERY successful and well respected ITB Rabbit GTI driver, so it's not like we are making this stuff up...

There are some cars that some of us on the committee feel should have some in-class adjustments, and this may be one of them. However, it hasn't been decided as to whether or not these kinds of adjustments are part of the "strategic plan" for IT. Again, I am meeting with the CRB shortly to discuss this very issue...

Freak out if you must, but realize that you don't know everything that is going on behind the scenes, so draw your conclusions with an understanding of that...
Click to expand...

Darin,

All well and good. You keep bringing up Chris' prowess w/ a VW, which I agree, is top notch, and to be commended. And not to get into a pissing contest w/ you, but when was the last time he ran a Rabbit GTI as his main ITB car? He moved from the A1 to the A2, and now to the A3. But that really doesn't matter. But hey, why not let Chris speak for himself?

As far as it being 'too much' car for ITC, you folks (ITAC) had no problem dropping the NB in ITC. IIRC, you, George, and Andy have all indicated that the 'process' puts the Rabbit GTI in ITC at ~2250#. That's 70# over its ITB weight. Put another 100# on the car (2280#), and move it to ITC and see what happens. If it's too fast, add some more weight.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">There are some cars that some of us on the committee feel should have some in-class adjustments, and this may be one of them. However, it hasn't been decided as to whether or not these kinds of adjustments are part of the "strategic plan" for IT. </font>
Click to expand...


Darin,

I'm really confused by this comment. Isn't that what PCA's were for? PCA's were approved, and put in place, now you're saying that using them is not part of the "strategic plan" for IT??? Or, are you only going to use them to slow cars down?

And I go back to part of the original post. I sent in a request, and it essentially got thrown in the trash, w/ no response. What's up w/ that?

/edit/ I guess you just can't resist editorializing, can you?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited February 26, 2005).]
 
Originally posted by GregAmy:
Finally, from the 2005 Runoffs Supps:

"9.12 All cars shall use fuel purchased from the track as follows:
* All SRF, rotary engine cars, SSB, SSC, FSCCA and SRSCCA cars shall use Sunoco/CAM2 93 Octane Unleaded."

So, what we have here is the apparent total inability to buy fuel from our local retail outlet, instead being forced to buy "approved" fuel only from the track. I know most tracks offer street fuels, but has anyone found a track selling street fuel for anything less than 50% markup over what it costs down the street?...

<sigh>
Click to expand...

Greg,

Agreed. However, there may be reason behind such a rule although, ironically, not that which was stated.

There was a thread a few months back at specracer.com concerning a fuel additive that was good for, IIRC, 2-3hp in that small motor. Apparently this stuff is undetectable by field-grade equipment and sells for about $30/gal.

Of course, there's nothing keeping the unscrupulous racer from buying fuel at the track and then juicing it back in the trailer.

Just a thought.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com
 
Originally posted by gsbaker:
Of course, there's nothing keeping the unscrupulous racer from buying fuel at the track and then juicing it back in the trailer.
Click to expand...

Well, while technically there is no way to keep someone from doing this, there is a way to make it worthless and to make sure everyone gets the same fuel. It's call a pump-around. The WKA uses these in their 4 cycle classes. You must show up to the pump-around with a full tank. It siphons out your tank and refills it from the large drum or tank that it siphoned your gas into (or alcohol in the case of WKA).

However, I'm not proposing this. What a PITA, especially for folks running a light tank to make weight.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
So call me paranoid about this fuel thing, but to me this has the ability to be a major hassle factor for "casual racers". You know, guys like me that run a car that doesn't benefit from exotic fuels and that don't have storage for dedicated race fuels. I throw everything in my truck and go to the track. I don't want to tote around a drum of Sunoco (or some other racing fuel), and it can be a hassle getting avgas. My car (a rotary) uses 87 octane and is very happy with it. I've tried higher octane and unleaded racing fuel with no noticeable change. If maintaining a supply of race gas becomes a major PITA I may have to re-think racing. If I have to buy avgas, I would rather put it into an airplane.

And I have sent two e-mails to the CRB, and on the last one I copied my division BoD member, Jeremy at HQ and our region Tech Chief. And all the other drivers in the class that I have e-mails for.

------------------
Spec RX7 #11
Scottsdale AZ
 
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Matt,

The reason this was added back is because it was brought to our attention that there are some cars out there that were made "illegal" by this sections elimination... Many out there still use a variance in resistance from the water temp sensor to help control/correct their fuel mixture on ECU controlled cars...
Click to expand...

Yup, I understand completely. I still giggle though... (I can't even say the work titmouse without giggling... Hee hee... hee hee hee...)

Originally posted by Banzai240:

but realize that you don't know everything that is going on behind the scenes, so draw your conclusions with an understanding of that...
Click to expand...

Ah yes, and I was just disucussing this the other day with my best friend. I think it would be easier to swallow some things if we knew there was something going on. Not necessarily what exactly was going on, but just that there was *something*... I think that you guys on the ITAC are doing a good job, but I'm sure I'd think even more of you if I knew half the crap I never got to hear about... I wish I could talk about some of the stuff I'm involved in too, so I know what you're dealing with. I think we as a group need to work to change the old SCCA mentality of secrecy.

If you go first, I'll be right behind you
smile.gif


------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."
 
Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
I think we as a group need to work to change the old SCCA mentality of secrecy.

If you go first, I'll be right behind you
smile.gif


Click to expand...

Matt,

I can tell you that, from my perspective, it's not a matter of keeping things "secret", it's a matter of getting through all the details before information is released... This world is full of people (the news media outlets being the worst offenders) who take a little bit of information and run with it, making it snowball into something it was never meant to be...

We on the ITAC are working to be straight forward, open, and honest in our communications with the community we represent... But you have to give us time to figure out what it is we are trying to be honest and open with...

Otherwise, I think we've been doing a good job of discussing these things in public... Believe me... the discussions on our con-call sound a lot like what you read here!
eek.gif


Stay tuned...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Where are these ultra fast ITB Rabbit GTI's?

Are they like the one in the classifieds here with an illegal cam?
 
Originally posted by apr67:
Read about 10 posts up.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess you're going to have to supply a quote because I don't see any mention of an ultra fast Wabbit GTI.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
"As for Bill's question, which as everyone here knows is a no-win to try to answer here, the ITAC does not deny that the GTI is not the most competitive car in ITB... HOWEVER, it's TOO much car for ITC. Let's not forget that one of the ITAC members is a VERY successful and well respected ITB Rabbit GTI driver, so it's not like we are making this stuff up..."
 
Originally posted by pgipson:
So call me paranoid about this fuel thing, but to me this has the ability to be a major hassle factor for "casual racers".
Click to expand...

I agree. It's got the potential to be a major PITA for those of us who use our race cars at HPDE events. In some cases, the track fuel pumps aren't open on HPDE days, so if specific fuel is mandated I either need to carry my own, or flush my fuel system between HPDE days and races. I don't like either alternative. I also think my homeowner's insuarnce would have a problem with me storing quantities of fuel in my garage (which is under the house - I have a problem with fuel storage there even if my insurance doesn't).

Maybe if an entire IT field is DQ'd after a fuel check that would send some sort of message..

-noam

[This message has been edited by nlevine (edited March 01, 2005).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top