PARITY IN IT CLASSES

[dj10]

Originally posted by C. Ludwig@Nov 19 2005, 06:17 AM
When I first started building my car about 5 years ago I talked to some engine builders.  One guy told me how he was going to port my engine and we'd blow everyone's doors off.  "That's not legal", I said.  "No one will catch you.  There's no tech in the SCCA", I was told.

If anyone really is listening to my voice I'll say it again.  I'd like stock ECUs.  The cheaters are going to cheat regardless.  Saying we're opening it up because we can't police it is not an excuse.  NOTHING gets policed at an average regional.  If we can't have it like it was my vote is to blow the barn doors off.  Open ECU and open harness.  That will be the cheapest solution is the end if cost is really the determining factor.

[snapback]65950[/snapback]​

Damn right Chris, I like stock ECU's also and I also agree that if you do allow engine management systems to open them up to keep costs down. Trying to stuff 10# of S*** in a 5# bag on makes thing harder and more costly.
From what I saw this year, no one police's anything, and I'm not sure they know what to look for anyway.
dj

 

[Banzai240]

Guys... Simply put, "PARITY" in IT means making sure that allowances are general in nature and everyone has the opportunity to take advantage of them, based on the rules.

"Parity" does NOT equate to everyone being able to run equal lap times... That would involve handicapping drivers and programs...

That is NOT what we are trying to do here. The point of all of this is to get the CARS equated within a class the best we can, afterwhich point, the "competitiveness" of the car is up to YOU... We can't factor in how well it's driven, how good the tires are, etc... All we can do is try to get them as evenly classified from a mechanical standpoint...

So, concerning the ECUs... EVERYONE has the same opportunity here to develop an ECU under the current rules... It may not be easy... it isn't going to be cheap for some, but EVERYONE has the opportunity. The rule is "equitable"... It offers parity...

If you open up the ECU rules... to allow anything... you are still going to have those who can and those who can't... no real difference... It will be cheaper for some, not so for others... JUST like it is today... IN the end, it's NOT going to change the balance of the racing, and it IS likely to open doors to allowances that ought not be opened...

Going back to "stock" may seem like a good option, but this is IMPROVED TOURING... Even Touring allows ECU mods... the key to those rules working is that the car must still be Emissions legal... so if you change the ECU too much, you'd fail this part and be bumped...

Now, we could go into changing the ECU wording to allow only "modifications" to the stock main board, etc... but then people will start stretching what a "modification" is, etc... NO different than we have today...

I guess what I am saying is that no matter what we do, there are problems associated with it and in reality, what is in place now isn't that bad of a situation... It still boils down to effort in development and the weopon you choose to do battle with...

In my humble opinion, of course...

 

[dj10]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 19 2005, 01:05 PM

It may not be easy... it isn't going to be cheap for some, but EVERYONE has the opportunity.  The rule is "equitable"...  It offers parity...

In my humble opinion, of course...

[snapback]65980[/snapback]​

Yea it isn't not going to be cheap! For a piece of wood? I thought this is suppose to be Grassroots Racing? Club not PRO. To hell with it lets have carbon fiber body panels and sequential gear boxes. Instead of 50k IT cars let just making them euro tourings 250k.
The rule is equitable if you have lots of money to p*** away to win a hunk of wood. I think your missing the point.
dj

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 19 2005, 02:05 PM


So, concerning the ECUs...  EVERYONE has the same opportunity here to develop an ECU under the current rules...  It may not be easy...

[snapback]65980[/snapback]​

The carb guys are STILL looking for where the ECU fits..is it in the float bowl?? the accelerator pump?? And the harness is a HUGE problem, LOL.........

I know, I know, initial classing creates the parity between the carbed car and the ECU cars...but..............the ECU rule came AFTER many ECU cars had been classed.

So, thats a leg up to them.

Lets hope the CRB and the BoDs see the need to relevel the field, and then, in the big picture, this converstion will make more sense.

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by dj10@Nov 19 2005, 03:00 PM
Yea it isn't not going to be cheap! For a piece of wood? I thought this is suppose to be Grassroots Racing? Club not PRO. To hell with it lets have carbon fiber body panels and sequential gear boxes. Instead of 50k IT cars let just making them euro tourings 250k.
The rule is equitable if you have lots of money to p*** away to win a hunk of wood. I think your missing the point.
dj

[snapback]65983[/snapback]​

Ok...........

What I have liked about earlier posts it the concrete examples of what can be done, how much it costs, and so on.

IF you think it's smart to go one way, or dumb to go another, provide the backing facts to make the case.

Lets keep this as constructive. Guys like Harlan bring a wealth of real world experience and knowledge to the table, and the information is very important.

So, DJ, fill us in on what you suggest to remedy it the issue you have identified..

(I'm sorry if you have already covered it, the threads getting long)

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by dj10@Nov 19 2005, 02:00 PM
Yea it isn't not going to be cheap! For a piece of wood? I thought this is suppose to be Grassroots Racing? Club not PRO. To hell with it lets have carbon fiber body panels and sequential gear boxes. Instead of 50k IT cars let just making them euro tourings 250k.
The rule is equitable if you have lots of money to p*** away to win a hunk of wood. I think your missing the point.
dj

[snapback]65983[/snapback]​

I am going to take this one out of the context of the thread.

It may be labeled Club Racing but there are a lot of people who have financial interests in winning. Not for prize money but for business reasons. Look at Speedsource, Bimmerworld, ISC, Rebello, Sunbelt, MSN, FOM, the list goes on and on.

IT rules are very limited compared to many other classes in SCCA and outside of SCCA. There will always be people who have the best equipment - so the only thing to do if you don't like the 'limits' of a certain class is to find one with more restrictions. Showrrom Stock anyone? Not me.

On edit: There is one more thing we can all do. POLICE OUR CLASSES. I, for one, will be entering a class in 2006 in NER that has been clouded with rumors, distrust and accusations. I for on ewill be ready to put my money where my mouth is.

AB

 

[zracre]

As technology grows so will electronic systems. Us honda guys have an advantage in the ecu department because of its cult following...BMW guys have an advantage because of $$$ and development of a genuinely good car...it doesnt matter what you drive, one car is always going to benefit from the aftermarket more than another. I just dont want to see cars penalized because there are more developed systems for it...not everyone can afford it. I feel bad for the carb guys but time marches on and they seem to still be winning races (a carb car won ITC followed by another). just think about where technology will be in 5 years for the new cars coming to IT.

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by zracre@Nov 19 2005, 03:35 PM
  I feel bad for the carb guys but time marches on and they seem to still be winning races (a carb car won ITC followed by another).  just think about where technology will be in 5 years for the new cars coming to IT.

[snapback]65991[/snapback]​

But the carb guys can be fine..........as long as the rulemakers, and class managers handle things properly. We are looking better in that department I think, with the new flexibility afforded the ITAC. That same flexibility will be important in the future as new technology comes into play.

 

[dj10]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 19 2005, 02:16 PM
Ok...........

What I have liked about earlier posts it the concrete examples of what can be done, how much it costs, and so on.

IF you think it's smart to go one way, or dumb to go another, provide the backing facts to make the case.

Lets keep this as constructive. Guys like Harlan bring a wealth of real world experience and knowledge to the table, and the information is very important.

So, DJ, fill us in on what you suggest to remedy it the issue you have identified..

(I'm sorry if you have already covered it, the threads getting long)

[snapback]65987[/snapback]​

Read post 61, Chris Ludwig idea. He's a rx7 engine builder.

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by dj10@Nov 19 2005, 07:00 PM
The rule is equitable if you have lots of money to p*** away to win a hunk of wood. I think your missing the point.
dj

[snapback]65983[/snapback]​

I'm missing the point???

And then you have people here saying to just open the rules up to allow ANY ECU...

So, there are those on your end of the spectrum, and those on the extreme opposite... The current rule is in the middle... You think you're right... they think they're right... I happen to think that the current rule is a compromise of the two...

In reality... one of the biggest problems with the current rule is the phrase "or replace".... THAT is what allows a MOTEC to be installed inside the factory case... If modifications were restricted to having to be done on the main board, or in some way could be worded to get this intent, then I think we'd have what we need...

Stock ECUs were designed for going to get groceries... There needs to be some allowance to make them suitible for race engines... THAT is what the intent of IT states we need to do...

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by dj10@Nov 19 2005, 01:19 PM
Read post 61, Chris Ludwig idea. He's a rx7 engine builder.

[snapback]65994[/snapback]​

And so the sniping begins.......Lets look at this the right way again.

Improved touring

Key word improved. Not stock but also not replaced.

ITS carbs, I rejet them and I optimize them ect. But that is improved not replaced.

SS is factory everything.
Prod allows for full replacement of parts up to a certain spec and then GT is pretty wide open....there is a flavor for every taste, may just not be named IT.

 

[dj10]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 19 2005, 04:11 PM
Improved touring

Key word improved. Not stock but also not replaced.
ITS carbs, I rejet them and I optimize them ect. But that is improved not replaced.

[snapback]65996[/snapback]​

Why did they disallow shocks & struts with resoviours? They are only $6k? These pricy upgrades are for pro racing not grassroots motorsports. Top of the line computer ems are about 5k to buy maybe another 2 to 3k to install and stuff in a factory ecu box, another 2k for dyno time.
When I started this thread all I wanted was a simple yea or nay.
Myself, I refuse to use them so I'll just have to drive harder.
dj

 

[turboICE]

Sure you could buy a $5k ECU but you couldn't legally use what makes it any different from the multitude of $1.5k ECU. Eliminate the need to fit it into the OEM ECU case and you have a bunch of $1.5k ECUs available throughout IT without the reengineering costs currently necessary to utilize the existing rule.

A good deal of currently permitted spring/dampener setups cost significantly more than that without resevoirs.

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by dj10@Nov 19 2005, 04:28 PM
Why did they disallow shocks & struts with resoviours? They are only $6k? These pricy upgrades are for pro racing not grassroots motorsports. Top of the line computer ems are about 5k to buy maybe another 2 to 3k to install and stuff in a factory ecu box, another 2k for dyno time.
When I started this thread all I wanted was a simple yea or nay.
Myself, I refuse to use them so I'll just have to drive harder.
dj

[snapback]66004[/snapback]​

DJ your a little hard to discuss with cause your tone is like you have made up your mind and there is no chance of you changing it.

Back when remote shocks were originally disallowed I think it was about 2500 bucks a corner for the best stuff. Now everybody offers coilovers and remotes pretty cheap. IMHO again it can not always be about how much it costs or in some cases saves. It have to also be about a prep level. At some point IT will be production if things are allowed the normal progression that kills classes. Same deal I made reasonable argument for improving the the original part. Contrary to popular belief you are not going to just bolt an AEM into the harness and go racing. You gonna blow some stuff up first if you try that. My way of thinking is if you allow only the stock box to be modified the difference between a modified box and a stock box will be alot closer than an aftermarket part that has way more resolution and function. So the haves and the have nots a re way closer together at the point. To me allowing even a motec into a stock box is the equivalent of giving cams or compression to a car. It is just outside the Improved part of Improved touring. If folks want Prod or Gt level prep that may be where they should be racing.

 

[C. Ludwig]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 19 2005, 05:11 PM
And so the sniping begins.......Lets look at this the right way again.

Improved touring

Key word improved. Not stock but also not replaced.

ITS carbs, I rejet them and I optimize them ect. But that is improved not replaced.

SS is factory everything.
Prod allows for full replacement of parts up to a certain spec and then GT is pretty wide open....there is a flavor for every taste, may just not be named IT.

[snapback]65996[/snapback]​

And in that same vein then we shouldn't be allowed to replace the exhaust manifold with a header but only be allowed to improve the stock casting? We shouldn't be allowed to replace the shock absorber but allowed to improve the stock piece? We certainly shouldn't be allowed to replace the air intake forward of the throttle body but be allowed to improve the stock piece? We shouldn't be allowed to replace the fuel pump but allowed to stuff the guts of a better piece inside the stock case? Shouldn't be allowed to use an aftermarket fuel pressure regulator but allowed to open up the stock piece and swap springs and shims until we find a pressure that works?

The ship in the bottle rule for the ECU, to me, is akin to saying you can't buy something off the shelf that is developed for the purpose; and, oh by the way, CHEAPER! "Can't buy a Koni that fits your car off the shelf. You have to buy all the guts and stuff them in the stock shock body and, oh by the way, you have to use the stock piston and shaft. And just because you're not capable of doing it doesn't mean that someone else isn't or that someone isn't ready to sell it to you and profit." Sounds rediculous right? That's what we have with this convoluted ECU rule.

And saying that it's equitable because everyone has the opportunity to do it is a cop out, pure and simple. Everyone doesn't have the opportunity. There are BMW and Mazda tuners that have taken the leap and will gladly take your cash. What about the guy that wants to campaign a Ford Contour is ITS? This guy doesn't have the resources to break down an EMS and stuff it in his garage by himself. No one else is developing Contour parts. So he wants to keep up with the Jones (yeah Dan you're pretty fast ). Where does he go? The parts aren't available. This is custom, one-off stuff like IT has never seen before. It's not a custom pinion gear that 10 places that happen to advertise in the back of Sportscar can produce. No one does this work because it's rediculous to even contemplate it. And there shouldn't even be a market for it.

Opening up the rule at least gives our Contour builder a fighting chance. He can call one of a dozen EMS manufacturers, get a box with instructions shipped to his door, rely on true factory supports, and oh yeah, he hasn't voided the warranty on his brand new $3000 Motec system just because he cracked the case of it. And have I said that $3000 Motec system is only (only being a relative term) costing him $3000 and not $5000 just because it's stuffed? You guys just don't get it.

This rule benefits no one except the professional shops that have the resources to develop the ECUs. Just as Speedsource and Bimmerworld (?) are reaping the financial benefits of their development. Don't even think for a second I have some kind of ulterior motive here.

 

[turboICE]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 19 2005, 07:47 PM
IMHO again it can not always be about how much it costs or in some cases saves. It have to also be about a prep level.

Absolutely.

My way of thinking is if you allow only  the stock box to be modified the difference between a modified box and a stock box will be alot closer than an aftermarket part that has way more resolution and function. So the haves and the have nots a re way closer together at the point. To me allowing even a motec into a stock box is the equivalent of giving cams or compression to a car.

I guess in my way of viewing this is as long as the rules allow the Motec to be squeezed in then the stand alone is already part of the IT prep level, it is just made difficult. If this state of things is going to continue then just allow the Motec or the AEM or other name to be attached to the OEM harness and be done with it. Otherwise completely negate the use of non OEM boards. I don't think the current rule is correct level of parity for the the class.

I strongly suspect that as originally conceived that the OEM case rule was going to sufficiently restrict aftermarket boards to provide wording to make OEM modification open but not more. But the wording left open what we have today, either reel it back to where it was wanted to be (modified OEM) or get rid of the case restriction. To me the case restriction seems arbitrary, petty, silly and ineffective at this point - it is a lousy middle ground between modified OEM and just permitting any ECU that utilizes the OEM harness.

 

[C. Ludwig]

Originally posted by turboICE@Nov 19 2005, 07:57 PM
Absolutely.

I guess in my way of viewing this is as long as the rules allow the Motec to be squeezed in then the stand alone is already part of the IT prep level, it is just made difficult.  If this state of things is going to continue then just allow the Motec or the AEM or other name to be attached to the OEM harness and be done with it.  Otherwise completely negate the use of non OEM boards.  I don't think the current rule is correct level of parity for the the class.

I strongly suspect that as originally conceived that the OEM case rule was going to sufficiently restrict aftermarket boards to provide wording to make OEM modification open but not more.  But the wording left open what we have today, either reel it back to where it was wanted to be (modified OEM) or get rid of the case restriction.  To me the case restriction seems arbitrary, petty, silly and ineffective at this point - it is a lousy middle ground between modified OEM and just permitting any ECU that utilizes the OEM harness.

[snapback]66009[/snapback]​

Well said.

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by turboICE@Nov 19 2005, 04:57 PM
Absolutely.

  Otherwise completely negate the use of non OEM boards.  I don't think the current rule is correct level of parity for the the class.

I strongly suspect that as originally conceived that the OEM case rule was going to sufficiently restrict aftermarket boards to provide wording to make OEM modification open but not more.   

[snapback]66009[/snapback]​

Edit: I can agree with this. And this makes the most since. I do agree the current rule is wrong.

 

[turboICE]

Originally posted by C. Ludwig@Nov 19 2005, 07:55 PM
This is custom, one-off stuff like IT has never seen before.

[snapback]66008[/snapback]​

This so focuses the light on the real issue with this particular rule - the requirement for a one off custom creation of a complexity that isn't necessary in higher prep levels. We don't want this to be a higher prep level class - but this rule results in a higher prep level when you consider the complexity of it.

I believe that any rule in IT that requires a level of prep that results in customized one off creastions is worse than any perceived rules creep to use off the shelf components.

The eliminating of the ECU case requirement is not like saying that we should be able to ask for 1.0 over stock compression or .1" increases in cam lift and it would be a real stretch to say this step leads to that step or any other this is micro detail that would be difficult to extend to making IT an almost prod class - it is asking that the ability to utilize the existing rule not require one off creations more expensive than off the shelf equivalents.

 

[C. Ludwig]

Originally posted by turboICE@Nov 19 2005, 08:05 PM
This so focuses the light on the real issue with this particular rule - the requirement for a one off custom creation of a complexity that isn't necessary in higher prep levels.  We don't want this to be a higher prep level class - but this rule results in a higher prep level when you consider the complexity of it.

I believe that any rule in IT that requires a level of prep that results in customized one off creastions is worse than any perceived rules creep to use off the shelf components.

The eliminating of the ECU case requirement is not like saying that we should be able to ask for 1.0 over stock compression or .1" increases in cam lift and it would be a real stretch to say this step leads to that step or any other this is micro detail that would be difficult to extend to making IT an almost prod class - it is asking that the ability to utilize the existing rule not require one off creations more expensive than off the shelf equivalents.

[snapback]66012[/snapback]​

You're my new best friend. At least now I feel like what I've been saying since this rule was implemented wasn't crazy, black helicopter talk.