SPS 468x60 Banner
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 05 Apr 2012 06:08 PM by  Brigdh
Cruise control removal?
 26 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 1 of 212 > >>
Author Messages
Brigdh
New Member
New Member
Posts:39


--
01 Mar 2012 04:28 PM

    I'm hoping someone knowledgeable in the rules can answer this for me. Can cruise control components (switches, vacuum controlled actuators in the engine bay, dedicated control modules that are separate from the ecu, etc) be removed in SP classes?

    All of the models on the same line as my car in Appendix A had cruise standard, so I don't see how the frontdate/backdate rules could be applied, but it seems like if you can remove the AC, radio/speakers, major emissions components, and with everything else you can tweak that is in the engine bay removing cruise should be ok, I'm just not seeing how.

    Thanks

    MattP
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:350


    --
    01 Mar 2012 05:09 PM
    You're correct, there is no allowance to remove cruise control hardware except via update/backdate.

    It would be a rule change to add this to the rules, so if you think it should be allowed, you could write a letter on www.sebscca.com .
    Dave Schotz
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:2424


    --
    01 Mar 2012 06:06 PM
    Good Call out... agree... write a letter... I think this one should get updated.
    MattP
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:350


    --
    01 Mar 2012 06:14 PM
    I think it was probably never added to the allowances because there was historically almost always a non-cruise control version of a car. I agree it makes sense within the current allowances. What car is it?
    Brigdh
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:39


    --
    01 Mar 2012 06:17 PM
    '89 Turbo RX-7 (BSP). Appendix A only lists the '86-'92 turbo cars and I double checked, cruise control was standard on every year of the turbo trim. I'd like to remove it because the actuator in the engine bay is in an annoying location every time I do some service on it. I really don't see any advantages, competitive wise (would sure like to eliminate vacuum lines in a car known for vacuum issues), other than weight savings. I can't imagine that being more than 5 lbs.
    Brigdh
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:39


    --
    02 Mar 2012 04:15 PM
    I submitted a letter to the SEB requesting an explicit allowance. I hope that they are able to read, consider, and respond to it soon.
    JBrettHowell
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    03 Mar 2012 10:08 AM
    Just so I'm clear, you want to change the SP rules to allow the removal of stock equipment from a car where no such configuration existed on any other car on the same line in appendix A so that 15 lbs (probably less) of equipment can be removed? The restrictions on update/backdate are there for a reason. If you want the model with the bad ass motor, you have to take the weight penalty of all the equipment the manufacturer saw fit to burden the model with...it's not classed on the same line as the stripped down base models for a reason.

    This just seems like another bad allowance taking SP further down the slippery slope as well.
    snaponbob
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:2862


    --
    03 Mar 2012 10:45 AM
    That argument makes no sense. Given all the other allowable items that can "add lightness" that have nothing to do with UD/BD, what would be wrong with removing the cruise system? If one wanted to really abuse the logic, the cruise operates the intake system, and that is "free" (except the turbo itself) in SP. Upon reflecting on that, a loophole may exist right there !!!
    JBrettHowell
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    03 Mar 2012 10:53 AM
    Where does that logic end?

    "Given all the other allowable items that can 'add lightness', why can't I use the chassis without the sunroof opening?" or "...power windows?" or "...transmission, rear end final drive, crappy rear suspension design?"

    If it truly makes sense to allow the 89 Turbo RX-7 to run without the weight of cruise control, put it on the same line as the base model that came without cruise control so it can be dealt with via update backdate. It's not that the '86-'92 RX-7 wasn't available without cruise control...just that the turbo variants were not, and for some reason in their infinite wisdom our predecessors decided to keep these cars on different lines. If they belong on the same line then put them on the same line. If they belong on different lines, then it seems silly to change the rules to allow blurring the lines between these two variants that are specifically classed separately based in part upon the distinctions between the two variants.
    DSPBMW
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    05 Mar 2012 09:23 AM
    JBrettHowell wrote:
    Where does that logic end?

    "Given all the other allowable items that can 'add lightness', why can't I use the chassis without the sunroof opening?" or "...power windows?" or "...transmission, rear end final drive, crappy rear suspension design?"

    If it truly makes sense to allow the 89 Turbo RX-7 to run without the weight of cruise control, put it on the same line as the base model that came without cruise control so it can be dealt with via update backdate. It's not that the '86-'92 RX-7 wasn't available without cruise control...just that the turbo variants were not, and for some reason in their infinite wisdom our predecessors decided to keep these cars on different lines. If they belong on the same line then put them on the same line. If they belong on different lines, then it seems silly to change the rules to allow blurring the lines between these two variants that are specifically classed separately based in part upon the distinctions between the two variants.

    Is the removal of A/C components, or stereo components restricted to those instances of UD/BD?

    That is the point they are making. However, I see your point too. When do you draw the line of what can/can not be removed/replaced. If eventually you can eliminate every option there is, the UD/BD allowances become less important.

    Also, it would seem appropriate to, over time, reevaluate cars like this. Maybe older less expensive and not particularly rare cars can have all models classed together to better take advantage of UD/BD.

    E36 all, E30 all, just as an example.

    atdewey
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:13


    --
    05 Mar 2012 10:00 AM
    Under 15.10:C:1 If you change the induction system you may change the throttle linkage and connections also. Does that include the cruise control? I would say it does but I don't make the rules. Now if you still have the stock induction (i.e. throttle body, upper and lower intake manifolds) I would say you cannot change the linkage and connections. The main reason the 2nd gen(FC) turbo model was put in BSP apart from the N/A FC was the turbo adding 40 hp in the same available chassis. I run a 1st gen rx7 in CSP and my dual carb intake did not have provisions for hooking up cruise so I removed it. It does work under the UD/BD for me though. It would be nice for a clarification, not necessarily a rule change. Does the cruise control system act as part of the throttle linkage and connections, therefore falling under Rule 15.10:C:1?
    JBrettHowell
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    05 Mar 2012 11:01 AM
    FWIW, the lack of a competitive 2G RX-7 (in turbo or na guise) in SP seems to argue in favor of combining the turbo and no-turbo models on the same line in BSP...allow the turbos to legally exploit the lightness of the non-turbo model and gain a slight performance advantage while the non-turbo variants can add the turbo motor. Voila - combined two lines and created an option for 2G RX-7s to be more competitive.

    Anyone think a base model chassis with a turbo motor would be an overdog in BSP?
    Marshall Grice
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:303


    --
    05 Mar 2012 11:52 AM
    JBrettHowell wrote:
    Just so I'm clear, you want to change the SP rules to allow the removal of stock equipment from a car where no such configuration existed on any other car on the same line in appendix A so that 15 lbs (probably less) of equipment can be removed? The restrictions on update/backdate are there for a reason. If you want the model with the bad ass motor, you have to take the weight penalty of all the equipment the manufacturer saw fit to burden the model with...it's not classed on the same line as the stripped down base models for a reason.

    This just seems like another bad allowance taking SP further down the slippery slope as well.

    You're describing stock class UD/BD. In SP you are allowed to take any single component and UD/BD it to your car independent of what option packages existed for that model. You certainly can take the wiz-bang motor and put it in the stripper model with none of the other options that came in the hopped up model.

    Brigdh
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:39


    --
    05 Mar 2012 11:54 AM
    JBrettHowell wrote:
    FWIW, the lack of a competitive 2G RX-7 (in turbo or na guise) in SP seems to argue in favor of combining the turbo and no-turbo models on the same line in BSP...allow the turbos to legally exploit the lightness of the non-turbo model and gain a slight performance advantage while the non-turbo variants can add the turbo motor. Voila - combined two lines and created an option for 2G RX-7s to be more competitive.

    Anyone think a base model chassis with a turbo motor would be an overdog in BSP?

    I don't know if I would go that far. Turbo cars could convert to solid roof (all turbo cars in the US came with sunroof), gain electronic suspension, drop ABS hardware, and add the sport under tray which drops the drag coefficient significantly. They might also be able to pick up a few interesting things from the vert line


    BSP just got reorganized, I would imagine the SEB wants it to settle a bit before making any more major changes.
    JBrettHowell
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    05 Mar 2012 03:15 PM
    Marshall Grice wrote:
    JBrettHowell wrote:
    Just so I'm clear, you want to change the SP rules to allow the removal of stock equipment from a car where no such configuration existed on any other car on the same line in appendix A so that 15 lbs (probably less) of equipment can be removed? The restrictions on update/backdate are there for a reason. If you want the model with the bad ass motor, you have to take the weight penalty of all the equipment the manufacturer saw fit to burden the model with...it's not classed on the same line as the stripped down base models for a reason.

    This just seems like another bad allowance taking SP further down the slippery slope as well.

    You're describing stock class UD/BD. In SP you are allowed to take any single component and UD/BD it to your car independent of what option packages existed for that model. You certainly can take the wiz-bang motor and put it in the stripper model with none of the other options that came in the hopped up model.

    Um, there is no UD/BD in stock. :?

    Marshall Grice
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:303


    --
    05 Mar 2012 03:24 PM
    JBrettHowell wrote:
    Marshall Grice wrote:
    JBrettHowell wrote:
    Just so I'm clear, you want to change the SP rules to allow the removal of stock equipment from a car where no such configuration existed on any other car on the same line in appendix A so that 15 lbs (probably less) of equipment can be removed? The restrictions on update/backdate are there for a reason. If you want the model with the bad ass motor, you have to take the weight penalty of all the equipment the manufacturer saw fit to burden the model with...it's not classed on the same line as the stripped down base models for a reason.

    This just seems like another bad allowance taking SP further down the slippery slope as well.

    You're describing stock class UD/BD. In SP you are allowed to take any single component and UD/BD it to your car independent of what option packages existed for that model. You certainly can take the wiz-bang motor and put it in the stripper model with none of the other options that came in the hopped up model.

    Um, there is no UD/BD in stock. :?

    I agree however you are describing the stock class equivalent to the SP UD/BD rule. you can do option package conversions to stock class cars but they must be complete and are model year specific. there is no limitation in SP on the UD/BD that specifies that you may only do complete option package conversion. You can pick and choose which options to add or delete regardless of how they were packaged when stock.

    gavin
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:217


    --
    05 Mar 2012 03:51 PM
    JBrettHowell wrote:
    FWIW, the lack of a competitive 2G RX-7 (in turbo or na guise) in SP seems to argue in favor of combining the turbo and no-turbo models on the same line in BSP...allow the turbos to legally exploit the lightness of the non-turbo model and gain a slight performance advantage while the non-turbo variants can add the turbo motor. Voila - combined two lines and created an option for 2G RX-7s to be more competitive.

    Anyone think a base model chassis with a turbo motor would be an overdog in BSP?

    Hmmm...think I can ask the same for my car? (91 Mazda MX6......FSP chassis...turbo DSP motor) ;)

    Not that it would matter much anyway, I would only lose ~50lbs? and with the "generous" UD/BD given to the E46 with its billions of transmission/diff ratios, it wouldnt matter anyway. Not like theres a flock of people running this car, so meh :/

    Gavin

    BigEnos
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:570


    --
    05 Mar 2012 04:21 PM
    I kinda agree on the rules creep issue, but not allowing people to at least disable it would be a big impediment to those wishing to go to aftermarket engine management systems on a drive-by-wire vehicle. I doubt MoTec has a cruise control interface option (or, maybe they do??). =)

    Brigdh
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:39


    --
    05 Mar 2012 04:51 PM
    BigEnos wrote:
    I kinda agree on the rules creep issue, but not allowing people to at least disable it would be a big impediment to those wishing to go to aftermarket engine management systems on a drive-by-wire vehicle. I doubt MoTec has a cruise control interface option (or, maybe they do??). =)

    huh? All drive by wire vehicles I'm familiar with have cruise control completely in software running on the ECU. There is no additional hardware except for the buttons on the dash/wheel/etc. What specifically are you suggesting needs to be disabled?

    JBrettHowell
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    05 Mar 2012 04:52 PM
    OP stated desire to remove "cruise control components" which he defined as "switches, vacuum controlled actuators in the engine bay, dedicated control modules that are separate from the ecu, etc"

    I agree that the SP intake allowance would allow the disconnection or removal (if bolted to the stock intake) of some components which would effectively disable the system, but removing switches, ecus, and "etc." is the concern I have.

    How much weight are we talking about anyhow?

    Think about the battery relocation allowance...it does not allow removal of the stock battery cables because that's modifying the harness, and there's no allowance for that in SP.
    You are not authorized to post a reply.
    Page 1 of 212 > >>


    G-Loc Button Vorshlag 88x31 Button
    Leroy Engineering Micro Button Sunoco 88x31 Button
    Woodhouse Motorsports
    SPS 88x31 Button

    Advertise on SCCAForums.com and reach thousands of visitors per day!

    SafeRacer FREE SHIPPING over $99

    Shop for Pirelli tires at Tire Rack. blank



    Sunoco Bottom 468x60 Banner