ITR Competition

James, can't the ECU be corrected to fix that?? ECU is open now. Again, expensive, and maybe difficult, but fixable.

Guys, we truly cannot go down the road of 50 lbs for this, 100 lbs for that, and allowances for this and allowances for that. That's what has killed production, and what guys like Kirk feared would creep into ITR with the changes under the guise of "efficiency" or "common sense."

Part of the deal when you buy into the IT concept is you buy into the rule set that allows few if any allowances for particular cars.

If the problem is not insurmountable, then get to work.
 
Jeff,

Exactly. However, that's one of the unanticipated benifits of the ECU rule, which was put in place to obstensably replace ECU's that are tuning resistant.

So, in the end say a car comes around where removing the engine ecu doesn't just affect the ABS, say the ABS, traction control, and even a dynimic stability control all conspire to mean a complete rewire is required to remove the multi-headed hydra. Do we:

-A- Allow these systems unmodified

-B- Allow the complete removal of these systems and the required wireing

-C- Unclass this car as not suitable to the IT philosophy

Part of the issue with dynamic braking systems is that they have the ability to affect the brake balance on a wheel by wheel basis, when tied into the ABS system the brakes are ultimately not controled by the driver but by the computer, and when the conputer is removed from the loop as with an ECU transplant, then there's no telling how individual systems may respond based on their unique propritary means of accomplishing the same task. Also, say this car now has a significant following before we realize that a problem exists so that unclassing the car will result in a significant up-roar and -C- becomes a much harder propisition.
 
James, you and I usually agree, but I just don't see the issue here.

Brake circuitry is free. That means you can replumb the entire braking system (I have). Is it fun? No. Is it time consuming? Yes.

ECU is free. This means you can get rid of any issues the various sensors you mention cause, with the appropriate amount of time and money invested in the same.

No need to remove the wiring. Plenty of cars out there still have the stock harness in the car with a rewire running along side it.

In short, there are ways to take the DSC, the traction control and the ABS completely out of the picture. If you chose to run a car that has these features, factor the cost of doing so into your build -- just like the 240Z guys (and me) factor all kinds of duct fabrication into their brake costs, or the RX7 guys factor lots of radiator/grill/spoiler work to keep the car cool, etc.

Them's the rules, in my view. These problems are fixable, they just take time and money. It is far safer from a global rules perspective to disallow one or two "allowances" than deal with the impact -- a never ending battle to get allowances by all cars -- of allowing them in the first place.
 
Use a stand alone ECU - Motec, Wolf, MegaSquirt, etc. and it won't be an issue. In fact.....open ECU, you can use those sensors for ABS for some good infomation and data collection.

It's fixable, but it might not be as easy as ordering a Jim confetti Shark Injector (but don't think this will put you upfront for BMW IT prep against the standalone route). Once you have your stand alone ECU not listening to signals from the non-existant/disconnected ABS or wheel sensors you should be just fine. Hydraulics are still going to work on the physical principles they are founded upon.

Allowing ABS would open up a huge can of worms. There are more than a few ITR cars with no ABS, and, I've no idea what one could do WITH ABS and an open ECU rule. I imagine lots of advantageous traction control, selective wheel braking, etc. I know some of the cars do that now, but I imagine with the "racers touch and tuning" these systems would actually be helpful to quick lap times, not a hinderance as they seem to be on most track tests.

Ron
 
James, you and I usually agree, but I just don't see the issue here.

Brake circuitry is free. That means you can replumb the entire braking system (I have). Is it fun? No. Is it time consuming? Yes.

ECU is free. This means you can get rid of any issues the various sensors you mention cause, with the appropriate amount of time and money invested in the same.

No need to remove the wiring. Plenty of cars out there still have the stock harness in the car with a rewire running along side it.

In short, there are ways to take the DSC, the traction control and the ABS completely out of the picture. If you chose to run a car that has these features, factor the cost of doing so into your build -- just like the 240Z guys (and me) factor all kinds of duct fabrication into their brake costs, or the RX7 guys factor lots of radiator/grill/spoiler work to keep the car cool, etc.

Them's the rules, in my view. These problems are fixable, they just take time and money. It is far safer from a global rules perspective to disallow one or two "allowances" than deal with the impact -- a never ending battle to get allowances by all cars -- of allowing them in the first place.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Hey Jeff,

I'm just bringing it up because... I see it as a possible mine field, no matter what direction is taken. Also, this kind of technology is increasingly integrated and intrusive to other systems in the car. Let's take this further than the current cars classed here. How do we deal with ABS/Traction Control/DSC when the controls become fully drive by wire, or even by fiber optic cable? The first step is already upon us with the classing of the BMW 330i and it's electric throttle, and in future years active steering. It's perfectly feasable to have an electric brake pedal input a signal into the computer to operate the brake system, prevent lock-up and keep the car dynamically stable with out using hydraulics, there are also packaging advatages, as well as the current wisdom that electronic systems are more reliable and faster acting than mechanical, and it'll remove the pedal buzz that some find distracting. I also agree that each car shouldn't have it's own set of rules, but in my mind the real down fall to the Production class is that it caters to one set of cars, built over a short time from the 60's to the mid 70's at the expense of multiple generations of cars. My concern is that we may be wittnessing the last generation of cars to be classed in IT unless we take a proactive stance at how street cars become race cars and understand what kinds of compromises are made in that transition. A rule that says simple remove the wheel sensors to disable the ABS system just doesn't cut it in my book. If we can make that transition as KISS as possible, I think we all agree is the best.
 
Use a stand alone ECU - Motec, Wolf, MegaSquirt, etc. and it won't be an issue. In fact.....open ECU, you can use those sensors for ABS for some good infomation and data collection. [/b]
Click to expand...
Except that wouldn't be legal -- cars with ABS and traction control "shall" disconnect the wheel sensors in order to disable those systems.

Allowing ABS would open up a huge can of worms. There are more than a few ITR cars with no ABS, and, I've no idea what one could do WITH ABS and an open ECU rule. I imagine lots of advantageous traction control, selective wheel braking, etc. I know some of the cars do that now, but I imagine with the "racers touch and tuning" these systems would actually be helpful to quick lap times, not a hinderance as they seem to be on most track tests. [/b]
Click to expand...
I can point to Touring, and say that most of those cars have ABS, traction control, and the same ECU rules as IT, and even with the huge budgets and factory support, I don't see anyone doing that sort of customization.

I will also say that lots of people in SS and T believe that their factory ABS is actually a hindrance rather than a help, and would happily disable it if it if there were a legal way to that (in those classes, you cannot replace the plumbing) or futz with the sensors. When we were running our Mazda3s in SSC, we would have loved to disable the ABS on the one car we had that came with the option. It was terrible. The non-ABS cars had fabulous, consistent brakes.
 
ABS is an issue that is going to be more of a problem in all the IT classes as we go forward in classing more cars. The conversation so far has been focused on fully prepped cars, but we need to remember this is a class that is designed to be entry level. Lots of drivers add the safety gear and a few performance modifications and ease into racing. Making some one replumb the brake system and replace the ECU is a barrier to entry that I really do not think we want in IT.
I would like to explore a way that a car with the ABS unmodified can race but that would not allow it to be an huge advantage. Maybe that means a weight penalty, heck may be they have to race on space saver spares. If we can come up with some way to do this we will lower the difficulty to get started and encourage crossover for the marque clubs.
 
Use a stand alone ECU - Motec, Wolf, MegaSquirt, etc. and it won't be an issue. In fact.....open ECU, you can use those sensors for ABS for some good infomation and data collection.
Ron [/b]
Click to expand...
Hey guys, did I sleep through class again? I missed the part where they made ECUs open, can someone enlighten me?

Thanks.
 
Yep, you were sleeping. :-)

They've been open as long as I've been involved with IT, not long, since about 2004. I think it had just passed a little before then or around that time.

And you can collect data from the ECU - the high end data acquistion systems do just that, but I was wrong about the wheel sensors and collecting from them.

Ron
 
Interestingly,
What we've done on the Z3 1.9 is the following:

Disconnect the ABS pump and remove it from the car, replumb lines from master cylinder to factory distribution block. (you've got to otherwise you cannot cycle the ABS pump to bleed the brakes)(MUSH PEDAL)
Remove all wheel seped sensors EXCEPT RR which is hard wired to ECU (from factory). Without it car won't rev over 5G's.

....legal....no....works...yes....rulebook accurate for a new car.....no....

"the times they are a changin"......we better get used to it

The automakers are progressing much faster than the rulebook. 5yrs post-production is not that much time for a ruleset to evolve.

.02

R
 
Earl, they're open as long as you can stuff it inside of the OEM ECU box. :rolleyes: So, its not really open otherwise I'd be using a relatively inexpensive piggy back system.
 
Actually the gt2 guys use the VQ30 that is out of the 95 up maxima. A very different engine from the vg30 in the z32. There were several shops that tried to get the 4 valve vg30 to survive in a race enviroment and could not. They work for drag guys that only rev for short periods of time. Something about the blocks have to much flex for extended periods of high rpm. It will be interesting to see how they survive in ITR trim. It will be a very expensive car to build and maintain.
Chris
[/b]
Click to expand...


the vg30de bottom end is overbuilt to handle the lower compression and turbos of the vg30det. So essentially building a .040 over NA motor you will never really exceed the motors capabilities. I have rebuilt a few when I worked at the dealer (they suck up water very easy) and was very impressed with them.
 
...we need to remember this is a class that is designed to be entry level...[/b]
Click to expand...

Dick, might I throw a grenade into the middle of this circle of love? With the types of cars we're talking about here in the proposed ITR (look at the cars listed; show me an entry-level "economy" car) we're WAY beyond the concept of low-budget entry-level stuff...

That list of cars reflects the pinnacle of modern automotive technology. Very few of these cars (if any) were ever intended to be entry-level, economy, budget-conscious purchases. Regardless of the fact they may be able to be picked up in today's used market at a "low" price, these are high-tech, complicated, engineering-intensive automobiles that will require specialized skills and tools to troubleshoot, repair, deisgn, upgrade, and modify. This ain't no Spec Miata-bolt-on-the-parts-and-go type of class. No amount of lowball purchase price can get around that.

The sooner we let go of that mindset, the sooner we can advance on the process. - GA
 
Well Jeff,

Where in the rules does it allow someone to replumb the brake system to remove the ABS drive system. I guess it's the valve that controls the ABS system that's the problem. With the Z3, the stock ecm detect's the absence of the wheel sensor and goes into limp mode, the only way around is to remove the ABS relay. So in a sense I'm rewiring to remove the ABS system, where's this allowed in the rules? WC/Grand Am uses a 50lb penelty for a working ABS system. Might this be an option?

[/b]
Click to expand...



The Z3 is definately different than the 325, just unplug the ABS and your good to go.
 
Earl, they're open as long as you can stuff it inside of the OEM ECU box. :rolleyes: So, its not really open otherwise I'd be using a relatively inexpensive piggy back system. [/b]
Click to expand...
Thanks Dave - that's how I understood it. When I saw Ron's comment about using a stand alone ECU I thought maybe I had missed the memo. Wouldn't be the first time.
 
... the only way around is to remove the ABS relay. So in a sense I'm rewiring to remove the ABS system, where's this allowed in the rules?
[/b]
Click to expand...

17.1.4.D.6.c

"Components that perform no other function than to assist in the activation of the ABS portion of the brake system may be removed."
 
It's been two years since I made a pitch for leaving ABS installed and operative. I still think that it's something that needs to be considered.

K
 
With my background in showroom stock racing I can tell you that ABS is not what you want! Street ABS systems are not set up ( for the most part ) for the track and will do some bizarre things when you least expect it. Ditch the ABS unless you happen to own a Porsche GT3 Cup car.......
 
......With the types of cars we're talking about here in the proposed ITR (look at the cars listed; show me an entry-level "economy" car) we're WAY beyond the concept of low-budget entry-level stuff...


The sooner we let go of that mindset, the sooner we can advance on the process. - GA
[/b]
Click to expand...

Good point Greg, but I think that t while this train of discussion started in the ITR forum, it's not really limited to ITR. I bet Dick was talking categorically when he made his comment. Even in ITR, there is a reasonable chance that there will be those who, for lack of time, money and expertise, will struggle with the ABS aspect.

But in the larger picture, and down the road, this is something that will challenge us increasingly. Common garden variety cars that we'd love to class in ITA and ITB (even!) will possibly carry some interesting systems that involve ABS and more.

Actually, I wish the problems were going to continue to be as simple as very difficult to work around ABS systems.

Dick, I LIKE your thinking! SPace saver spares! That's great...except in the rain!

Just to stir the pot further, some random thoughts/solutions:

- Allow ABS but cars must run an additional ballast of 2.5% of their spec weight .
- Do FWD cars run a higher or lesser percentage?
- What about rain? Is there a rain race addition to the weight penalty? How do you define "wet"? ;)
- ABS equipped cars run rims 1" narrower than allowed for that class.
- Where ABS is linked to traction control systems, add 5% of spec weight.
- Continue the ban, reminding them that there are other choices in cars, and even classes or categories they can run in. (Or clubs?)


OK, some of those are silly, but they highlight possible issues.
 
See, Jake - suggestions (e.g., 2.5%) pretty much always move forward from the proposition that ABS is BETTER than no ABS. As Fred points out, it is not, since it's not optimized for racing conditions, pads, etc. Jeremy Lucas explained in a conversation back then that besting the ABS standard with one's foot was at that time a test to get into the Honda R&D racing club, or some such...

I simply argue that it's probably better for the category to not put garage mechanics in charge of trying to re-engineer something that complex, if they don't want to.

Yes - ABS will be of value for some (possibly large) portion of drivers in the rain. It still seems to me that the primary objection is that it "limits the skill required." It does, but evidence suggests that it limits it to a benchmark LOWER than someone with really mad braking skilz can achieve without the computer intervening.

Call it a wash, over a large number of samples and conditions, and on we go...

K
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top