August 2011 Fastrack

[StephenB]

interesting.

Travis, really... this isn't high school anymore.
Those other members put up some valid facts that i acnowledged and appreciated.

PS: you deleted some important words.... accident avoidance. Go re-read my posts again.
Stephen

 

[lateapex911]

Also, nobody has mentioned that, on cars with ABS, the combination of open computers and ABS can lead to incredibly complex solutions*, and while the committee, at the time, felt they HAD to allow alternate computers, (In many cases they are the simplest way to get AROUND intrusive modes) they wanted to limit the potential of them.
No ABS is a good call for IT at this point in time, considering the wide mix of cars in each class.

Trav, lighten up, jeeez. The guy felt a certain way, wrote a letter based on his experiences. Your JOB is to consider the letter, and respond. Sorry if it took ten of your precious minutes of your life. Then, later, he gets it explained a certain way, and is open minded enough to "See the light".....and is cool enough to admit it, rather than standing his ground to save face, yet you complain. You do realize that you come off looking rather jerkish for complaining about a guy who was open minded enough to agree with YOUR conclusion, right?

*Not to mention traction control, which is illegal, of course, but.....

 

[StephenB]

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.

I didn't complain. I simply posted here because everyone on this forum would have had an opportunity to see my request. I figured I would comment acknowledging the fact that I think it is a competition adavantage and I think it would need added weight penalty. I also posted that I think it will become part of the class eventually.

Go re-read my posts.

Stephen

 

[gran racing]

This is one big issue with our club's communication system.

1. #4635 (Stephen Blethen) Allowance of ABS in ITR
Not consistent with current class philosophy.

People read that and don't understand the meaning behind it. It's great that it was discussed by the ITAC but it would be useful to members AND the ITAC to give some additional information about it. In this case in particular as it will be asked again.

then when he and others don't understand because information isn't communicated, he and others will complain about it on the internet.
I think that's more appropriate.

I really did like the SM "what do you think?" section which included background information about the discussion. Hats off to those who made that happen. I hope that going forward we'll continue to work on improving our communication.

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

Is the same Honda that lost the 160 lbs in this month's Fastrack? I honestly don't know enough about the car and am just curious about it.

 

[StephenB]

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".

Andy, I am on my phone and can't delete stuff. But I wanted to respond to the last paragraph. I put in a request honestly thinking it would be turned down. BUT it is something that the ITAC will need to look at over the next several years. As stated in above posts if it was on the agenda already I wanted to speed it up with a request. The last thing I wanted was to replumb my car then find out next year that it was going to be allowed. My letter and the answer served its pupose for me and I got the answer I needed. If the ITAC needed more info they could have easily e-mailed me back stating that. I got nothing and it never came up to the general community asking for input. Maybe the best solutions is your last statement or by saying we need more info.

Either way I know my answer and I am fine with it.
Stephen

 

[JeffYoung]

My personal opinion is we probably should have given more info on our thinking on ABS. It's a big issue, and there are pros and cons on both sides. I'm sure I voted for the "not consistent with class philosophy" response but looking back, I think we should have provided more detail.

I get lost in Honda world. Is Scott's Civic/CRX the same as Tom's?

As best we could tell Andy there was no basis for the gain number for that car. It was something like 43% (I can't remember, I can run the numbers later).

 

[StephenB]

To be honest I don't think you needed more of an explanation. The reason is fine. I only posted here to clarify that I wish we could add it with additional weight. I didnt want people to read it in fasttrack and not know that side of my story... simple. No complaint and I think the system worked fine, unless you wanted more input from me. If that was the case I had no clue.

Stephen

 

[JeffYoung]

I thought your letter was fine. We'd discussed it before at length. It is not a new issue.

On the additional weight, the problem is how much? With the variety of systems out there, the ABS is already a penalty in some cases, and in others not. That's really what drove my own thinking on saying no to this.

Maybe for ITNext that has cars that all have good systems we do it, but even then as Vaughan points out "street" ABS systems are very different from "race" ABS systems.

Personal anecdote. I had a Lotus Exige for a few years. Guys tracking them would routinely have the ABS go into "ice" mode which meant hard pedal/little braking action. Bad news.

To be honest I don't think you needed more of an explanation. The reason is fine. I only posted here to clarify that I wish we could add it with additional weight. I didnt want people to read it in fasttrack and not know that side of my story... simple. No complaint and I think the system worked fine, unless you wanted more input from me. If that was the case I had no clue.

Stephen

 

[Matt93SE]

Just to throw in my $0.02 about ABS on track..
My DD is a 2004 Infiniti G35. ABS and VSC (stability/traction control).
I decided just for grins to take it to the track while my STU was was in pieces...
The car has NISMO S-tune springs, shocks, sway bars, and a stoptech brake kit, so it's reasonably well-handling. I stuck some Hawk HT-10 pads on the front with freebie Hoosier take-offs and went to the track.

I did a few warm-up laps to get used to the car on track and everything felt great. nice and predictable at 75%. Then I dialed it up a bit.

I turned of VSC since the open diff was starting to spin coming off corners and the VSC kicked in and killed the throttle. my 300hp car damn near got rear-ended by an SM because he was following me through the turn and the car killed the throttle at exit.

So I turned off VSC and nailed the brakes in the next corner. WTF?! NO BRAKES!! it would run in about 50% of capacity and when I was about to drive off the end of the track, it would finally roll into the brakes and the car would nosedive and understeer the rest of the way around the corner.
After three 15 min sessions, I parked the car with no rear brakes because the VSC wouldn't completely disengage and was still eating the rear brakes while I was coming off corners rolling into the throttle. Stopwatch times say I never got within 5 sec of my STU lap times, with 100+hp more, "better" brakes, and Hoosiers vs. the R888s I run on my STU car.


I short, that system was definitely NOT track worthy, and this is a much more modern ABS system on a "sports car" that should be much more track-worthy than the cars that will be going into IT in the near future..

Unfortunately, many of the new ABS-equipped cars no longer have a true proportioning valve and use the ABS as a crutch to lower the parts count (and eat rear brake pads like my Infiniti). The Mazda RX-8 is like this. You can't pull the fuse to disable the ABS because you will then have no brake bias adjustment either.

This is something the ITAC is going to have to address in the next couple years as these cars come into radar range of IT..

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think there was an SCCA site where someone with authiority could go and post more extensive explanations to back up the neccessary short responses in the FT. Except now that the FT is exclusively electronic, proper reasoning could be posted, no?

 

[JeffYoung]

Stuff like this just reinforces my opinion that the best thing to do is pull it all out and replumb it with a stock master, no ABS, and your own prop valve.

Just to throw in my $0.02 about ABS on track..
My DD is a 2004 Infiniti G35. ABS and VSC (stability/traction control).
I decided just for grins to take it to the track while my STU was was in pieces...
The car has NISMO S-tune springs, shocks, sway bars, and a stoptech brake kit, so it's reasonably well-handling. I stuck some Hawk HT-10 pads on the front with Hoosiers and went to the track.

I did a few warm-up laps to get used to the car on track and everything felt great. nice and predictable at 75%. Then I dialed it up a bit.

I turned of VSC since the open diff was starting to spin coming off corners and the VSC kicked in and killed the throttle. my 300hp car damn near got rear-ended by an SM because he was following me through the turn and the car killed the throttle at exit.

So I turned off VSC and nailed the brakes in the next corner. WTF?! NO BRAKES!! it would run in about 50% of capacity and when I was about to drive off the end of the track, it would finally roll into the brakes and the car would nosedive and understeer the rest of the way around the corner.
After three 15 min sessions, I parked the car with no rear brakes because the VSC wouldn't completely disengage and was still eating the rear brakes while I was coming off corners rolling into the throttle.


I short, that system was definitely NOT track worthy, and this is a much more modern ABS system on a "sports car" that should be much more track-worthy than the cars that will be going into IT in the near future..

Unfortunately, many of the new ABS-equipped cars no longer have a true proportioning valve and use the ABS as a crutch to lower the parts count (and eat rear brake pads like my Infiniti). The Mazda RX-8 is like this. You can't pull the fuse to disable the ABS because you will then have no brake bias adjustment either.

This is something the ITAC is going to have to address in the next couple years as these cars come into radar range of IT..

 

[tom91ita]

..

I get lost in Honda world. Is Scott's Civic/CRX the same as Tom's?

As best we could tell Andy there was no basis for the gain number for that car. It was something like 43% (I can't remember, I can run the numbers later).

Scott's Civic is basically the same as the former Jeff Underwood's car and is not the same as mine. Scott's is the dual point injection / 16V car with the wishbone style suspension F & R (88-91 vintage).

i had included it in my note regarding the gain number comparisions between 16V ITA and the 12V ITB's as a reference (see the link i just posted a bit above).

and if you saw dyno numbers for the 85-87 1st gen cars, it was from someone else.

the weight reduction is welcome (no one likes having three 50 # blocks of steel bolted onto the floor) but it does not make the major difference in lap times one might expect.

i raced the car at tracks i know well with NASA Honda Challenge and the prep step that made the biggest change in times between HC and IT was the removal of ~12 #'s from the flywheel. that dropped lap times consistently, whereas the 130 #'s (2130 vs. 2000 for HC5) was mostly "noise" in the data.

 

[Greg Amy]

On the additional weight [for ABS], the problem is how much?

As long as the Club does not see its inclusion as dangerous - a point worthy of serious discussion - then your weight bogey is "enough so you're comfortable allowing them to compete, but not enough where you'll worry about performance domination". Then let them go play now and decide later whether to remove/disable it.

You can always adjust that weight down later.

 

[Matt93SE]

Isn't that kinda the philosophy with allowing the Honda Fit engine in FF or whatever? they're intentionally tuning it as an underdog so as to give the guys still running the old stuff a fighting chance and discourage the entire field from feeling they MUST change just to compete..

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

then your weight bogey is "enough so you're comfortable allowing them to compete, but not enough where you'll worry about performance domination". Then let them go play now and decide later whether to remove/disable it.

You can always adjust that weight down later.

Good luck with all that 'Prod-style' evaluation and adjustment. Not slamming you here Greg, the point is that you are probably right in it's implamentation, and that process in and of itself is against IT philosophy.

We can't even make significant movement on the 'proving a negative' situation we have now, nevermind something based almost entirely in on-track data.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Isn't that kinda the philosophy with allowing the Honda Fit engine in FF or whatever? they're intentionally tuning it as an underdog so as to give the guys still running the old stuff a fighting chance and discourage the entire field from feeling they MUST change just to compete..

Or said differently, setting a weight so that if you really want to win, you can't go with the new stuff.

 

[Greg Amy]

Good luck with all that 'Prod-style' evaluation and adjustment.

How do you figure? "Prod Style Adjustments" refers to micro-managing individual cars to all be competitive with themselves. What I'm proposing is a blanket allowance.

Or said differently, setting a weight so that if you really want to win, for now you can't go with the new technology.

Ding! See, he gets it.

Eventually, (we)/(you)'ll have the data to make a rational decision. Right now, our decisions on are based on ignorance.

GA

 

[JeffYoung]

Got it. Thanks Tom. So this is a different motor entirely from the Giles/Underwood car. I am starting to remember now.

Scott's Civic is basically the same as the former Jeff Underwood's car and is not the same as mine. Scott's is the dual point injection / 16V car with the wishbone style suspension F & R (88-91 vintage).

i had included it in my note regarding the gain number comparisions between 16V ITA and the 12V ITB's as a reference (see the link i just posted a bit above).

and if you saw dyno numbers for the 85-87 1st gen cars, it was from someone else.

the weight reduction is welcome (no one likes having three 50 # blocks of steel bolted onto the floor) but it does not make the major difference in lap times one might expect.

i raced the car at tracks i know well with NASA Honda Challenge and the prep step that made the biggest change in times between HC and IT was the removal of ~12 #'s from the flywheel. that dropped lap times consistently, whereas the 130 #'s (2130 vs. 2000 for HC5) was mostly "noise" in the data.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

How do you figure? "Prod Style Adjustments" refers to micro-managing individual cars to all be competitive with themselves. What I'm proposing is a blanket allowance.

True, but it can also be used to describe a move like the one you describe. 'Throw too much weight on it so it isn't competitive and we will reduce it little by little until we think it's ok, based on what we see on track...' See Tom Patton's Tiger - but in reverse. Years getting to the front, wins once and they hit him with a restrictor that sent him back to the dark ages.

It may not be individual car specific but it's the same process, just applied to an allowance that applies to a limited amount of cars.

 

[preparedcivic]

Got it. Thanks Tom. So this is a different motor entirely from the Giles/Underwood car. I am starting to remember now.

Totally different motor and vehicle architecture for that matter. 3V per cylinder single cam head compared to 4V single cam; much more rustic chassis with a torsion bar/strut and rear beam axle instead of the later car's independent wishbones all around.