ABS and TC

[Jim P.]

Jim - Please explain how you get a 4 wheel ABS system to work only on the rear.

 

Good discussion at least.....

 

Actually Mark, I did it over a year ago and the notes are in my garage (I am at work) - I sourced the parts from two vehicles, a late 80's lincoln mkvii and a 90's F150 - which both had rear only abs - so that is what I ended up using as the controller circuitry. I am not sure how you would get 4 wheel ABS to work on only the rear.

 

Also, the ad for that car was written when it looked like the picture 2 years ago, it has changed quite a bit since then, probably worth more, but in it's current state it is far from finished. It is now sporting a huge 'boss' scoop on a fiberglas hood and Cobra 'R' clone wheels.

 

FWIW - I have a 98 GT that is supposed to have 4 wheel ABS and it doesn't seem to work at all! "Ford Quality is Job 1" as they say...

 

So I guess this just proves that this whole discussion is entirely "Your Mileage May Vary" LOL!

[mwilson7]

I apologize Jim, from your original note you posted that you installed a complete SN-95 Brake system (with ABS in the rear) and assumed it was a Mustang ABS system.

 

I'm sure this is a silly question but since you installed a complete SN95 brake system why didn't you just install the SN95 ABS?

[Jim P.]

The Mustang that I pulled the spindles/axles/brake parts from was hit in the front and the ABS computer and controller was smashed. I had a lincoln mk and a truck lying around so I decided to use what I had.

 

As an FYI - I buy 80's lincoln mkvii's all the time at http://www.rimermotors.com and the whole car is less than $500 - full of great parts for AI, AIX & CMC cars. My previous AIX car was an example of what lincoln parts can do to a Mustang - and like Richard said - there are some great articles on the internet that tell you everything you need to know...

[timn]

I am not currently running in AI/AIX but I raced AIX on the west coast last year. I agree with Mr. Tone and Mr. Scott. ABS should be left as a safety feature on street cars and does not belong on the track. It takes away from driver ability and could be an added expense. No race car I will ever own will have ABS simply for the spirit of competition and having an even field. Just my $.2.

TimN

[racercosmo]

Since most current systems use the ABS to control the front to rear bias (input is a single pressure) inputting two different pressures via dual MC's will wreak havoc on the ABS controller.

 

Not true - this would violate Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (such as FMVSS 135) related to braking systems that require two seperate service brake systems - IOW, two independant hydraulic circuits, as the rule is interpreted in passenger cars. That's why brake MC's have 2 seperate circuits, and two output ports (at least) going to 2 seperate circuits in the ABS unit, leading to either a front/rear (TT or H) split or a diagonal (X) split system.

 

I think you misunderstood my sentence. They are two seperate circuits (f/r) but they enter the EBD/ABS module at the same line pressure. That was my point, and i have edited the post to reflect that. Thanks.

 

I'm not an engineer and I'm not an expert on brakes. Since the lines enter the ABS unit after the distribution valve, I would assume that the fluid does not enter at the same pressure. This is all assuming that the distribution valve adjusts the pressure for the rear brake circuit. Tell me I'm wrong if I am.

[EFisher12]

I just got done reading this whole topic and I am EXHAUSTED....!!

 

Out of all of it (excuse my lack of knowledge on ABS and TC) I agreed with B Tones post at the top of page 2... he is right on the money there.

 

E Fisher # 71

Panoz GTS

[Keith]

 

But the biggest surprise to me in the whole discussion here is the Mustang bias - F-bodies have ABS too, and it's also (in the later models) from Bosch, so how are the Mustangs at an advantage?

 

Because it is VERY easy to retrofit a 94-98 ABS system into a 79-93 Mustang because for the most part the system can bolt in (spindles can be swapped, brackets swapped, etc) while it would be MUCH more difficult to swap over a 4th gen F-body ABS to a 3rd gen F-body as the vehicle architecture is VERY different and not very condusive to backdating parts like the Mustang is.

 

My original question was based on the fact that only a limited number of cars can really take advantage of this rule and it isn't defined very well either.

 

Yes, but I thought the rule is that the ABS system has to be the factory one. Retrofitting would not be allowed in this instance, so it's still "fair" and I stand by my previous statement - there are many advantages/disadvantages of going with a certain car and certain year. This is simply an example of this.

 

I'm still lost. Are you saying that it should be banned or are you saying that it should be "open" since so much of this thread has gone into retrofitting to non-ABS cars?

[mwilson7]

Yes, but I thought the rule is that the ABS system has to be the factory one. Retrofitting would not be allowed in this instance, so it's still "fair" and I stand by my previous statement - there are many advantages/disadvantages of going with a certain car and certain year. This is simply an example of this.

 

I'm still lost. Are you saying that it should be banned or are you saying that it should be "open" since so much of this thread has gone into retrofitting to non-ABS cars?

 

That's where the issue is Keith.

 

The rules reads "Anti-lock brake systems are prohibited except for an unmodified OEM system, which includes ABS valve body and electronics delivered from the factory. Calipers are unrestricted."

 

To you that means the car has to come with ABS. To many others it means you can retrofit ABS on an older car like the guys in Texas have done. What I am afraid of most is someone trying retrofit an OEM system on a car that has never had ABS (Toyata ABS on a 69 Camaro). Jim has put ABS on the rear of a 71 convertible without any testing. How comfortable would you be with that car behind you in a braking zone (no offense Jim!).

 

Considering that brakes are definitely a safety area I think that this rule is WAY to open to interpretation and should be more clearly defined or eliminated. Plus it brings another aspect of driving back to the drivers.

 

Thanks for the comments!

[Keith]

Geez, I guess I haven't been around long enough to "read into" the rules. To me, it's crystal clear - the setup that was available in your model, year and trim level is what you can put in your car.

 

I guess I' m just a naive newbie.

[Jim P.]

Jim has put ABS on the rear of a 71 convertible without any testing. How comfortable would you be with that car behind you in a braking zone (no offense Jim!). !

 

No offense taken! Actually when I pulled it out of the garage the pedal felt VERY spongy, so I decided I would test the brakes a few times while I drove down my 1/3 mi long driveway - needless to say I nearly hit my head the first two times I stepped on the brakes!

[Frank Corkran]

AAAAHHH!!! The voice of reason!!! Thank you so much for posting! ...

...It really does seem to me that this rule benefits Mustangs the most and should be eliminated if we truly want a more diverse class. If we want AI to be late model Mustangs only then please disregard my posts on this subject.

 

As was stated above, stock ABS isn't a performance advantage on race rubber (OK, maybe in the rain) except for unskilled drivers - who will tend to stay that way if they don't learn brake feel. The positive of ABS from my perspective is the likely tire savings from not flatspotting tires in the wet (or oil spills). The negative is noticeable extra weight in the front of the car, something else to break (hopefully a benign failure). To me, a factory -equipped ABS system is just another cost/reliability/weight trade-off like carb/EFI, low-rpm cubes/screaming grenades (er, OHC motors), etc. I don't think there is currently any data to support banning it on the grounds of "unfair advantage". Perhaps that will change.

 

As for someone showing up with a system tuned by a Bosch engineer, my response is: this ain't F1 and someone only needs a fat enough wallet to muscle their way to the front. Last thing I want to see is rules which ban avything that can't be tightly controlled.

[Guest]

I'm not an engineer and I'm not an expert on brakes. Since the lines enter the ABS unit after the distribution valve, I would assume that the fluid does not enter at the same pressure. This is all assuming that the distribution valve adjusts the pressure for the rear brake circuit. Tell me I'm wrong if I am.

 

Cosmo, it depends entirely on what system you have and if it has an integrated EBD.

[Guest]

 

As was stated above, stock ABS isn't a performance advantage on race rubber (OK, maybe in the rain) except for unskilled drivers - who will tend to stay that way if they don't learn brake feel...... I don't think there is currently any data to support banning it on the grounds of "unfair advantage". Perhaps that will change.

 

As for someone showing up with a system tuned by a Bosch engineer, my response is: this ain't F1 and someone only needs a fat enough wallet to muscle their way to the front. Last thing I want to see is rules which ban avything that can't be tightly controlled.

 

Frank, again how do you put a reliable system on an early model year car (which are also legal to run) be it mustang, camaro, fairlane, javelin ect. That is the crux of the question. Read the quote of the rules and decide for yourself what is legal and what is not.

 

I will never show up with an ABS car so you don't have to worry about me getting a system tuned by a Bosch engineer, but there are industries in which racers have contacts with those type of people and unfortunately there is ZERO way to detect it if someone else were to do it, and in our industry it wouldn't take a fat wallet, just a nice phone call to the engineers you work with on a daily basis.......

[turbolx]

As for someone showing up with a system tuned by a Bosch engineer, my response is: this ain't F1 and someone only needs a fat enough wallet to muscle their way to the front. Last thing I want to see is rules which ban avything that can't be tightly controlled.

 

...Like Brian said, it doesn't take a Bosch engineer to modify ABS electronics the same way it doesn't take a Ford engineer to calibrate a Ford EEC. Plenty of us have contacts in the industry at the right manufacturers and means of editting the hex code controlling things.

 

IMO, leave it legal and it's only a matter of time before it becomes abused. Take it out and keep the drivers in the race and on their toes.

[Frank Corkran]

As for someone showing up with a system tuned by a Bosch engineer, my response is: this ain't F1 and someone only needs a fat enough wallet to muscle their way to the front. Last thing I want to see is rules which ban avything that can't be tightly controlled.

 

...Like Brian said, it doesn't take a Bosch engineer to modify ABS electronics the same way it doesn't take a Ford engineer to calibrate a Ford EEC. Plenty of us have contacts in the industry at the right manufacturers and means of editting the hex code controlling things.

 

IMO, leave it legal and it's only a matter of time before it becomes abused. Take it out and keep the drivers in the race and on their toes.

 

OK, by that reasoning we should ban EFI now before someone reprograms their EEC to make much less power when the switch for the brake duct blowers is off (for example) during the dyno pulls. I accept the fact that some people will cheat (or just expend lots of money) as much as possible to win even though this is grassroots racing. Maybe we should require sealed spec carbed engines so the guys with close friends at Roush or Yates or Rehr-Morrison or personal friends of David Vizard won't have an advantage. Plus a spec suspension so the guys who have an in with Griggs, etc. can't turn it into an advantage. Wait, there are plenty of spec classes already. And those guys cheat like crazy (SCCA for sure, anyway). The '66 Mustang AI car I'm helping to build won't have ABS or even the maximum allowed tire size. Cost, time, reliability, personal preference choices. If the car battles with the guys in the middle of the pack, that's fun too.

 

When there is actual data supporting the position that ABS (or any other technology) is negatively impacting the goals and intent of the class, that would seem to be the time to consider a rules change. Personally, I wouldn't have added it but once I realized it's a lot less trouble to add a couple of wires (I'll be removing the complete factory harness) than to remove it and replumb the brakes, I decided to leave it in (for now at least).

 

If it had been banned from the start I'd have had no issue, I just hate rules changes without cause that outlaw what people are already running. And by the way, the car has ABS and never came close to contesting for a win - right, John.

 

That's my opinion.

[johnbasf]

As for someone showing up with a system tuned by a Bosch engineer, my response is: this ain't F1 and someone only needs a fat enough wallet to muscle their way to the front. Last thing I want to see is rules which ban avything that can't be tightly controlled.

 

...Like Brian said, it doesn't take a Bosch engineer to modify ABS electronics the same way it doesn't take a Ford engineer to calibrate a Ford EEC. Plenty of us have contacts in the industry at the right manufacturers and means of editting the hex code controlling things.

 

IMO, leave it legal and it's only a matter of time before it becomes abused. Take it out and keep the drivers in the race and on their toes.

 

OK, by that reasoning we should ban EFI now before someone reprograms their EEC to make much less power when the switch for the brake duct blowers is off (for example) during the dyno pulls. I accept the fact that some people will cheat (or just expend lots of money) as much as possible to win even though this is grassroots racing. Maybe we should require sealed spec carbed engines so the guys with close friends at Roush or Yates or Rehr-Morrison or personal friends of David Vizard won't have an advantage. Plus a spec suspension so the guys who have an in with Griggs, etc. can't turn it into an advantage. Wait, there are plenty of spec classes already. And those guys cheat like crazy (SCCA for sure, anyway). The '66 Mustang AI car I'm helping to build won't have ABS or even the maximum allowed tire size. Cost, time, reliability, personal preference choices. If the car battles with the guys in the middle of the pack, that's fun too.

 

When there is actual data supporting the position that ABS (or any other technology) is negatively impacting the goals and intent of the class, that would seem to be the time to consider a rules change. Personally, I wouldn't have added it but once I realized it's a lot less trouble to add a couple of wires (I'll be removing the complete factory harness) than to remove it and replumb the brakes, I decided to leave it in (for now at least).

 

If it had been banned from the start I'd have had no issue, I just hate rules changes without cause that outlaw what people are already running. And by the way, the car has ABS and never came close to contesting for a win - right, John.

 

That's my opinion.

 

The car better be running up front Frank. Last year the car was not setup the way it is now.

[Admiral]

I'm late to the thread, wondered why ABS was getting so much airtime elsewhere. I bought my SN95 because it had ABS already. ABS is legal according to the 2004 AI rules. Someone wants to run an older car that doesn't have an OEM backdating solution, that's their choice. Why make changes to the rules making items that are CURRENTLY LEGAL all of a sudden ILLEGAL? As some of you already posted, you don't feel that ABS is an advantage. I happen to like my ABS and want to keep it. Just my $.02

[chicane23]

One thing we all know is changing of the rules tends to turn people away and changing the ABS rule and disallowing it in the fox will definitely do that!

 

Retrofitting the standalone system from the '94 - '95 Mustang ABS system can be adapted to any car.

 

The ABS system on all current Texas cars are factory units (Unmodified OEM Systems), which includes stock Ford factory wheels sensors, stock factory Ford rear exciters, and stock factory Ford front hubs with built in exciters. Nothing is modified except adding this unit to a fox.

 

mwilson7 - "You guys honestly aren't recommending that people install a Mustang ABS system on another brand of vehicle are you? You are all really scaring me if you are..... "

I don't believe this would ever be an issue, you see Ford 9 inch rear ends in Chevy's all the time, or Ford 36 lbs injectors, or Chevy V8's in Ford cars. If someone wants to do something it can be done and brand is not going to scare them.

 

Sorry don't get this one!

Would removing the stock proportioning value violate the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (such as FMVSS 135) related to braking systems as it now removes a safety feature for brake pressure failure? Or adding SN95 brakes to a fox?

 

Line pressures entering a ABS unit are not equal from front to rear as I can show you on a set of in car brake pressure gauges.

 

The ABS may be an advantage or it maybe a disadvantage when it comes to track times, but the biggest advantage is tire expenses and this alone is good to keep the cost of running AI down as this is most peoples goal.

 

If you think it's a disadvantage, then why disallow it? Personally this makes no sense to me.

 

I do have a few questions for you?

What is difference between allowing IRS in 79-current live axle fox and adding ABS to a 79-current fox?

You don't allow an IRS on the vintage cars, so what is the difference?

Can you please explain how a Ford IRS or GTO IRS can be retrofitted on a 65-73 Mustang or a 67-92 Camaro, or any other non IRS equipped?

[Jeff F]

Interesting discussion. Yet another area where the AI rules are far from clear. After reading this thread and thinking about it, I can make an argument for either side, and it depends a lot on who I am trying to favor-- myself, the good of the AI series, etc.

 

Personally, I'm with Tone-- I don't need or want ABS. Driving a Fox Mustang, I could easily add it if I wanted, but never even considered it. BTW, I have had the chance to drive a Fox ABS-retrofitted track car with the ABS both on and off. I can't really say if I'd be faster with or without it. There are some times that it would slow me down, like over the hill at Grattan, or into turn 1 at BR where the car unloads and I often see a hint of rear lock until the rear loads up again. Really, I think I can do better in almost any dry, straight braking situation. On the other hand, I know that my driving style is a little different with an ABS car-- I'm a little more willing to push it in places where one tire is unloaded. As Chris Griswold noted, there are situations with odd loading conditions where control of an individual wheel is an advantage. Likewise, when it's wet or I'm off the clean line, I'm probably a little more conservative than if I had ABS. Not that I would get into the ABS on purpose (as many drivers do, on every lap), but knowing that it's there to back me up if I overcook it affects how aggressive I am. I'm really undecided here. On the one hand, I have no problem racing people who have ABS, I can hold my own without it and believe that in most conditions I'm better off without. On the other hand, it is an advantage in SOME situations, so for everyone to be on equal ground maybe we should all run without.

 

Now as far as what is best for the AI series, you have to look at what the ABS does to the competitors, and more importantly those considering entering the series. A good portion of the people who enter this series already have the car, so anything that makes them THINK that the car they have is at a disadvantage to another model is going to discourage them. For instance the guy in the '69 Camaro thinks that with the same weight, power, and tires he can run with a '99 Camaro, except that the new car has ABS and he won't be able to brake with it. Or maybe a current competitor thinks the reason another driver is faster is because he has the advantage of ABS. Doesn't have to be a true advantage, someone just has to THINK it is. On the other hand, is anyone going to NOT join the series because of a no-ABS rule? I doubt it.

 

I don't buy the arguments about cars that have factory ABS needing extensive work to get rid of it. Pull the fuse. Done. It might take a bit of plumbing on a car with dynamic rear proportioning (EBD) to remove the module and add a prop valve, but it's no big deal. As for the guys that already have done a retrofit-- your argument that it didn't cost that much is an argument that if it is banned you won't be at a big loss.

 

I guess my gut feeling here is the best thing for AI would be to get rid of it altogether. It doesn't put a big burden on those that have it to remove it, it gets rid of the question of advantage/disadvantage, and makes the series more of a drivers series than an equipment series (or at least appear that way).

[Admiral]

I'm wondering why is ABS being discussed/considered for removal from AI? Has something happened to put it in the spotlight?

 

ABS has been LEGAL in the AI rules for 2 years now that I know of. It factored into my decision regarding what platform when I built my AI car. I like the ABS, perhaps it is because I'm not as good of a driver as others, perhaps because I don't want to be flatspotting Toyo's every time I lock the brakes up. If someone THINKS somone else is faster due to ABS, so what? It is LEGAL in the rules. Go get some ABS then if you think it is the reason why you are getting beat.

 

AI needs to clarify gaps in the rules IMO, not spend time going back and changing existing rules.

[Jim P.]

As an AI racer who is building a '68 model car I would recommend that if a car came with ABS, let it stay, if they want to remove it then so be it. Retrofitting a factory ABS unit onto the same make of car should also be allowed.

 

It can't be near as bad as what one team recently did to hack up their car just to squeeze in a highly modified IRS...

 

 

As far as vintage autos, I would recommend an AI/V class for pre-'79 cars that would group all the vehicles that are currently racing in a historic sense...

 

(note - this post is as an AI racer and not as a NASA official)

[mwilson7]

It can't be near as bad as what one team recently did to hack up their car just to squeeze in a highly modified IRS...

 

(note - this post is as an AI racer and not as a NASA official)

 

Spoken as a true uneducated racer with no clue..........

 

P.S. Please keep the posts like the one above coming!!!

[Jim P.]

Ya like that eh?

 

 

Feeling Guilty?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have you hacked up an AI car lately?

[mwilson7]

Not one bit. Just tired of dealing with people who don't have a clue.

 

Have you hacked up an AI car lately?

 

Not as recently as you. I heard you were out in the garage again trying to change spark plugs.

[Guest]

As an AI racer who is building a '68 model car I would recommend that if a car came with ABS, let it stay, if they want to remove it then so be it. Retrofitting a factory ABS unit onto the same make of car should also be allowed.

 

It can't be near as bad as what one team recently did to hack up their car just to squeeze in a highly modified IRS...

 

 

As far as vintage autos, I would recommend an AI/V class for pre-'79 cars that would group all the vehicles that are currently racing in a historic sense...

 

(note - this post is as an AI racer and not as a NASA official)

 

Jim -

 

I have never seen such an ignorant comment. Tell me oh expert of "highly modified IRS...." just how modified is it? What has been changed? What effects do the changes have on the peice? Why is it neccessary to clearnce the rail?