ITAC News.

shwah said:
I am a proponent of the process, but we need to be honest and admit that there is plenty of room to monkey around. It just happens when determining the inputs to the process rather than adjusting the outputs.

We have inconsistent application of the process based on things we "know" but do not have a published criteria for what we know, or even a record of what we know, while in cases where we do not know enough, and a car is classed light, we rely on competitors to graciously share data that will correct a car that is classified light.

The process is the best approach, but it is not flawless, and not immune to manipulation, intentional or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Yea, absolutely! The stage that I was talking about had less rigidity, and it led to people championing parts of it. And others negotiating adders to "pull back" when they weren't onboard with earlier decisions in the math. It was rare that it went down like that, but there was one instance where it was way too push/ pull. (I was guilty of disagreeing with earlier parts, saying so, not getting them backed down to reasonable levels, then hedging later adders to try and keep things "reasonable" in the end.) In general, I liked our direction, but didn't like things like that, and it bothered me that I had to explain to the members how we arived where we did. So a push of mine was to standarize as much as possible, and create methods to track and regulate when and how we deviated. Or, put another way, i begged Kirk to join!

IF v2.0 had been adopted, it still had flexibility, but it assigns votes and it gets signed by the authors of the opinions, and records are kept of outside data. While it still has SOME room for hanky panky, shining sunlight in on each decision makes it much harder to veer from the proper path.

I'll say this again, after being inside the darkened smoke filled rooms of the committee, I want the windows open and the sun shining in. IMO we have far less to worry about if every bit of discussion was public than we have from releasing only bits of info.....when you know you are being fed 'manged information" you wonder what you AREN'T being fed, and that leads to suspicion.

People on the inside object and say that if what they said was repeated, they wouldn't say it. Well, I went 5 years on the boards, and i can't remember saying anything that I really worry about being repeated. Seems to me that if you can't say what you are thinking in front of the membership, then maybe that should tell you something.
 
Without a doubt the process is not foolproof, and subject to subjectivity.

But, the past ITAC firmly believed that repeatability and transparency and that really helped eliminate concerns with subjectivity. Plus, we started to really cut down and focus the subjective adders/subtractors.

The "new" ITAC has similar goals I think, but there is some concern -- perhaps justified -- that a power to weight formula doesn't work as well with B and C as it does with R/S/A. There are some anomalies that have to be sorted out, but I'm cautiously optimistic right now that we are headed in the right direction again.
 
Next ITAC call: 7/26/10

The next meeting of the ITAC is next Monday, July 26.

We have only 14 active letters on the agenda right now, which is a fairly light load. However, we will spend most of our time on one particular one, which is a rules change to authorize weight changes to old listings. We discussed this letter on our last call and I personally hope we are prepared enough to move this to the next stage after this meeting.

Also on the agenda are requests for 7 new listings, most of which are currently racing in Showroom Stock and would therefore be great additions to IT. We also have one additional new rule change request for relocating batteries, which we discussed just a couple of months ago. And then there are 3 letters requesting spec and weight adjustments to existing listings.

I'd also like to remind all of you that in the last Fastrack released this week, there is a request for input about allowing ABS in ITR. Specifically it asks:

"Should stock ABS braking systems be allowed in ITR? Disabling or removing the ABS components would become optional rather than mandatory. Almost all cars in ITR were available with ABS. Those with no available ABS would be given a weight reduction to compensate."

Please submit a letter at crbscca.com with your feedback!

As always, please contact me if you would like to discuss these or any other issues!
 
JoshS said:
"Should stock ABS braking systems be allowed in ITR? Disabling or removing the ABS components would become optional rather than mandatory. Almost all cars in ITR were available with ABS. Those with no available ABS would be given a weight reduction to compensate."

Please submit a letter at crbscca.com with your feedback!

As always, please contact me if you would like to discuss these or any other issues!
Click to expand...

I sent my letter in, hope it's not well, nevermind, LOL. I think there needs to be an "@" in there: [email protected]
 
so if this ABS request passes, and I have already dismantled the ABS system, my car would get a weight break from the current listed min. weight?
 
Tristan Smith said:
so if this ABS request passes, and I have already dismantled the ABS system, my car would get a weight break from the current listed min. weight?
Click to expand...

That is not the proposal ... the proposal is that only cars with no available ABS system at all would get a break. There are very few of those listed in ITR.

I personally prefer it this way (despite the fact that some people are in the position you are in) because I don't like the idea that the minimum weight for two identical-looking cars might be different depending on what's hidden under the covers. IMO, the spec weight on the spec line should be the weight, period. For me, that some people are is an argument not to change the rule at all.

But if you disagree, either with the whole premise, or with that particular approach, please send in your input. Or if you agree, send it in too. We need feedback.
 
JoshS said:
That is not the proposal ... the proposal is that only cars with no available ABS system at all would get a break. There are very few of those listed in ITR.

I personally prefer it this way (despite the fact that some people are in the position you are in) because I don't like the idea that the minimum weight for two identical-looking cars might be different depending on what's hidden under the covers. IMO, the spec weight on the spec line should be the weight, period. For me, that some people are is an argument not to change the rule at all.

But if you disagree, either with the whole premise, or with that particular approach, please send in your input. Or if you agree, send it in too. We need feedback.
Click to expand...

Seriously, lets get the ruleset set......cause I am getting tired of trying to build my car to a set of rules that changes every six months. I will send in my feedback, and that is.......rule stays the same. I am getting pissed off at this bullshit. Why should a car get a break if it didn't come with ABS?????????? The rule should be that you get a weight penalty if you choose to keep the functioning ABS system, if the min. weights are to stay the same. Total horseshit.
 
My opposition to removing ABS has always been that it's too hard to "balance" the various systems out there (while most ITR cars may have ABS, some have ABS that is a performance advantage and some have ABS that is probably a hindrance), versus how "easy' it seems to simply remove it.

Tristan, on your car, how difficult was the removal process?
 
Tristan Smith said:
Seriously, lets get the ruleset set......cause I am getting tired of trying to build my car to a set of rules that changes every six months. I will send in my feedback, and that is.......rule stays the same. I am getting pissed off at this bullshit. Why should a car get a break if it didn't come with ABS?????????? The rule should be that you get a weight penalty if you choose to keep the functioning ABS system, if the min. weights are to stay the same. Total horseshit.
Click to expand...

There's no reason to get so angry, it's just a request for input, not an actual rule change proposal that's been made. As a result of the input, either a rule change proposal might get sent to the CRB, or the whole matter might be dropped. This was in response to a member letter, some members on the ITAC liked the basic idea so that the class can stay more modern. Others felt we should just not make any changes. So, we are asking the members for their input.

The basic idea is that it seems unfortunate that we REQUIRE people to disable stock, original, go-fast equipment. It would be like saying that turbo cars are allowed, as long as they remove their turbos.

If any change were to be made at all, the thinking goes like this: ABS is a performance advantage. Cars with available ABS would almost certainly want to use it. Since that is the huge majority of cars in ITR, it made more sense to reduce the weights of the have-nots rather than raise the weights of the haves.

Some felt ABS systems *can* be a liability, so people would want to remove them. In addition, of course, quite a few ITR cars already have disabled and even removed ABS systems, and those cars need to stay legal. Hence the proposal to make removal optional instead of mandatory. So the last question to answer with respect to this is, do the weights of cars WITH an available system, but with said system disabled, stay the same as each other?

In any case, there's no change proposed if the membership doesn't want it. But I have personally heard a request for this from more than one ITR driver, so *some* want it. The question is ... how many, is it good for the category and club in the long run, and if so, exactly what structure should the change take?

BTW, the big elephant in the room is that if you allow ABS, you allow wheel-speed sensors. If you allow wheel-speed sensors, then you allow that information to be fed to the ECU (at least for those cars that do that, stock). If you allow that information to go to the ECU, you potentially enable at least engine-based traction control, and maybe for ultra-sophisticated stock ABS systems, brake-based traction control too.

If you are against making a change, great! Just let us know that, and please tell us why. If you like the idea of making a change but have input to how a rule should be structured, tell us that too.

BTW, due to the rules season, if any rule changes are made at this point, they would be for 2012.
 
FYI -- Tristan has been racing IT well, hell, since its inception? An ITB 200sx like I didn't know existed, then a 240sx, and now the 300zx.

He's one of the more reasonable guys I know, and if he's angry, I'd take that as evidence of how many folks who have built "early" ITR cars may feel.

One thing that we lose sight of sometimes in our ongoing efforts to improve IT is that perhaps the most attractive part of our rule set is stability. Until the last few years, it di not change much.
 
JoshS said:
That is not the proposal ... the proposal is that only cars with no available ABS system at all would get a break. There are very few of those listed in ITR.
Click to expand...

And that is why my letter will be a resounding NO. If you want to allow ABS, allow it with a weight penalty. If you want to give cars without ABS a weight break, so be it - but do it for ALL CARS NOT RUNNING ABS.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
And that is why my letter will be a resounding NO. If you want to allow ABS, allow it with a weight penalty. If you want to give cars without ABS a weight break, so be it - but do it for ALL CARS NOT RUNNING ABS.
Click to expand...

I personally don't like the idea of having variable weights (i.e., the listed weight on the spec line might not be the actual minimum weight) but I understand the argument. The other proposal fit into the existing model better (a "subtractor" for cars without available ABS that affects their spec line weight during the weight assignment process.)
 
Last edited:
Josh,

Thanks for trying to "KISS" the rule set. I don't like the idea of allowing electronic throttles, much less ABS. Expect to see a letter from me objecting on both us founders having to replace parts long sold, as well as traction and stability control advantages.
 
Z3_GoCar said:
Josh,

Thanks for trying to "KISS" the rule set. I don't like the idea of allowing electronic throttles, much less ABS. Expect to see a letter from me objecting on both us founders having to replace parts long sold, as well as traction and stability control advantages.
Click to expand...

On the electronic throttles, are you proposing that cars with an electronic throttle should not be classed, or that they should not be allowed to race without engineering a cable-driven replacement pedal/linkage/throttle body?
 
electronic throttles controlled by the ECU can be used for basic traction control just by observing the RPM acceleration - something all good ECUs do anyhow. I'd almost bet there are some cars doing this already. there are similar systems that work on the ignition only, so you could even approximate traction control with with a carb and an MSD look alike. it's not new tech.

ABS tied to the ECU is a very different animal than that NOT tied to the ECU, and even on standalone systems, the complexity and function varies wildly. I don't know for sure, but I'll bet that the ABS on tristan's 300zx was a hindrance just based on it's age. like Jeff said - it can go either way and there's no sure way to tell (it could come down to preference).

it's easier to just NOT ALLOW this stuff, even if doing so means that exceptions need to be made to the IT core philosophy, because once its out of the picture, things like rated and whp and suspension design and other factors actually observable to the ITAC and competitors can be used to classify a car.

soon we're going to see requests to class cars with stability and traction controls, advanced ABS with electronic brake force distribution, and a host of other "illegal" features and a decision should be made NOW about how to deal with them - because the core IT premise just doesn't appear to address that level of sophistication. These cars will be in S and A eventually too, as the tech trickles down to more pedestrian vehicles.

this will become a real sticky issue when brake masters and other components NOT open under the current rules become integrate into the active systems to the extent that they no longer function as traditional MCs on their own. does the IT philosophy allow that alternate master cylinders and throttle bodies are required in order to classify a car? I can see that getting ugly, fast. though I'm sure similar questions were raised when electronic fuel injection was introduced, or ECUs were opened, etc...
 
JoshS said:
In any case, there's no change proposed if the membership doesn't want it.
Click to expand...

I'm not so confident in that statement. Why?

Many people wanted the engine mount rule changed, in fact, the member input was overwhelmingly in favor of changing the rule. But the ITAC didn't recommend the change to the CRB. So, based on that data I feel it is not entirely known what the ITAC will do. It might be that the majority of people do not want ABS in IT, but the ITAC recommends differently to the CRB.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the update Josh!!!!


I feel strongly enough about this that it might result in my first letter...

NO ABS, NO TRACTION CONTROL, NO auto shift manual tranmissions or any of that crap!!!! Learn to drive, or be out driven! :D people can out-spend enough as it is...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top