X
xr4racer
Guest
I thought there was supposed to be some IT changes coming?
matt
matt
Correct.
But, given it can be added as a gauge, and the ECU is free, and wiring/connections to the ECU are free, it's gonna be damn hard to police, especially if a narrow-band ECU is also installed.
seckerich
New member
Kirk is being politically correct because he has to deal with the comp board. I can be a little more open but respectful. There is a prevailing attitude on the comp board that the ITAC is doing too much and is always wanting something. I thought that was why we had the ITAC was to do this leg work for them so all they needed to do was vote? They miss the point that they did nothing with IT for many years and just used the "non competitive, tough noogie" clause. Now the comp board is looking at a "rules season" where future changes only happen during a set time period and then are static for the entire year. Good thing so you can build a car to a set target. Aimed more at some other classes that jerk with weights and specs almost weekly. I would guess all IT related changes are on hold until that time. Just a guess.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Thats a very interesting post, Steve.
gran racing
Super Moderator
What is meant by "on hold"? Waiting to publish the results or it might not move any further? I'm sure many of us would like to hear this from the comp board so we can voice our opinions.
I'm totally fine with not changing rules during mid-year and while sometimes it can be hard to wait, the not in effect till 1/1/10 clause is a good one. But publish the findings and results well before then so people can prepare accordingly.
Last edited:
Jeremy Billiel
New member
So should we be emailing our board members to support additonal actions?
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Here's *My* take on it. I'm not privy to the inside info Steve seems to have.
But, we've recently, as many of you know, spent a ton of time on ITAC con calls going over the Process. Certain areas were given attention with the goals to be consistent, repeatable, and transparent. "modules" of the process that were subjective are still a bit subjective, but we now have clear guidelines and a framework within which to apply the subjectivity and corrections/adjustments.
A major concern was to ensure that future ITACs would have a clear blueprint with which to operate.
Quick history. As mentioned above, in the beginning, IT was a 'second citizen" and was allowed to exist IF there were no weight changes and if it was a category that required no upkeep from the CRB.
But it got popular, and attracted a lot of racers. Who made waves, and pointed out how good it COULD be if just a few things were cleaned up, but that required a change in the original charter.
The ITAC fought for, and won that right, but the BoD was skeptical, and wanted minimal changes. So, we went through the ITCS, and hit the known issues, and the really out of whack stuff.. (The Great Realignment)
In the normal course of business, we get requests for changes, and they require some subjectivity, and sometimes actions that are outside the standard.
So, we've come up with the "Process 2.0". Same as before, now tighter, repeatable, and documented. And we want to do 'born on dating' too. (some of us, actually. A note on the ITCS spec line listing the last processed date would answer lots of racers questions)
While we were getting the house in order, requests stacked up. That flood of changes has gotten to the CRB/BoD, and they are wanting to see the actual 2.0 version. "Show us the math" so to speak, I guess. So we are presenting it to them.
At least thats what *I* think is going on. Just a standard housekeeping step that the BoD wants to do. (I guess/hope!)
As always, if you think the ITAC is on the right path, let 'em know! If we are going astray, let 'em know! It seems like now would be a good time to drop them a letter. If the BoD sees that the IT racing public is confident in their leaders, then perhaps they will be too.
But, we've recently, as many of you know, spent a ton of time on ITAC con calls going over the Process. Certain areas were given attention with the goals to be consistent, repeatable, and transparent. "modules" of the process that were subjective are still a bit subjective, but we now have clear guidelines and a framework within which to apply the subjectivity and corrections/adjustments.
A major concern was to ensure that future ITACs would have a clear blueprint with which to operate.
Quick history. As mentioned above, in the beginning, IT was a 'second citizen" and was allowed to exist IF there were no weight changes and if it was a category that required no upkeep from the CRB.
But it got popular, and attracted a lot of racers. Who made waves, and pointed out how good it COULD be if just a few things were cleaned up, but that required a change in the original charter.
The ITAC fought for, and won that right, but the BoD was skeptical, and wanted minimal changes. So, we went through the ITCS, and hit the known issues, and the really out of whack stuff.. (The Great Realignment)
In the normal course of business, we get requests for changes, and they require some subjectivity, and sometimes actions that are outside the standard.
So, we've come up with the "Process 2.0". Same as before, now tighter, repeatable, and documented. And we want to do 'born on dating' too. (some of us, actually. A note on the ITCS spec line listing the last processed date would answer lots of racers questions)
While we were getting the house in order, requests stacked up. That flood of changes has gotten to the CRB/BoD, and they are wanting to see the actual 2.0 version. "Show us the math" so to speak, I guess. So we are presenting it to them.
At least thats what *I* think is going on. Just a standard housekeeping step that the BoD wants to do. (I guess/hope!)
As always, if you think the ITAC is on the right path, let 'em know! If we are going astray, let 'em know! It seems like now would be a good time to drop them a letter. If the BoD sees that the IT racing public is confident in their leaders, then perhaps they will be too.
hey chuck, if you are reading this, all the O2 sensors i have seen are only about 13/16" across. that seems pretty narrow to me.
given tGA's comments above, what is the basis for it not being allowed?
I don't read the IT forum much.. But you guys are extremely fortunate two have two of the CRB members racing in IT. Jake's post above seems to touch on some of the issues. Believe it or not guys, the CRB wants what is best for your class! This is a work in progress. If the new process works and works for all, I think I can speak for the CRB that we will have no problem putting it into effect. While looking at the new process we also have to take into consideration that you have a pretty good ruleset now and to reschuffle the entire deck could end up with a season or two of growing pains until it sorts itself out. We have to weigh the upside vs downside there.
Steve
The following statement is just not true.
There is a prevailing attitude on the comp board that the ITAC is doing too much and is always wanting something
Hope that helps
Jim Drago
CRB
[email protected]
Steve
The following statement is just not true.
There is a prevailing attitude on the comp board that the ITAC is doing too much and is always wanting something
Hope that helps
Jim Drago
CRB
[email protected]
Last edited:
gran racing
Super Moderator
Hi Jim,
Yes, we do have a great ruleset but the process hadn't been applied to many vehicles, just the "obvious" ones. I certainly do not see what is taking place as reshuffling the deck, just fixing a few damaged cards. It would be nice to see the process applied to more cars as there still are issues out there. Since we have something the majority of IT drivers believe in, it would be a shame not to use it.
Yes, we do have a great ruleset but the process hadn't been applied to many vehicles, just the "obvious" ones. I certainly do not see what is taking place as reshuffling the deck, just fixing a few damaged cards. It would be nice to see the process applied to more cars as there still are issues out there. Since we have something the majority of IT drivers believe in, it would be a shame not to use it.
seckerich
New member
Thanks for responding Jim. I took that from a direct conversation with a member of the BOD. It was not meant to be a bad comment on the CRB. I understand that some of these recent changes have somewhat swamped your group. This backlog while waiting to sort out the process is what I am referring to. The fact that IT is growing, and is one of the most popular groups in SCCA, should validate the work of the ITAC to this point. Keep working with them please.
Bill Miller
New member
Greg,
The way I read FT, there was a request to allow a wide-band O2 sensor and it was not approved by the CRB. I didn't see any qualifications on there to the effect of 'only allowed if used as a gauge'. I understand that gauges are free, but here it would seem that you've had a specific request to allow a specific item, that has not been approved. I would think that since it explicitly addresses a wide-band O2 sensor, that you're not allowed to use one, period, not even as a gauge. Therefore, I'm not so sure your contention that it (W-B O2 sensor) is allowed as a gauge is correct.
I'm also not so sure how it would be hard to police, even if allowed. You've got wire(s) from the W-B O2 sensor going to some gauge, if you've got wires going from anything that the W-B O2 sensor is connected to (gauge, data-logger, etc.) going to the ECU, that's pretty much a no-no. Not to mention that this was expressly mentioned in one of the CoA rulings:
If the use of a W-B O2 sensor was not approved (again, this is moot if that means it's not allowed at all, which is my interpretation), having it send a signal to the ECU would clearly be a prohibited function. Hard to police? I don't really think so. Cheating? Most definitely.
seckerich
New member
Unless the rule on gauges is changed then a wide band O2 is OK. It is not OK to use a wide band O2 (4 or 5 wire) in place of a narrow band(2 or 3 wire) to feed a signal to the ECU. There is no rule that allows this addition of wire to that specific sensor. The opinion in fastrack that it is not going to be allowed for the ECU has no bearing on gauge rules.
First, you know this is just a mental exercise, right?
Furthermore, ECUs are free, including their wiring.
Additionally, data acquisition is allowed (nothing more than gauges that write info to to a card; there's no limitation on "gauges are free" that indicate I have to look at the data in real-time.)
Finally, it just so happens that my ECU is also my data logger, thus (legal) wires are feeding "gauge" data to my (legal and open) ECU through (legal and open) wiring.
ERGO, since my (legal) data logger in inside my (legal) ECU, and everything inside that ECU is free, take your best shot at proving they don't interface - or even more importantly, prove to me how that would be illegal in the first place.
Damn, I love these rules games...
Then, after all is said and done, if you still want to insist it's illegal and a prohibited function, my response is "fine, prove it's being done."
GA
Roffe Corollary: "If it says you can, you bloody well can!" Gauges are free, my wide-band sensor ports to a gauge, thus it is free. Disagree? All of my cars run wideband gauges with outputs ported to data logging, you'll just be risking $25 to find out its legality.
Furthermore, ECUs are free, including their wiring.
Additionally, data acquisition is allowed (nothing more than gauges that write info to to a card; there's no limitation on "gauges are free" that indicate I have to look at the data in real-time.)
Finally, it just so happens that my ECU is also my data logger, thus (legal) wires are feeding "gauge" data to my (legal and open) ECU through (legal and open) wiring.
ERGO, since my (legal) data logger in inside my (legal) ECU, and everything inside that ECU is free, take your best shot at proving they don't interface - or even more importantly, prove to me how that would be illegal in the first place.
Damn, I love these rules games...
See discussion above. What "prohibited function" to you suggest such an arrangement is doing? Feeding the (free) ECU air/fuel ratio info? A/F sensor came with the car stock. Replacing the narrow-band with a wide-band for better info? Nope, narrow-band is still there and wired up, but it's being ignored just like the MAF in the Miata that's being ignored because I'm using a (legal) TPS/MAP system.
Then, after all is said and done, if you still want to insist it's illegal and a prohibited function, my response is "fine, prove it's being done."
GA
Charlie Broring
New member
Good Gosh!
Wide band O2, Data Acquisition, Open ECU, New Harness and Sensors!
I'm so behind the times. Still have the stock computer and a stopwatch taped to the steering wheel.
Charlie
Wide band O2, Data Acquisition, Open ECU, New Harness and Sensors!
I'm so behind the times. Still have the stock computer and a stopwatch taped to the steering wheel.
Charlie
Bill Miller
New member
Greg,
While I agree that gauges are free, where I think your logic fails is that you've got a case where the request to allow a W-B O2 sensor was not approved. I wasn't privy to the letter, so I don't know what was or was not asked for, beyond that. So, you've got one rule that says gauges are free, and you've got a case where a specific type of sender for a gauge was not approved. And while I fully understand the Roffe Corollary, I also understand when it says something is not approved, it's bloody well not approved.
Greg,
Are you slipping a bit in your advanced years?
Wideband is there, but is allegedly only connected to gauge / data logger
Narrowband is there, allegedly working, but really being ignored by the ECU
See where I'm going w/ this yet?
If the Wideband is only collecting data that is displayed, or logged, and is not being used by the ECU, what's going to happen when you disconnect it?
Travis,
You're kidding, right? Or do you really think that guys w/ carbs never dyno'd their cars? And just for fun, where in the ITCS or GCR does it say that your car has to be capable of being dyno'd?
While I agree that gauges are free, where I think your logic fails is that you've got a case where the request to allow a W-B O2 sensor was not approved. I wasn't privy to the letter, so I don't know what was or was not asked for, beyond that. So, you've got one rule that says gauges are free, and you've got a case where a specific type of sender for a gauge was not approved. And while I fully understand the Roffe Corollary, I also understand when it says something is not approved, it's bloody well not approved.
Greg,
Are you slipping a bit in your advanced years?
Wideband is there, but is allegedly only connected to gauge / data logger
Narrowband is there, allegedly working, but really being ignored by the ECU
See where I'm going w/ this yet?
If the Wideband is only collecting data that is displayed, or logged, and is not being used by the ECU, what's going to happen when you disconnect it?
Travis,
You're kidding, right? Or do you really think that guys w/ carbs never dyno'd their cars? And just for fun, where in the ITCS or GCR does it say that your car has to be capable of being dyno'd?