ITR Competition

If I could run ABS, I would run it in the wet and disable it in the dry. My 3rd gen RX-7 had a system that I would run all day long on the track. It's the sh*t that is on Neons and such that won't work.
 
Go ahead and build that 911 Dave! :eclipsee_steering: :smilie_pokal:
[/b]
Click to expand...

Honestly Bill, I'm currently thinking more along the lines of an FProd 912 or 914 :D

By the way, I just got my license back and plan to run the last MARRS race. Thanks for your help!
 
Honestly Bill, I'm currently thinking more along the lines of an FProd 912 or 914 :D

By the way, I just got my license back and plan to run the last MARRS race. Thanks for your help!
[/b]
Click to expand...

:023: :023: :023:

If you want an FP 914, there are a few for sale, and I know where you can probably get a started car pretty cheap.
 
The last time we discussed this Kirk, and others, were pushing the idea that running with ABS is actually a disadvantage, so why not let it in. ...[/b]
Click to expand...
Please don't misrepresent my point by oversimplifying it.

There is certainly the possibility that ABS is a better braker than is an AVERAGE club racer, and it's certainly better than a complete wanker. ABS will make bring the wanker and the average guy up to some higher threshold.

My point is that street-specification ABS, on a typical IT-prepared car, likely isn't better than a really talented foot. If the argument is that ABS is going to magically put wankers up front, it ain't going to happen.

Back in the ESCORT endurance days, we ran an RX7 without ABS against a team that ran a GSL-SE or whatever they called it, WITH ABS. They bitched and moaned about it and we were typically faster than them. They had trouble with it overheating, couldn't get it bled right, yadda, yadda, yadda and wanted to take it out.

But at the end of the day, the policy shouldn't be made on anecdote. Someone needs to make a strategic decision for the category and decide what makes the most sense for the most cases, for most people in most cars. There will ALWAYS be some cars that get a little edge or get dinked a little more by a particular allowance, and we absolutely MUST be concerned with creep and unitendend consequences. No argument from me there...

...but what I'm suggesting is NOT an additional allowance. I'm suggesting that cars with ABS should be allowed to leave it exactly the way that the manufacturer's millions of dollars worth of engineering designed it, as a compromise for street application. I'll continue to defend as cheaper (cheapest) and easier (easiest) leaving something the heck alone. If that means that some cars are better in the rain, that's what that means. It's already the case that some cars are better on high-speed tracks, and some on handling tracks, etc., etc., etc.

The arguments against ABS continue - OPINION - to be based largely on purist beliefs that we shouldn't have computers making car-control decisions for "real racers." I remember having conversations with guys in the paddock back when IT was new, who were against allowing FUEL INJECTION on IT cars, since it took back a relative advantage enjoyed by racers who really knew how to tune a carb. How silly does that seem today?

K
 
...but what I'm suggesting is NOT an additional allowance. I'm suggesting that cars with ABS should be allowed to leave it exactly the way that the manufacturer's millions of dollars worth of engineering designed it, as a compromise for street application. I'll continue to defend as cheaper (cheapest) and easier (easiest) leaving something the heck alone. If that means that some cars are better in the rain, that's what that means. It's already the case that some cars are better on high-speed tracks, and some on handling tracks, etc., etc., etc.
K
[/b]
Click to expand...

That is a good point and one position I had not considered, and I bet some others haven't considered it either. Leave it be, and let the chips falls where they may. The ABS system becomes another consideration in selecting a car. Is a Bosch system better than a Delphi system? Do Hondas have ABS controllers worth a damn? ABS will have to be considered when selecting a car, absolutely.

But, that will open up another door - will ABS systems have to be considered when classing a car.......

Ron
 
I'm suggesting that cars with ABS should be allowed to leave it exactly the way that the manufacturer's millions of dollars worth of engineering designed it, as a compromise for street application. I'll continue to defend as cheaper (cheapest) and easier (easiest) leaving something the heck alone. If that means that some cars are better in the rain, that's what that means. It's already the case that some cars are better on high-speed tracks, and some on handling tracks, etc., etc., etc.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Kirk,

While I understand your position here, I'm not sure that it could be implemented and subsequently policed. Read back a few posts about the cars where the ABS system is tied into the ECU. Being as ECU's are essentially open (yeah, yeah, as long as it fits in the stock housing and uses the stock harness), how long do you think it will take for someone to figure out how to improve that 'street' system to something that will help out even a talented driver? Or diddle it so that it will become and advantageous traction control system?

It's only going to get harder, as cars get newer and more sophisticated, to isolate specific systems and components from the overall management system of the car. Not sure how to best handle it, but having opened the door on the ECUs, the ripple effect will only be that much greater.
 
I too like Kirk’s perspective. Upon reflection the concept of a specific allowance (like 50 pound more) if you run ABS is scary. It kinds of sends us down the production road and I thinks many of us do not want to go there.
I wonder if a rule that ABS may be removed but not modified would work, and Bill I understand that it would be very hard to detect cheating, but that is already the case with many modifications now.
 
Is it dumb of me to think that ABS, like AWD IMHO would create a huge disparity in cars within a class when wet track conditions are involved?

Back in 1988, when I did a Skippy ADS, they had you do a braking excersize with an ABS equipped 325 and then one without. You couldn't leave the area until you had outbraked your distance in the ABS car with your distance in the non-ABS car.

My issue is not at your typical club event, its my personal fear that we could create huge overdogs when weather is involved.
 
We don't try to equalize cars for different courses so it seems a little out there to start considering different racing conditions. (Of course, the same argument can get be made by turning that statement over - that it's so out there that we should stay far away from it.) FWD already (arguably) has an advantage in the wet over RWD.

Extend the either/or option such that if the ABS hardware is present, it must work exactly as designed - aka we can't pick and choose when we do or don't want ABS, based on conditions. If someone wants to leave it in and gain an advantage in the relatively small number of regionals that are run in the rain, they have to be willing to accept its compromises in functionality in the dry.

I'm not buying that we have close enough control over the variables to accurately consider ABS in the classification/specification process and would, regardless, be happier with a system that classified a car ABS-blind and allowed the driver to do what he/she thinks is best for his situation.

ABS WILL help newbies who screw up and would otherwise flatspot their new tires in their first race. It will help mask errors in brake or downshift control, decreasing their cost in laptime. If I were building a new enduro-specialty Golf, I'd leave it in. (I think I'd also leave the AC in, now that I'm living where I do.) But if I were trying to give a really talented driver a shot at winning ITB at the ARRC, and had time to figure out pad compounds, etc., I'd probably leave it out.

I don't remember who to cite for the idea but rules and the enforcement of rules are entirely separate things, and comingling them in discussions clouds pertinent issues. There are plenty of rules in the ITCS that require more expertise and equipment than many regions have on hand, and that doesn't make the rules themselves a bad idea.

K
 
Would allowing ABS to remain functional get us into some of the same issues as AWD? (No or not much advantage in the dry, but an overdog in the wet)
 
and Bill I understand that it would be very hard to detect cheating, but that is already the case with many modifications now.
[/b]
Click to expand...


Dick,

With all due respect, that old saw is, well, OLD! If people are going to come from the position that we can't police things now, so why should we try to police other things? We should pretty much throw the rule book out the window. How about looking at it from another point. If rules are hard to enforce/determine compliance, how about writing better rules?
 
On the other hand, we could open up the ECU rule completely, but prohibit wheel speed sensors. That eliminates the issues the guys are having with the bundled system and limp mode problems.

Doesn't make it easy for a new entrant though, but it is an option.

I'm not a fan of the idea, but thought I'd toss it out.

(But I'm not a fan of the whole ECU issue to start with, LOL)

And Kirk, yes, I see your point about Fuel injection, but keep in mind that only until this past year has the damage done by the ECU rule been rectified, and it nearly took an act of God. That was a classic unintended post classification consequence issue of the highest order.........

Wehn we're discussing ABS, et al, we need to be very careful in cnsidering not just what the current state of the art is, but what it could be down the road. Sometimes the solution seems better than the reality.
 
Dick,

With all due respect, that old saw is, well, OLD! If people are going to come from the position that we can't police things now, so why should we try to police other things? We should pretty much throw the rule book out the window. How about looking at it from another point. If rules are hard to enforce/determine compliance, how about writing better rules?
[/b]
Click to expand...


Bill, first the smart alec part of my reply: Sometimes an old saw cuts true. :lol:

But of course you are right in that if it is possible to write rules that work better that is the logical course of action. That is what this forum does best. Someone suggests a possibility and the people poke holes in it. This group is very good at that.

I am coming from a position that the following are true statements and looking for a solution.

IT is an attractive set of classes for drivers to start racing in SCCA, particularly those already running track days or marque club events.

Replumbing the ABS system is viewed as a complicated and intimidating task by many newbies and a barrier to entry.

As technology evolves and we class newer cars this will become a bigger issue for drivers entering IT.

There should be a solution that allows us to ease the barriers to entry of new drivers without upsetting the competitive balance at the front of the grid.
 
Dick,

I'm all for easing barriers to entry, but here's a great example of an unintended consequence. Open the ECU up, but now, you have to either replumb the ABS system out of the equation, or you've just given people the ability to sneak in an improved breaking system or a traction control system, if you now allow ABS.
 
do it Andy!

if i had unlimited funds, that is absolutely the car i would build for ITR, but $10k motor rebuilds scare the bejeezus outta me.
 
True story: When I was a kid just out of school with an MSEE, I crewed for a team running World Challenge. As I recall, the rule at that time was that the ABS could stay in place but could not be modified. Some customers had more money than talent, and paid me to make the ABS work better under race conditions. I thought it was too difficult until I stumbled upon a trace in the circuit board that actually switched the map to a true race system! The trace could be removed without a trace ;), and was therefore undetectable. The point is that policing stock ABS is going to be next to impossible for just one year/make/model of car, nevermind the multitudes running IT.

When it comes to tasks that infringe upon the duties traditionally assigned to drivers (as opposed to mechanics, such as the earlier FI versus carb tuning example), I guess I fall into Kirk's "purist" catagory. Although I agree that a good shoe can still outbrake most or all of the stock systems today, that probably will NOT be the case in the future. My concern is not that the wankers will be faster than they deserve, but that allowing computers to actually take over ANY of the DRIVING duties will make racing significantly less challenging and less fun. If a future ABS system is actually the faster way around the track, who in thier right mind wouldn't use it to help them "succeed" if it was permitted? The final question is: Do we want to be RACERS pushing the edge of the driving envelope (even if a computer could do it better), or would we be content to just go along for the ride? How many remember Star Wars, where the droids (aka ride-along mechanics/navigators, but NOT drivers) were in the back seats of the fighter craft? It wouldn't be quite the same if the humans were in the back seat, now would it?!

As to Dick's observation that replumbing ABS is viewed as a significant challenge, since when were the new recruits not exposed to challenges? In addition, I think we would ultimately be doing them a significant disservice by allowing ABS and thereby preventing them from learning threshold braking, for example.
 
As to Dick's observation that replumbing ABS is viewed as a significant challenge, since when were the new recruits not exposed to challenges? In addition, I think we would ultimately be doing them a significant disservice by allowing ABS and thereby preventing them from learning threshold braking, for example.
[/b]
Click to expand...
I'm building my first IT car right now, although I'm not new to club racing. I've been in SS and T before. The car I'm building has stock ABS & traction control, both operating off the same wheel speed sensors. And I perceive complying with the rules as a bit of a challenge.

I have to say that I'm okay with being forced to disable both systems, although I also wouldn't have a problem with it if we were able to keep them. I've become comfortable with replumbing the brakes, although I really think that the rules should be using a guideline of what's available as bolt-on mods, just to keep the barriers to entry (perceived or real) low. But what bothers me is that we're forced to do disable traction control in one particular way -- by disconnecting the wheel speed sensors. There would be other ways to disable these systems, such as cutting other electrical circuits. But disabling those particular sensors causes the stock ECU to go into limp mode, thereby FORCING us to replace our ECUs. This is what causes these rules to be such a big hurdle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top