Carburated IT Cars - Balancing the system

I agree with Bill-

If the ITAC and current members think the rule was wrong to be changed in the begining then it needs to be changed back. It was done with remote resevoirs if I remember correctly so it can be done with this as well.

Now on topic... Don't forget to give the CIS VW/Audi's something as well, we didn't get anything out of this new rule. Maybe SCCA will get just carb and CIS type cars a discount on something similar as all I see people argue is that nothing changed, it is just less expensive now.

Raymod "Where is my chance to save money?" Blethen
 
Raymond, if I remember correctly, when this was put out for member comment, one of the options was to go back to the stock ECU rule. I'd prefer that too, but the members of the IT community wanted something different. Between the stuff in the box rule that in my view made it harder on those with fewer $$$ and the new rule, the new rule sure looks a lot more fair to me.
 
If its no big thing for open ECUs then it should make no difference to allow all cars the option of converting to EFI, so long as they use the same intake area and number, right? I mean, isn't IT all about the bolt on anyway?? :P :P :P
 
Please either allow unlimited alternate carbs for carbureted models or allow carbureted cars to use an aftermarket EFI system.
[/b]
Click to expand...

All I want is a couple of jacking plates so I don't keep f'ing up the bottom of my car and actually add weight! ;)
 
While I can see why the EFI guys would want to do this, I have to agree, I don't like the threat of a balance shift this represents.

If the current rule is fundamentally, philosophically wrong, and at odds with IT's current philosophy - does that justify throwing up our collective hands and saying "anything goes?" Two wrongs don't make a right.

Seems to me that the only way this makes sense is to allow open season on carbs and with CIS systems... recontour the bowls? Ditch stock WURs and replace with high-end computer-controlled tuneable pressure regulators? Maybe completely ditch your Lamdba ECUs and replace them with some kind of funky MOTEC Lambda hybrid?

If this proposed change raises more questions than it answers, perhaps it's not a good idea... or maybe it is a good idea, but poorly implemented.

I'm making my comments here, because I feel they would be lost in the other thread... and because I feel I have a lot more in common with carb guys than EFI guys, at this point - mainly, left out!! :026:
 
Any of the ITAC members can correct me if I am wrong, but didn't all the carb cars go through the process. Did the process not expect the EFI cars to be full prep to the current "in the box" rule? If so then it was assumed we all had the max this rule allows already. Last I checked the Z cars shed some weight as did a lot of the carb restricted cars. What is the big deal now? If some were missed in the original alignment they need to be run through the process if this rule is passed. Would that be fair??

Joe--If there is no allowance for additional wires to the injectors how will it be converted from batch to timed? Only wire I see allowed is for a map and a tps. Am I missing something? Not being a smart--- < just asking.
 
Any of the ITAC members can correct me if I am wrong, but didn't all the carb cars go through the process. Did the process not expect the EFI cars to be full prep to the current "in the box" rule? If so then it was assumed we all had the max this rule allows already. Last I checked the Z cars shed some weight as did a lot of the carb restricted cars. What is the big deal now? If some were missed in the original alignment they need to be run through the process if this rule is passed. Would that be fair??

Joe--If there is no allowance for additional wires to the injectors how will it be converted from batch to timed? Only wire I see allowed is for a map and a tps. Am I missing something? Not being a smart--- < just asking.
[/b]
Click to expand...
Improved Touring
Item 1. Effective 1/1/08: Change section 9.1.3.D.1.a.6 and add a new section 7 as follows:
6. Fuel injected cars may alter or replace the engine management computer, or ECU, provided that all modifications are done
within the original OEM ECU housing. Only the stock (unmodified) OEM ECU connection to the wiring harness may be used. The
allowance to modify the ECU in no way permits the addition of wiring, sensors, or piggybacked computers outside of the OEM ECU
housing. The stock (unmodified) wiring harness must be used. The installation of a resistor is allowed between the sensor and
the OEM wiring harness. Adjustable fuel pressure regulators are permitted.
The engine management computer may be altered or replaced. A throttle position sensor and its wiring may be added or
replaced. A MAP sensor and its wiring may be added. Other existing sensors, excluding the stock air metering device, may be
substituted for equivalent units.
7. Wires and connectors in the engine wiring harness may be modified or replaced.

No longer a limit to use OE harness... You need an ignition signal for tach and a sync signal for sequential I promise it is not hard for those that want it.
 
7. Wires and connectors in the engine wiring harness may be modified or replaced.

No longer a limit to use OE harness... You need an ignition signal for tach and a sync signal for sequential I promise it is not hard for those that want it.
[/b]
Click to expand...
Joe, the fact that it offers "modified" and "replaced" as options, but not "added" or "removed", is deliberate. It still might be possible to convert batch to timed if the wiring is right, but the new rule does not permit adding a whole bunch of wires that weren't already there.
 
... but the new rule does not permit adding a whole bunch of wires that weren't already there.
[/b]
Click to expand...


:blink:

Just what exactly do you think people are going to think "replaced" means??? It's pretty open-ended, to say the least...

Also, wasn't "modifed or replaced" the exact verbage used in the ECU rule you are trying to change... If that was ACCEPTED to mean "stuff in a Motec"... what makes you think that people aren't going to take the same verbage to stuff in as many wires as they need??? :rolleyes:

They "removed" the stock ECU board, and "replaced" it with a Motec... I would think the same would apply to the wiring...

Nice try... B)
 
Joe, the fact that it offers "modified" and "replaced" as options, but not "added" or "removed", is deliberate. It still might be possible to convert batch to timed if the wiring is right, but the new rule does not permit adding a whole bunch of wires that weren't already there.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Modified opens up a whole world Josh.....How did we get to motec in the box? Lets set we don't have to run these 4 items any longer so we now have 4 free wires. You think you can't police ECU's how many times you gonna cut a harness open to see if it has the correct number of wires?
 
Any of the ITAC members can correct me if I am wrong, but didn't all the carb cars go through the process. [/b]
Click to expand...
All cars got looked at during the great re-org. If they weren't out significantly, they were left alone. Some were significantly off, and got adjusted.
Did the process not expect the EFI cars to be full prep to the current "in the box" rule? If so then it was assumed we all had the max this rule allows already.[/b]
Click to expand...
Yes, ECu gains are part of the picture, and are built into the process.
If some were missed in the original alignment they need to be run through the process if this rule is passed. Would that be fair?? [/b]
Click to expand...
The ITAC gets the occasional, "Does this car really meet the process" letter, and encourages anyone who feels their car was overlooked to request the car get run through the process. Regardles of if itis carbed or injected.
 
All cars got looked at during the great re-org. If they weren't out significantly, they were left alone. Some were significantly off, and got adjusted.

Yes, ECu gains are part of the picture, and are built into the process.

The ITAC gets the occasional, "Does this car really meet the process" letter, and encourages anyone who feels their car was overlooked to request the car get run through the process. Regardles of if itis carbed or injected.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Well it is interesting that the previous ITAC chairman has as much concern about the equal application of this rule as many others are. I submit you have no way of even guessing the gains on some cars since you have no idea what they are currently limited by. You are welcome to post up the information you used in the process to figure all of these cars out cause I would be intersted in learning something.
 
So Steve if thats the understanding then why is Darin asking the question?
[/b]
Click to expand...

I guess because I believe that the members of the ITAC are in that position because they are qualified to do so. I leave the personal crap out of the discussion and have no ax to grind. I make my arguements in what I hope is an informed manner and try to convince others I am right. Sometimes it works and other times I am in the minority. I do not know you and can clearly see this is very personal on some level. I don't think this helps your arguement. I see much closer racing since the changes made by this ITAC and car counts are growing in our area. I do not see the sky falling or the black helo's you see--sorry. I build to the max of whatever rules the majority of our class wants and do my best to win. A bad day at the track beats a good day anywhere else. :D
 
I guess because I believe that the members of the ITAC are in that position because they are qualified to do so. I leave the personal crap out of the discussion and have no ax to grind. I make my arguements in what I hope is an informed manner and try to convince others I am right. Sometimes it works and other times I am in the minority. I do not know you and can clearly see this is very personal on some level. I don't think this helps your arguement. I see much closer racing since the changes made by this ITAC and car counts are growing in our area. I do not see the sky falling or the black helo's you see--sorry. I build to the max of whatever rules the majority of our class wants and do my best to win. A bad day at the track beats a good day anywhere else. :D
[/b]
Click to expand...

Steve, I have no personal ax to grind, I do believe in IT racing and the general philosophy of the catagory. Believe it or not I had a great hand in coming up with the process in use today. Darin and Andy worked hard to make it work.( not taking away from others on the ITAC I just had more direct contact with them) When the past chairman and others share my same concerns on this dal then it needs to be looked at. I have had conversations with CRB and BOD folks that are not on board with this idea so maybe majority doesn't and shouldn't rule, Maybe when you have developed to the max in IT and you want more it is time to move on over to a class that has more and give others the same entry level shot at rising to the top. Maybe not Maybe it is better to constantly change the rules until the class is dead and then move on to something new.
 
How aout letting the carb cars run a holley 350 two barrel carb. There cheaper than a weber 32/36 breath a little better and every circle track tuner around the country can tune one, unlike the 32/36. How about that?
 
:blink:

Just what exactly do you think people are going to think "replaced" means??? It's pretty open-ended, to say the least...

Also, wasn't "modifed or replaced" the exact verbage used in the ECU rule you are trying to change... If that was ACCEPTED to mean "stuff in a Motec"... what makes you think that people aren't going to take the same verbage to stuff in as many wires as they need??? :rolleyes:

They "removed" the stock ECU board, and "replaced" it with a Motec... I would think the same would apply to the wiring...

Nice try... B)
[/b]
Click to expand...

Come on guys... I'm waiting for someone to address this... After all the assurances that there are "limits" and that the playing field will be "more equal/fair"... Please explain to us how "modified or replaced" does NOT mean "add" or "remove"... especially in this context... especially when the rule it's replacing, which is also being used to justify the change, uses that exact same language... Show us where the "limits" are... Please... :unsure:
 
All cars got looked at during the great re-org. If they weren't out significantly, they were left alone. Some were significantly off, and got adjusted.
[/b]
Click to expand...

This is old news, but I think you should have said all common cars were run through the process. A great example of the rejects are the ITS Alfa Milanos, same weight, but one gets a lot more motor. As I recall, there are several oddball cars more than 200 lbs off of process weight, neglecting the subjective adders.



Come on guys... I'm waiting for someone to address this... After all the assurances that there are "limits" and that the playing field will be "more equal/fair"... Please explain to us how "modified or replaced" does NOT mean "add" or "remove"... especially in this context... especially when the rule it's replacing, which is also being used to justify the change, uses that exact same language... Show us where the "limits" are... Please... :unsure:
[/b]
Click to expand...

My take on the wiring: As long the injectors are stock, you can run whatever wires you want to them, and control them in any way you want.

I guess nobody noticed: the carb guys can run custom ECUs also (with no sensor restrictions except crankfire), only for ignition though, not fuel or cam timing.
 
How aout letting the carb cars run a holley 350 two barrel carb. There cheaper than a weber 32/36 breath a little better and every circle track tuner around the country can tune one, unlike the 32/36. How about that?
[/b]
Click to expand...
Allowing more air into the motor is different issue than how you control the fuel into the motor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top