ITAC News.
- Thread starter lateapex911
- Start date
:026:guilty - in part. the hondas are a mess. I'm sure some are volvos and dodges as per usual. I just started going through it all and the ITA/B line is not even blurry - it's just a grey region in many cases.
thanks to the ITAC for looking each of these through. - if I can help, add info, etc... please let me know. there's a lot more I see that needs cleaning and since member input is the starting point, I'm sending in what I find from what I know - I've got a newborn so I don't sleep anymore...
JeffYoung
New member
No new S2k here....
Chip, the "out for member comment" on the crankfire rule came about this way. I've got a personal interest in it, so I may abstain from a vote, although I am opposed to it. Here's what I can tell you about the situation based solely on my opinion. I'd love to get you and others to comment on the situation. It's actually a more fundamental issue than it first appears.
The deal basically is that older distributor based (and some non-distributor) EFI systems do not work well with aftermarket ECUs. Essentially, the distributor based signal telling the ECU "where" the cam/crank are is weak -- much weaker and far less accurate than a cam or crank position sensor.
I spent a lot of time and money getting my distributor to work reliably with an aftermarket ECU. With a Haltech, I just could never get it right; with MSII, it works, although there is still signal drop out at lower RPMs. I'm working on boosting that signal -- all legal since it is distributor "guts" -- but the bottom line is it takes work.
The "easy" fix would be to allow the signal to come from the crank or a CPS. And that is less of a change to the rules than it might first appear. Basically, right now, your crank pulley is free, so you can load that sucker up with rare earth magnets and get it all setup to send a precise signal to the ECU....if you were allowed to add a pickup/sensor.
Now, the rule does say something like "sensors may be replaced" but it doesn't say moved. This particular discussiion came from a couple of letters asking if the position sensor inside the distributor that senses cam/crank location could be moved to the crank.
The ITAC's answer is no.
After spending a lot of time on this issue I agree. This is more than just moving a water temp or air temp sensor -- allowing pickup at the crank IS a peformance advantage and, if you work through it you can make the distributor based pick up work.
But that leads to the fundamental issue here -- should we allow "open" sensors to allow older EFI cars the same advantages as new? Note this was already done -- a mistake in my view -- for some cars (notably the Miata) to allow the addition of a MAP to make it work with some systems.
This opened up a can of worms I think. Open sensors would allow me to move my batch fired, distributor based system to running a full sequential setup off the crank. With a more accurate signal.
But that is the fundamental core issue I think: do we allow open sensors or not?
Moreover, the "rule" as sent out for comment goes even farther and would allow carb cars crankfire, (Electromotive has such a system) that would really clean up timing and spark.
My vote is no, but I'd love to hear what membership thinks although I think this one may have crossed the line over a "core IT philosophy" that we simply should not allow despite member opinion.
Current letters on this are solidly against, although I think there are only 5-6 or so of them.
Chip, the "out for member comment" on the crankfire rule came about this way. I've got a personal interest in it, so I may abstain from a vote, although I am opposed to it. Here's what I can tell you about the situation based solely on my opinion. I'd love to get you and others to comment on the situation. It's actually a more fundamental issue than it first appears.
The deal basically is that older distributor based (and some non-distributor) EFI systems do not work well with aftermarket ECUs. Essentially, the distributor based signal telling the ECU "where" the cam/crank are is weak -- much weaker and far less accurate than a cam or crank position sensor.
I spent a lot of time and money getting my distributor to work reliably with an aftermarket ECU. With a Haltech, I just could never get it right; with MSII, it works, although there is still signal drop out at lower RPMs. I'm working on boosting that signal -- all legal since it is distributor "guts" -- but the bottom line is it takes work.
The "easy" fix would be to allow the signal to come from the crank or a CPS. And that is less of a change to the rules than it might first appear. Basically, right now, your crank pulley is free, so you can load that sucker up with rare earth magnets and get it all setup to send a precise signal to the ECU....if you were allowed to add a pickup/sensor.
Now, the rule does say something like "sensors may be replaced" but it doesn't say moved. This particular discussiion came from a couple of letters asking if the position sensor inside the distributor that senses cam/crank location could be moved to the crank.
The ITAC's answer is no.
After spending a lot of time on this issue I agree. This is more than just moving a water temp or air temp sensor -- allowing pickup at the crank IS a peformance advantage and, if you work through it you can make the distributor based pick up work.
But that leads to the fundamental issue here -- should we allow "open" sensors to allow older EFI cars the same advantages as new? Note this was already done -- a mistake in my view -- for some cars (notably the Miata) to allow the addition of a MAP to make it work with some systems.
This opened up a can of worms I think. Open sensors would allow me to move my batch fired, distributor based system to running a full sequential setup off the crank. With a more accurate signal.
But that is the fundamental core issue I think: do we allow open sensors or not?
Moreover, the "rule" as sent out for comment goes even farther and would allow carb cars crankfire, (Electromotive has such a system) that would really clean up timing and spark.
My vote is no, but I'd love to hear what membership thinks although I think this one may have crossed the line over a "core IT philosophy" that we simply should not allow despite member opinion.
Current letters on this are solidly against, although I think there are only 5-6 or so of them.
I for one are against them. This will only provide an performance advantage that, if apporved would increase the money required to make a 10/10ths car. I mean some car this will help tremendously, others not so much. But, this is "improved" touring. Not "super" touring, or even worst "production". haha..
A question to the masses, is there any president to revoke a rule that has already been adopted? Yeah most rules that don't make sense, to me, now if revoked would decrease the peformace advantages of some. whcih I woudl imagine would be met with alot of resisitnace. I am more of the idea that you choose your dog in the race and deal with what comes with it.
Alot of allowing open sensors will allow people with the means to do so take advantage of what others can't afford.
A question to the masses, is there any president to revoke a rule that has already been adopted? Yeah most rules that don't make sense, to me, now if revoked would decrease the peformace advantages of some. whcih I woudl imagine would be met with alot of resisitnace. I am more of the idea that you choose your dog in the race and deal with what comes with it.
Alot of allowing open sensors will allow people with the means to do so take advantage of what others can't afford.
lawtonglenn
New member
In 1933, the state conventions ratified the Twenty-first Amendment, which repealed Amendment XVIII. Federal Prohibitionary laws were then repealed. The amendment was fully ratified on December 5, 1933. Some States, however, continued Prohibition within their jurisdictions. Almost two-thirds of all states adopted some form of local option which enabled residents in political subdivisions to vote for or against local Prohibition; therefore, for a time, 38% of Americans lived in areas with Prohibition. By 1966, however, all states had fully repealed their state-level Prohibition laws, with Mississippi the last state to do so.
lawtonglenn
New member
JeffYoung
New member
If I recall correctly, and I may have the terminology wrong, but either there were express rules allowing remote reservoir shocks and piston coatings, or they were officially endorsed as legal by the CRB. That rule/endorsement was then rescinded.
I'm not sure I'm in favor of changing any existing rules, but I certainly agree that the fact it is "hard" to make a distributor based system work with a new aftermarket ECU is not enough reason to change the rule.
Me (and my wallet) are proof that it can be done. If you don't want the aftermarket ECU, you don't have to spend the $$$.
I'm not sure I'm in favor of changing any existing rules, but I certainly agree that the fact it is "hard" to make a distributor based system work with a new aftermarket ECU is not enough reason to change the rule.
Me (and my wallet) are proof that it can be done. If you don't want the aftermarket ECU, you don't have to spend the $$$.
Charlie Broring
New member
A Pertronics Igniter ($60) will fit into most distributors and trigger a Megasquirt ECU nicely. There is no "need" for a crank trigger setup.
We never should let the ECU Gennie out of the bottle . Ecu allowances could have been done on a case by case basis and we wouldn't be have this discussion now.
We never should let the ECU Gennie out of the bottle . Ecu allowances could have been done on a case by case basis and we wouldn't be have this discussion now.
JeffYoung
New member
Actually, not exactly. We tried that with a Pertronix in a Mallory distributor to see what it did. Still had low rpm signal drop out. YOu could see it on the oscilloscope.
Something about low RPM creates bad signal strength. It clears up (at least on my car) around 2,000 RPM so it doesn't (at this point) affect raceability, but it is still annoying.
Still opposed to the change though.
Something about low RPM creates bad signal strength. It clears up (at least on my car) around 2,000 RPM so it doesn't (at this point) affect raceability, but it is still annoying.
Still opposed to the change though.
And in doing so within the current ruleset you are giving up a possible advantage. That other competitors with the money to do will.
Terry Hanushek
Member
Ron Earp
Administrator
What difference do the letters make? They were solidly for the motor mount allowance but had no effect, the allowance was still turned down.
Hell yes I'm against it. As we know systems can be made to work as is.
The argument for allowance is "well, the newer cars have crank sensing systems and I should be allowed to have what newer cars in the class have to level the field". Too bad. You choose your car to race, you live with it, warts and all.
I'd like to race a fuel injected car with disc brakes. If I would like to do it badly enough I'll get a newer car, not ask for a rules change.
spawpoet
New member
That allowance will be submitted for member input next month
. Crank fire would be great on our dinosaur cars. Like you pointed out, so would FI, and something more than Flintstone style brakes, but we kinda should try to keep this Genie as close to in the bottle as we can. This is a slippery slope defined. Count me as against.
JoshS
New member
I personally am hoping the letters discuss pros and cons with their opinions. I actually think we made a mistake with proposing a specific wording with the engine mount request for input. We just got a lot of "yes" but other than the count of letters, got little actual input. The softer question with ignitions will hopefully elicit some more thoughtful feedback.
It's just input. It's not a public vote. The input needs to sway the committee one way or the other.
RSTPerformance
New member
Josh... Just coght up on a little reading in the forums, had to lol... Why would anyone want to be on the ITAC? The CRB hasn't changed yet has it? Please be sure to let me know when it does so I can reconsider volunteering time again to the business we call a club!
Also why are you even considering the 12 reclassifications or adjustments? Are they on newly classed cars? It's still illigal to change anything else correct?
Also to be clear for everyone where should we send e-mails to in NOT supporting IT to become even more a production class.
Thanks;
Raymond
JoshS
New member
I don't remember
They are on the agenda because we received letters. The rules have not changed, weights cannot be changed except in the case of an error (and please don't make me define it again!) We haven't yet evaluated whether or not these 12 qualify as errors or not ... we'll do that on the call.
As it says in Fastrack, all letters (and resumes!) should be submitted via crbscca.com.
Last edited:
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Based on the ITAC and the CRBs response to the 40 nearly unanimous "for" letters on the engine mount request, it's not a surprise that people feel it's pointless to write a letter.
Simply, if the CRB says, "Here's a new rule as we're thinking about writing it, do you support it?" and 40 people read it, think about it, and support it, it boggles the mind how that can be ignored. I know some people suggested edits, or adjustments, others were fine with what they read.
But, why would the question even be asked if the committee wasn't supportive of the idea? After all, the committee voted supported it, or there's no point to ask in the first place. So, the committee supports the concept, 40 responders LOVE the idea, yet, somehow, that was ignored. It makes no sense at all. And it whacks at the confidence of the members in their leaders. What's doubling perplexing in this case is that not one but BOTH committees blew it.
I'll write in and say "no" but I can tell you I'm not going to spend the hours I used to crafting logical and passionate responses...it's obvious that at this point, it probably doesn't matter.
Last edited:
JoshS
New member
It probably has more to do with the fact that there's only been 1 business day since Fastrack was published. Business days are important because the ITAC doesn't see the feedback the moment you submit, the national office dispatches each letter to the board or committee that needs to see it.
Ron Earp
Administrator
Forty people wrote in in support of the motor mount change. Forty is a good number of people and I'm told the most ever that has written in support of anything proposed. But, apparently that response couldn't sway the committee to vote for the change. So what is a member to think? Input works? It clearly does not work.
Apparently the ITAC didn't support it. Reading on the brown board the ITAC returned a hung vote, which recommends nothing to the CRB.
Exactly. Give as you get.
-------------
RE: Crank fire igintion
Ron Earp thinks the rule is adequate as written.
Ron Earp
SCCA #345404
------------
And in the next FastTrack we'll read that crankfire ignition is wide open for IT cars.
Last edited: