August 2011 Fastrack

JeffYoung said:
Yes. Home eating dinner but I'll run through it when I get back to the office. This was based off of the various letters to Tom A. and Rob Foley sent (among others). If I recall correctly, the basic idea here was this car was tagged at like 50% or something, and with the dyno data we had we set it back at above default I think. But I will run the numbers and check.
Click to expand...

Here's what I believe is the math for how the 1G CRX Si/3G Civic Si's got adjusted to their current 1970lbs:

91hp * 1.30 * .98 * 17 = 1970.8

Tom Lamb's letter languished in the ITAC for years. I wrote mine over the winter in support of his and adding some new points of my own. It was well established the old weight was completely arbitrary when the car was moved down from A to B.

BTW, that previous weight of 2130lbs was a power multiplier of 40%+.
 
quadzjr said:
No I totally agree that if the Civic and CRX have the same power plant they should be classed at the same weight. I was just curious how a car that was alread somewhat competitve (and more competitive than my car) some how got a bigger weight break? I know what I submitted to get 95lbs.. to get 160lbs.. you would think cosworth or someone submitted info or soemting.

I am joking.. but seriously intrigued on how much data backed up the decision for the first (CRX) weight break.
Click to expand...

here is background on what i submitted. i have posted the same basic content here in various formats/threads as well.

http://www.sccabb.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=9113

take a look at what the accord has for a power to weight or pound per cc, etc. and i think you will notice the difference.
 
Jake in case you don't remember I raced a ITC CIVIC for about 8 years or so before I started to run the Volvo and the Civic And the CRX in this case have always and should always go hand in hand.
 
jjjanos said:
Safer? Please explain how one locks down a car with ABS? One of the first things they teach in DS is both feet in. It puts the spinning car on a predictable path and keeps the engine running. How does one do that with ABS?
Click to expand...

I am not sure how you would "Lock it down". I would argue that the ABS is safer due to accident avoidance rather than after your already into trouble and spinning.

I would try to simulate accident avoidance in a parking lot. Use cones if you must. Place a cone where I have an "I" marked below. When driving you must go between the cones. Drive (through this course starting from the bottom) using brakes without ABS and see how fast you can go through or see how late you can hit the brakes and still make it through. I suggest entering it at about 60MPH anything slower isn't really going to simulate track speeds. Then go back and do the same thing and brake later (less warning of incident) I bet you will be amazed at how much later you can brake and you will see how much faster you can go through it. To be honest I bet you can go through at least 15MPH faster. This is a very basic and simple example of how ABS can improve Accident avoidance. ABS gives you the power to utilize any given wheel at maximum threshold braking. This concept allows you to actually continue to steer the car while using your maximum braking power. Without ABS you can only use the brakes at the maximum threshold of the first tire to loose grip.



____________________I I___________________________



_________________I I____________________________




____________________I I__________________________
____________________I I__________________________
____________________I I__________________________
____________________I I__________________________
____________________I I__________________________
____________________I I__________________________
____________________I I__________________________

As I said above ABS is great for accident avoidance. If you are already spinning because you already messed up I am not sure how much of a help it would have.

Everyone views this differently and it was debated in another thread a while ago. I am interested in this topic so if you have any articles that site any ABS Vs. non ABS comparisons feel free to PM me. Also please note I am talking about newr model cars, I already get that 80's and 90's cars didn't have anything close to what exists nowadays and that they wouldn't benifit nearly as much and in fact I would argue the 80's Audis ABS was worse than having none!

Just a reminder that Grand-am, Continental Challenge, and World Challenge here in the states uses ABS, as well as SCCA Showroom stock and Touring.

Stephen

PS: If you want to experience this in a controlled safe environment they do this in most officer schools including Stevens Advanced Driving here in NH.
 
Last edited:
Ah, so THAT's the connection, Les. I never knew you raced a Civic. You're correct about the parallel. Seemed odd to see yours and Sams name on the item, along with Ricks. (Toms letter WAS in the pipeline for wayyyyyy too long)
 
preparedcivic said:
Here's what I believe is the math for how the 1G CRX Si/3G Civic Si's got adjusted to their current 1970lbs:

91hp * 1.30 * .98 * 17 = 1970.8

Tom Lamb's letter languished in the ITAC for years. I wrote mine over the winter in support of his and adding some new points of my own. It was well established the old weight was completely arbitrary when the car was moved down from A to B.

BTW, that previous weight of 2130lbs was a power multiplier of 40%+.
Click to expand...

Let's remind ourselves that during the Version 2 years - or at least, over my tenure on the committee - we did *not* have any formally authorized power to revisit and change existing IT car weight specs. What we DID do, was under the auspices of correcting "errors," because (again, undocumented deal) the Great Realignment got sold to the CRB with the understanding that there wouldn't be any more changes beyond those done under the GR.

Tom's request got hung because the CRB got a few recommendations (e.g., the Audi Coupe) that they didn't like. (Or to be more accurate, that a couple of key members who paid attention to IT didn't like.) They were FINE with us - nudge, nudge, wink, wink - "correcting errors" as long as they didn't perceive those changes as inconsistent with their anecdotal observations of on-track performance. When we pushed, they threw out the anchor, and simply stopped acting (yea or nay) to our recommendations for more than a few months.

Tom's request came ahead of the October 2009 edict that the CRB wasn't going to entertain any "corrections" that weren't in line with observed on-track performance. That was problematic because the entire point of the Process was to take flawed observations of limited cases of on-track performance OUT of consideration. I sent him an email explaining that we'd been shut down on that front.

K
 
StephenB said:
I am not sure how you would "Lock it down". I would argue that the ABS is safer due to accident avoidance rather than after your already into trouble and spinning.
Click to expand...

After 20 years of flagging and 5 years of driving, I've seen far more accidents caused by someone going for a hole that vanished because the spinning car wasn't predictable than someone locking their brakes and hitting the spinning car.

Thank you, but I'll keep my own margin of error for entering a corner in regards to braking and prefer to have a predictable other car that I know where it will go.
 
StephenB said:
I am not sure how you would "Lock it down". I would argue that the ABS is safer due to accident avoidance rather than after your already into trouble and spinning.

I would try to simulate accident avoidance in a parking lot. Use cones if you must. Place a cone where I have an "I" marked below. When driving you must go between the cones. Drive (through this course starting from the bottom) using brakes without ABS and see how fast you can go through or see how late you can hit the brakes and still make it through. I suggest entering it at about 60MPH anything slower isn't really going to simulate track speeds. Then go back and do the same thing and brake later (less warning of incident) I bet you will be amazed at how much later you can brake and you will see how much faster you can go through it. To be honest I bet you can go through at least 15MPH faster. This is a very basic and simple example of how ABS can improve Accident avoidance. ABS gives you the power to utilize any given wheel at maximum threshold braking. This concept allows you to actually continue to steer the car while using your maximum braking power. Without ABS you can only use the brakes at the maximum threshold of the first tire to loose grip.



____________________I I___________________________



_________________I I____________________________




____________________I I__________________________
____________________I I__________________________
____________________I I__________________________
____________________I I__________________________
____________________I I__________________________
____________________I I__________________________
____________________I I__________________________

As I said above ABS is great for accident avoidance. If you are already spinning because you already messed up I am not sure how much of a help it would have.

Everyone views this differently and it was debated in another thread a while ago. I am interested in this topic so if you have any articles that site any ABS Vs. non ABS comparisons feel free to PM me. Also please note I am talking about newr model cars, I already get that 80's and 90's cars didn't have anything close to what exists nowadays and that they wouldn't benifit nearly as much and in fact I would argue the 80's Audis ABS was worse than having none!

Just a reminder that Grand-am, Continental Challenge, and World Challenge here in the states uses ABS, as well as SCCA Showroom stock and Touring.

Stephen

PS: If you want to experience this in a controlled safe environment they do this in most officer schools including Stevens Advanced Driving here in NH.
Click to expand...

Having now raced a car with ABS, trust me, you do NOT want it. It sucks. And it is true, you can lock up the tires in a spin. We've all see what happens when a spinning car doesn't lock up its brakes.

Also, it takes longer distance to stop, unsettles the car much more when trail braking and much harder to modulate. When I noticed it the most was going to hot into turn 6 at NHMS. I kept trying to press harder on the brake and the more I did, the less it slowed.

Accident avoidence? We're racers........ keep your foot in it and don't lift..........
 
ABS has been creating significant problems with many race cars in the Grand-Am Continental series. I saw it first-hand when I was doing data acq for a team: drivers were complaining that the cars were not braking no matter how hard they pushed on the pedals. In fact, a couple times drivers wrecked cars because they couldn't get the cars slowed down. Looking at the data I could see they were pushing on the brake pedal to save their life (high MC output pressure) but the decel g-forces just weren't there. Turns out the stock system just wasn't designed for the way the car was being driven (and, assuming, how it was modified) and just freaked out and gave up. Pobst briefly touched on this subject in his recent column in SportsCar.

It's not a snobby racing driver thing, either. Modern OEM street ABS systems just aren't designed for this. And unless you're a combo of braking engineer and software programmer, you just don't have the tools to make it right. True racing ABS systems, like on factory Porsche racing cars (GT3 and RS) are totally different animals.

GA
 
Thanks for the feedback guys. These are some real life examples. I have not used it in racing conditions nor do I have access to that data. Great info.

Stephen
 
StephenB said:
However it is a fact that it is safer and I think it is a competitive advantage
.
.
.
.
Thanks for the feedback guys. These are some real life examples. I have not used it in racing conditions nor do I have access to that data. Great info.

Stephen
Click to expand...

interesting.:rolleyes:
 
Let me try to cover as much of the above as I can.

1. On the ITB Hondas. When we finally got the "go" to "reprocess" cars, we looked at the ITB CRX based on Tom's letter and others. The existing GCR weight (I can run th calc if someone wants) seemed to have no rational relation to any of the existing gain modifiers. So, honestly, in the absence of any real data, that car should be at 1.30 default rather than the 1.45 or whatever it was at.

We looked at Tom's data (which included dyno information if I recall correctly), Rob's and others. I'm not a Honda or ITB guy but the guys on the committee who are agreed we were not looking at a motor that would make ITA CRX gains.

So the vote was put it at default, or 1.3, for the class. The Civic then followed.

We do have to get away from the notion of "why did you lower weights on cars that are already competitive?" We had that discussion on the ITAC, but once you put something like the Process in place you have to trust it and use it. And that is what we did.

2. On ABS. My basic position on ABS is this. If allowed, we are going to have a performance issue between cars in ITR, and possibly ITS. The biggest issue for me is that some systems are good enough to be a performance enhancement, and some are complete crap that will be a detriment. There's no way for us on the ITAC to evaluate that and the best and easiest course for "all racers" in IT seemed (to me) to be just replumb the car without the ABS.

Stephen not sure what the rule says now, I'd have to check, but I would think anything that results in the ABS system not working would be fine, but if you want to propose language that makes it easier to disable the stuff shoot me a PM and let's talk.
 
So it just took people to explain how ABS reacts differently in a racing environment than in street driving. Everything we are taught is that ABS is a huge advantage and safer than non-ABS cars.

I was happy Stephen listened and was open to something new. Not sure I'd call that interesting in sarcasm but whatever makes you happy.

I am sure it had supporting data from Kessler. How is it compaired to yours on a dyno Dave? (Gran)
Click to expand...

I am sure both cars have been on the same dyno and both were built by Kessler. I'm honestly not sure what both numbers are (hell, I don't even know what mine is currently). I do know that Andy had the highest dyno numbers that my car has seen (the ITAC saw this too). I'm also not sure how much development the Civic has seen versus my car.
 
it sure as hell doesn't make me happy dave. think about the sequence of events. he writes a letter under the presumption of "fact" without having any experience, data, or really anything at all. then when he doesn't like the decision he decides to complain about it on the internet.

i'm not surprised or anything....it's not the first time it's happened, and it certainly won't be the last. i just thought it was a particularly illustrative example.
 
tnord said:
it sure as hell doesn't make me happy dave.
Click to expand...
Step off your high horse, Travis.

Maybe next time, instead of a curt "not consistent with current class philosophy" you consider taking a moment to send him an email or give him a call? Then maybe he won't have to turn to the Internet for an explanation? Almost all CRB requests have that info right there in front of you.

And try to keep in mind it's not all about you.

GA
 
consider taking a moment? please.......

the response was discussed amongst the group and is very intentional.
 
Greg Amy said:
ABS has been creating significant problems with many race cars in the Grand-Am Continental series. I saw it first-hand when I was doing data acq for a team: drivers were complaining that the cars were not braking no matter how hard they pushed on the pedals. In fact, a couple times drivers wrecked cars because they couldn't get the cars slowed down. Looking at the data I could see they were pushing on the brake pedal to save their life (high MC output pressure) but the decel g-forces just weren't there. Turns out the stock system just wasn't designed for the way the car was being driven (and, assuming, how it was modified) and just freaked out and gave up. Pobst briefly touched on this subject in his recent column in SportsCar.

It's not a snobby racing driver thing, either. Modern OEM street ABS systems just aren't designed for this. And unless you're a combo of braking engineer and software programmer, you just don't have the tools to make it right. True racing ABS systems, like on factory Porsche racing cars (GT3 and RS) are totally different animals.

GA
Click to expand...

I'd say that the whole Grand Am (GA? ;) ) comparsion needs to be viewed through the light of cars modified substantially from stock (correctly or not), trying to run stock ABS systems. Proper race ABS systems work great in such circumstances, as do stock ABS systems on stock, unmodified cars (yes, on the racetrack).

Neither of which should be relevant here; there should be no intent to allow race ABS systems in any IT class, definitely not consistent with class philosophy. Strike 1 - doesn't belong in IT.

I have major concerns with trying to share the track with a shadetree mechanic trying to retrofit a stock ABS system to his car which didn't come with it, under the guise of trying to pick up a performance advantage. Chance of getting it right, safely, for all racing situations, are about 1%, unless this is your day job. In which case a) I already know you, and b) you'd know better. Strike 2 - doesn't belong in IT.

Stock systems are already available, and have been in production for a number of years, which can offer a substantial performance advantage over a manual prop valve and no ABS. You get a lot of performance-improving technology piggy-backed with what most here would consider just Anti-Lock Brakes. I'd be looking for a 100-200# hit for that advantage; I'd rate it on the same order as having 4-whl vented discs in a solid disc/drum world (like the 924 in ITB ). It's big (and the 924 runs heavy as a result - as it should). Simple fact - we stand to create another distinction of haves and have-nots. Strike 3 - doesn't belong in IT.

Any questions?
 
On ABS: SOME systems would be good. SOME systems would SUCK. You lift the inside rear wheel on a Neon and the entry-level system tells all 4 wheels to go into anti-lock mode. Guess what? You don't stop.

The next logical request is to modify how 'my' ABS system works. Maybe only the front two wheels or some hybrid that keeps it from sucking.

Then there are very advanced systems that most certainly give you an advantage in wet weather.

On the ITB Hondas: I understand that when a reprocess request comes in they look at it. It SEEMS to me that just because they can't make the numbers make sense, they have to understand that they are based on a previous decision and data. Just because that info is not under their nose doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I hope that they are assuming the number is correct and looking at data to prove that it ISN'T instead of ignoring the weight, starting from scratch and saying, do we have anything other than this letter - and then changing it. To me, that would be very short-sighted.

Whatever version Scott's Honda was, it was within 1whp IIRC of its process weight on it's V.1 development attempt.

On letters like the ABS one: They are indeed tiring for the committees. Don't make a request that requires volunteers to do work without supporting information. Make a request, explain how it helps IT, provide your documentation, run through potential unintended consiquenses and the ramifications of them, etc. It will help them get your answer much faster. Maybe we should go back to "Thank you for your input".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top