G-LOC Brakes
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 2 of 2 << < 12
Author Messages
Brigdh
New Member
New Member
Posts:39


--
05 Mar 2012 05:02 PM
JBrettHowell wrote:
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.

C. Relocation of the battery or batteries is permitted but not into the
passenger compartment. If the battery is relocated and the original
battery tray can be removed by simply unbolting it, the tray may
be removed, or relocated with the battery. Holes may be drilled for
mounting or passage of cables. Longer or shorter cables may be
substituted to permit relocation.
The number of battery or batteries
may not be changed from stock. The area behind the rearmost seat
is not considered to be within the passenger compartment. The area
under the rearmost seat is considered to be within the passenger
compartment.

Emphasis mine. Substitution equals removal in my mind.

How much weight are we talking? Lets see on a second gen RX-7, the cruise actuator is maybe 2 lbs. I'm fairly certain its controlled by the main ECU unlike the first gen which had a separate one (additional 2 lbs). The second gen also has a control stalk that is cruise control only and unplugs cleanly from the dash (Less than a quarter lb), non-cruise cars just had the hole filled with a plastic cover. The driver could easily offset that by eating a large lunch :)

JBrettHowell
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
05 Mar 2012 05:06 PM
Could it be covered under comfort and convenience?
Brigdh
New Member
New Member
Posts:39


--
05 Mar 2012 05:11 PM
JBrettHowell wrote:
Could it be covered under comfort and convenience?

Seems like a gray area to me. I don't see how it would hold up against a protest, but would you explain your thoughts a bit more? How do you think it could be covered under comfort and convenience?

BigEnos
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:570


--
05 Mar 2012 05:25 PM
Brigdh wrote:
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?

You can change ECUs in SP. Hell you can coil up the stock wiring harness and tie it to the firewall if you want.

Disabling it is probably implicitly covered by other things, but if it isn't you wouldn't be able to run aftermarket engine management (I'm not talking about a tune, I'm talking about megasquirt/MoTec/etc) unless it also duplicated cruise control function. On a lot of cars, steering wheel removal would probably disable it anyway. Like I said, it's implicitly allowed already.

As far as removing physical components, I'm not convinced if they are not attached to the intake or other replaceable part. "Because it's in my way" isn't a very good reason IMHO.

John V
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:1854


--
05 Mar 2012 07:18 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?

No, it would still not be remotely competitive. There is not much from an NA car that will make a TII lighter.

Solid roof, wiper less rear hatch, and that's about it. The four piston brakes are already lighter than the single piston units on the base cars. If I recall correctly all TIIs came with power windows, but I have weighed both regulators and the weight is about the same for each.

The extra weight of the turbo models has to do with the slightly heavier transmission and the turbo hardware / plumbing.

JBrettHowell
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
06 Mar 2012 08:18 AM
John V wrote:
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?

No, it would still not be remotely competitive. There is not much from an NA car that will make a TII lighter.

Solid roof, wiper less rear hatch, and that's about it. The four piston brakes are already lighter than the single piston units on the base cars. If I recall correctly all TIIs came with power windows, but I have weighed both regulators and the weight is about the same for each.

The extra weight of the turbo models has to do with the slightly heavier transmission and the turbo hardware / plumbing.

John...you left out the heavy cruise control hardware! ;)

I say combine the cars on the same line in BSP rather than create another allowance.

Brigdh
New Member
New Member
Posts:39


--
05 Apr 2012 06:08 PM
I'm not looking to revive the discussion, just provide a status update to those who are interested in this topic. I got an email last night that the SP committee has reviewed my letter and made a recommendation to the SEB, both of which should be reviewed at the next SEB conference call. I'm hoping there will be an answer in the next Fastrack.
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 2 of 2 << < 12


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