PARITY IN IT CLASSES

[dj10]

Lets have a vote!
How many of you want very expensive engine management systems (like Motec) to be allowed in the IT class? How about in ITS Class?
It's time the members stand up and be counted. Time for a revolution! Lets take back our club!
Didn't they ban shocks and struts with reservoirs??? Damn right they did! Now it's time to get parity with all the cars! Who wants 50K to 60k IT cars?
Let the ITAC know where you stand. Remember the Alamo!!!!!!

VOTE NOW!!!!

hehe
dj

 

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by dj10@Nov 16 2005, 01:40 PM
Lets have a vote!
How many of you want very expensive engine mangement systems (like Motec) to be allowed in the IT class? How about in ITS Class? 
It's time the members stand up and be counted. Time for a revolution! Lets take back our club! 
Didn't they ban shocks and struts with reservoirs??? Damn right they did! Now it's time to get parity with all the cars! Who wants 50K to 60k IT cars?
Let the ITAC know where you stand. Remember the Alamo!!!!!!

VOTE NOW!!!!

hehe
dj

[snapback]65583[/snapback]​

I say keep it. Sometimes it's the only way arround tamper proof chip programs that are changed several times during a model year, or throttle by wire systems.

James

 

[RSTPerformance]

I say keep it, I don't care about ITS, and most ITB cars can't benifit from it, and if they can they need it (That was all a joke so smile now )

But for real, if you don't want a 50,000-60,000 IT car, run ITB or ITC ITS cars are what they are and cost what they cost, changing that rule wont change that... if you want to win in ITS you need to spend the $$$, and people spending the $$$ will continue to cause they can, and I see nothing wrong with that, not to mention we need higher counts so we get our own race group at 2006 ARRC

Raymond "sounding harsh (not meaning to), but you do have options, ITS doesn't have to be the "coolest class" does it?" Blethen

PS: Besides the cost factor what would the benefit be? how much would it effect the parity that already is starting to exist in the class, I think that would be a better argument to look at. JMO.

 

[Knestis]

I'm totally fine with the allowance.

There's no way to legislate spending. I could easily spend Motec money getting chips burned, installing them, and dyno testing. Besides, I honestly believe that we are still just talking about maximizing AF mixture here, and a $10K system is STILL only going to make as much HP as the engine's volumetric efficiency will allow. Anyone who thinks that Motec or some other megabuck system is gaining huge power over carefully optimized lesser systems is confused - or buying into the hype.

Besides, there's just no way to allow SOME opportunity for tuning for SOME models, without leaving the rule open enough to allow big bux to be spent on fancy solutions.

Doing the "set it free" dance,

K

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by RSTPerformance@Nov 16 2005, 07:36 PM
I say keep it, I don't care about ITS, and most ITB cars can't benifit from it, and if they can they need it   (That was all a joke so smile now  )

But for real, if you don't want a 50,000-60,000 IT car, run ITB or ITC    ITS cars are what they are and cost what they cost, changing that rule wont change that...  if you want to win in ITS you need to spend the $$$, and people spending the $$$ will continue to cause they can, and I see nothing wrong with that, not to mention we need higher counts so we get our own race group at 2006 ARRC 

Raymond "sounding harsh (not meaning to), but you do have options, ITS doesn't have to be the "coolest class" does it?" Blethen

PS: Besides the cost factor what would the benefit be?  how much would it effect the parity that already is starting to exist in the class, I think that would be a better argument to look at.  JMO.

[snapback]65623[/snapback]​

I don't think that it has anything to do with ITS. You could spend $40K on ANY IT car. These kind of numbers are for cars that get resto-style builds. They don't neccessarily go any faster but are much more reliable - and better looking than cars that are just 'built'. Replacing every suspension component, every bushing, every bearing, etc. All the little things add up FAST. You can build a SM for under $10K if you THINK you have a PERFECT donor. Mine cost over $20K WITHOUT a pro motor. I don't think many people add up (or care to) EVERY bit and piece they use to build a car. Think of the costs of a serious team just in creating a proper spares package. I bought a new trannt and torsen when mine were perfectly usable...because if one broke, I needed a spare.

Regardless, you would see $20K+ ITB cars out there easily if somebody wanted to go hog-wild. Maybe the guys who can spend the money gravitate to different cars.

How fast do you think you could be going if you found a $10K bill to spend on your car? New tires every weekend, ultra-pro motor, crazy shocks....

It's time to build a 5-cyl...

AB

 

[Joe Harlan]

Anyone who thinks that Motec or some other megabuck system is gaining huge power over carefully optimized lesser systems is confused - or buying into the hype.

Keep thinking that way Kirk......

I have spent plenty of time on the Dyno with the Motec and now the AEM system. Major benefits besides HP to be found there. No koolaide here baby.....

 

[robits325is]

I say keep it - any 96+ car with OBD II can't be made competitive without some type of aftermarket engine management system.

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by robits325is@Nov 16 2005, 08:17 PM
I say keep it - any 96+ car with OBD II can't be made competitive without some type of aftermarket engine management system.

[snapback]65643[/snapback]​

I say BS cause I have done it. you just have to do the work to crack the code. I don't have an issue with management systems as long as everyone knows the facts. My 98 240sx obdII is programable. We just had to break the code. I also know the E36 is flashable.
The 350z has also been hacked and I have spent hours on the Dyno doing the Current T2 map.

 

[its66]

The current ECU rule reminds me of the old no threaded body shock rule. It doesn't make any sense. Why disallow threaded body shocks, but allow threaded sleeves??? Why allow aftermarket ECU's, but require them to be hidden in the factory ECU case? I can spend $3-4000+ in engine management hardware and tuning, but I can't leave it in the box it came with?? I can't replace a few wires and sensors so the new computer (which IS legal) can function easily?

My vote is a non answer, since I see two choices which make sense to me.

a) Return to factory only ECU's. Allow programming changes to the factory board(s) Allow E-prom style chip replacement to the factory board and include an allowance for the adapter which some ECU's require to make the chip replacable. This would take care of RPM and top speed limits which some vehicles are burdened with (i.e. S13 240SX ~108 mph??) Tuning would be allowed if possible within these means.

b ) IF the consensus votes in favor of continuing to allow Aftermarket ECU's, then they should be ALLOWED as they are intended. Not hidden in the factory box. Not straddled with a 20+ year old wiring harness. Not stuck with nissan, mazda, or bmw sensors trying to communicate with a BrandX computer. If ITAC (through the comp board and CR would change the ECU rule wording, then aftermarket ECU's and tuning just got 50-75% less expensive. Price a Haltec or Microtech system. They are substantially less expensive <$1000. There are countless tuners out there who can work with these units since there are 1,000's of them on the street.

If the aftermarket ECU's are legal, then leave them in the open. If the system converts from Mass Air to Speed Density, then require the MAF to be in place with all the screens, doors, plungers in place just as if they were still being read by the computer.

Personally, I prefer the first choice. I obviously don't care for the wording of the current rule.


<flame suit on>

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by its66@Nov 16 2005, 08:43 PM
The current ECU rule reminds me of the old no threaded body shock rule.  It doesn't make any sense.  Why disallow threaded body shocks, but allow threaded sleeves???  Why allow aftermarket ECU's, but require them to be hidden in the factory ECU case?  I can spend $3-4000+ in engine management hardware and tuning, but I can't leave it in the box it came with??  I can't replace a few wires and sensors so the new computer (which IS legal) can function easily?

My vote is a non answer, since I see two choices which make sense to me.

a)  Return to factory only ECU's.  Allow programming changes to the factory board(s) Allow E-prom style chip replacement to the factory board and include an alowance for the adapter which some ECU's require to make the chip replacable. This would take care of RPM and top speed limits which some vehicles are burdened with (i.e. S13 240SX ~108 mph??) Tuning would be allowed if possible within these means.

b ) IF the consensus votes in favor of continuing to allow Aftermarket ECU's, then they should be ALLOWED as they are intended.  Not hidden in the factory box.  Not straddled with a 20+ year old wiring harness.  Not stuck with nissan, mazda, or bmw sensors trying to communicate with a BrandX computer.  If ITAC (through the comp board and CR would change the ECU rule wording, then aftermarket ECU's and tuning just got 50-75% less expensive. Price a Haltec or Microtech system.  They are substantially less expensive <$1000.  There are countless tuners out there who can work with these units since there are 1,000's of them on the street.

If the aftermarket ECU's are legal, then leave them in the open.  If the system converts from Mass Air to Speed Density, then require the MAF to be in place with all the screens, doors, plungers in place just as if they were still being read by the computer.

Personally, I like choice the second choice.  I obviously don't care for the wording of the current rule.
<flame suit on>

[snapback]65647[/snapback]​

How do you deal with traction control?

 

[its66]

"How do you deal with traction control?"

I just breathe the throttle a little...J/K

Honestly Joe, I hadn't considered that? Are you asking "how would I prevent a competitor from adding a couple of wheelspeed sensors and creating traction control"? Or, how would I eliminate the T/C from cars originally equipped with it?

Interesting question either way.

Does my opinion on forcing the Motec (etc) into the factory case make sense though, or am I alone on this one?

 

[Joe Harlan]

See Jim that's the question because its all rules creep. It is really a matter of how far to let them creep. I started playing with the AEM system that does not require wheel speed sensors. The is clearly a benefit. I have not had enough time on it to give you full results. So I guess my answer is gonna be a none answer. I could see allowing an aftermarket unit but at the same time we need to spec single inlet restrictors on EFI cars so a balance can be found right away without have to make them 4000 lbs to do so. In the long run chipping factory ECU's is probably the answer and for those that can't reprogram compensate them in another way.

 

[its66]

Perhaps SIR's on cars with stand-alone ecu's? (almost sounds like a Prod rule, doesn't it?)

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by its66@Nov 16 2005, 09:28 PM
Perhaps SIR's on cars with stand-alone ecu's?  (almost sounds like a Prod rule, doesn't it?)

[snapback]65657[/snapback]​

actually GT is where SIR's will be run first. I think the whole E36 deal could be fixed tomorrow with an engineered SIR and the car could likely be lighted way up to help tires survive. I think it would more fun to run those cars closer to equal at a lighter weight.

 

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by robits325is@Nov 16 2005, 11:17 PM
I say keep it - any 96+ car with OBD II can't be made competitive without some type of aftermarket engine management system.

[snapback]65643[/snapback]​

Geez, talk about a biased opinion. Not to mention one that's just flat out wrong. There's a defined performance envelope for a given class, it gets spec'd based on its potential. If you've got to run a stock ECU, the car has a lower potential than one w/ a cooked brain. Oh, and just to remind you, this is IT, where there is no guarantee that your car will be competitive.

Kirk,

It's not about massive increases in peak HP, but more about what it does to the power band, and the area under the curve.

 

[joeg]

I could care less. I run ITC with a carb.

If you want to run some $75,000 Panzerwagen, more power to you.

Speed cost money; how fast do you want to go?

 

[stevel]

Originally posted by robits325is@Nov 17 2005, 03:17 AM
I say keep it - any 96+ car with OBD II can't be made competitive without some type of aftermarket engine management system.

[snapback]65643[/snapback]​

only in the BMW world maybe. Plenty of obdII cars that can be fully programmed with a stock ecu board with a chip.

s

 

[bldn10]

I fundamentally disagree w/ the notion that if it takes $50,000 or whatever to run up front in IT then that defines what the class is. IMO the "class philosophy" has been ignored over the years and we have creeped further and further from it. At some point, at which many of you already seem to be, we have to say that we are either going to junk that philosophy, keep it and turn back the clock, or keep it and maintain the status quo. In case you haven't read it in awhile here is what IT is supposed to be:

"Improved Touring classes are intended to provide the membership with the opportunity to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications . . .
This class is intended to allow a variety of popular, inexpensive cars to be eligilble; however, those determined by the Club to be outside those parameters will not be classified." GCR 17.1.4.A. & B. (emphasis added)

Thus, I felt from the get-go that classification of the BMW was improper not because it might be an overdog but because most available tubs were not inexpensive vis the vast majority of other cars already classified. Chet's for-sale info on his car indicates his tub was $10,000; the last nice, straight '89 RX-7 I bought was $900 and I've paid less. I suspect there may be similar examples in other IT classes.

The restriction of ECU mods to inside the box may seem illogical but it is an attempt to give at least a nod to the class philosophy. It seems ridiculous because it is indeed inconsistent w/ other allowances that have been made that never should have been. I.e. rules creep has not been consistent across the board.

It is part of the racer psyche to always want to go faster and we will always want more. We are like little kids and candy or junkies and smack. It is up to the sanctioning body to say NO when we start to go overboard. IMO SCCA has too often failed to do that and now we rebel when they do. Perhaps the ITR (I prefer ITX) concept is the place to allow costs to run wild.

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 17 2005, 01:10 AM
Kirk,

It's not about massive increases in peak HP, but more about what it does to the power band, and the area under the curve.

[snapback]65667[/snapback]​

Yes, but a MoTeC does not recreate the laws of physics. And given it is fed the same information as the stock ECU the only thing left is greater resolution of finer increments of rpm. That is not going to make huge gains. I know Joe will tell me I'm nuts. However, I had a long discussion with Jon Milledge a few months back and one of the things discussed was the potential of the MoTeC over a well developed stock ECU. He said maybe 4 hp tops. And he is a MoTeC dealer so there is no bias on his part (he also remaps otherwise stock 944 ECUs). He has done both.

That said, I realize some people would kill for 4 hp, but I think Kirk's point is that the MoTeC is not a magical box that will allow you to do that much more than a well developed stock ECU remap. However, it will certainly be easier to make changes to (generally).

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Geo@Nov 17 2005, 09:54 AM
Yes, but a MoTeC does not recreate the laws of physics.  And given it is fed the same information as the stock ECU the only thing left is greater resolution of finer increments of rpm.  That is not going to make huge gains.  I know Joe will tell me I'm nuts.  However, I had a long discussion with Jon Milledge a few months back and one of the things discussed was the potential of the MoTeC over a well developed stock ECU.  He said maybe 4 hp tops.  And he is a MoTeC dealer so there is no bias on his part (he also remaps otherwise stock 944 ECUs).  He has done both.
That said, I realize some people would kill for 4 hp, but I think Kirk's point is that the MoTeC is not a magical box that will allow you to do that much more than a well developed stock ECU remap.  However, it will certainly be easier to make changes to (generally).

[snapback]65690[/snapback]​

Geo, I don't think your nuts, I think you are biased in your oppinions and you would stand outside in a speedo in a snow storm saying the sun is shining to be right. I don't have a problem with that at least your consistent. You often ignore the other questions brought up on this subject. How do you handle the traction control issue.( I have used it real world) How do you equalize the ability to create an optimum map with traction control for every track in your division? I again am up for discussion but I have to agree with Bill D. here and I said it when the BMW got classed. We pushed the class intent right out the window when we started classing and adjusting things well beyond improved. Open ECUs are not improving anything they are replacing. Thats the problem with the current rule. It should limit to improvement. Other wise we may as well change the name to Replacment touring and get on with it.