PDA

View Full Version : ECU Rules from Old GCR (1995 & 2000)



jlucas
12-29-2003, 09:36 AM
If someone has a copy of an older GCR, perferablly 1995 & 2000, I'd be interested in hearing the wording of the ECU rules at that time. I'm working on a proposal for a changes to the current rules that doesn't penalize non-flash OBD2 cars of which a lot are being coming eligible for IT now.

This is the section that I'm looking for: 17.1.4.D.6

Summary of current rules:
-unmodified OEM ECU connection to the wiring harness (so an OBD2 to OBD1 harness adapter is illegal)
-all modification must fit the stock ECU box (no piggyback systems)

Also in the 2003 GCR this section is highlighted as being reworded for 2003, what was changed just for 2003?

Jeremy

Greg Amy
12-29-2003, 10:27 AM
IIRC, no ECU mods were allowed at all in Improved Touring until 2001, was it?

I'm curious about your purpose. What do you mean by not "[penalizing] non-flash OBD2 cars"? Just because you're not OBD2 doesn't mean you can't modify your ECU. You can certainly modify the stock ECU board to incorporate replacement chips, boards, and components. In fact, I've heard of some cars that have Motec engine management systems inside the stock ECU housing connecting to stock unmodified wiring harnesses, and it's fully legal to the rules (but far, far from the philosophical intent...)

You're limited only by your imagination and finances...

Banzai240
12-29-2003, 10:46 AM
2001 ITCS 17.1.4.D.6 -

Fuel-Injected cars may alter fuel mixture through the modification of the resistance values of the sensors which feed the computer. The computer shall remain unaltered. Air induction/orfice size(s) shall not be altered, and no new orrifes shall be created by disconnecting standard equipment. External throttle linkage to the standard fuel injection may be modified or changed.


2002 ITCS 17.1.4.D.6 -
Fuel-Injected cars may alter fuel mixture through the modification of the resistance values of the sensors which feed the computer. The computer shall remain unaltered. Air induction/orfice size(s) shall not be altered, and no new orrifes shall be created by disconnecting standard equipment. External throttle linkage to the standard fuel injection may be modified or changed. Adjustable fuel pressure regulators are permitted.


2003 ITCS 17.1.4.D.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. Adjustable fuel pressure regulators are permitted.

The "no new orrifices" part was replaced with new air intake wording the requires all air to enter through the intake tract, and the throttle linkage wording appears to have already been covered under 17.1.4.D.2.

The oldest GCR/ITCS I have available is the 2001... I think I have a 2000 and 1999 around here somewhere, but I'll have to look...

Hope this helps...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

jlucas
12-29-2003, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by grega:
I'm curious about your purpose. What do you mean by not "[penalizing] non-flash OBD2 cars"? Just because you're not OBD2 doesn't mean you can't modify your ECU. You can certainly modify the stock ECU board to incorporate replacement chips, boards, and components. In fact, I've heard of some cars that have Motec engine management systems inside the stock ECU housing connecting to stock unmodified wiring harnesses, and it's fully legal to the rules

Thanks for the info guys, I didn't realize the ECU thing was such a new development since I've only been racing for 2 years. What I meant by penalize is that it is much easier and less expensive for flash-ECU cars to modify the ECU. So the penalty for non-flash cars is simply cost (in some cases quite a bit), which seems to be against the whole idea behind the class. This also spills over into Touring as well. I'll only have specific knowledge about Hondas & Acuras and no one can modify a non-flash ODB2 chipset cost effectively (perhaps not at all since even Hondata doesn't do it), so no one does it. Basically for OBD2 H&A non-flash cars it requires an aftermarket system that fits into the stock box ($$$), or a custom made ECU which OBD1 board with OBD2 connectors ($$). So it seems silly to have the requirement worded in such a way that just adds unnecessary cost.

I imagine that non-flash ECUs of other makes will have a similar situation.

Jeremy

planet6racing
12-29-2003, 11:17 AM
Nevermind. Just re-read the posts and I was being redundant again.

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

[This message has been edited by planet6racing (edited December 29, 2003).]

Banzai240
12-29-2003, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by jlucas:
Basically for OBD2 H&A non-flash cars it requires an aftermarket system that fits into the stock box ($$$), or a custom made ECU which OBD1 board with OBD2 connectors ($$).

You might want to research this a bit more before drawing any conclusions... The OBD2 boards are so much simpler to reprogram, you don't even have to add any daughterboards, etc to modify them. Most that I know of are, in fact, reprogramable in their existing factory configuration. The older OBD1 boards require the add-on cards in-order to add the flash memory that can be reprogrammed, or at least that's the way my Nissan/Jim Wolf box is...

Make sure that whatever you send in for consideration is well thought out and researched, I guess is what I'm saying, and provide as REAL DATA as you can (suppliers, numbers, factual information, etc. )...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Geo
12-29-2003, 12:28 PM
Personally, I'd like to see the ECU rule reworded to require the stock circuitboard be retained in the stock location to effectively eliminate the stand-alones that are being put in gutted ECU boxes.

Now, I'm sure somebody would figure a way to still get a stand-alone inside, but I can't imagine how.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

bldn10
12-29-2003, 01:11 PM
"Now, I'm sure somebody would figure a way to still get a stand-alone inside, but I can't imagine how."

How about this, George - leave the OEM board in place but deactivate it; install WIFI, and do all the engine management from a laptop back in the trailer. I don't know if it is technically feasible but, if so, you can be sure someone will do it.

What's this I hear about the Bimmers running M3 ECUs - how is that?

Banzai240
12-29-2003, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
Now, I'm sure somebody would figure a way to still get a stand-alone inside, but I can't imagine how.


George... Have you taken appart a Wolf modified ECU for your Nissan??? I have taken a peak inside mine, as well as inside a stock core that I have... it's NOT really that hard to imagine! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

jlucas
12-29-2003, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
You might want to research this a bit more before drawing any conclusions... The OBD2 boards are so much simpler to reprogram, you don't even have to add any daughterboards, etc to modify them. Most that I know of are, in fact, reprogramable in their existing factory configuration.

Trust me I've look into it extensively. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif Non-flash Honda & Acura OBD2 boards are not simple to reprogram, that's my whole point.

Thanks for the tip about information to include.

Jeremy

Chris Wire
12-30-2003, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
Personally, I'd like to see the ECU rule reworded to require the stock circuitboard be retained in the stock location to effectively eliminate the stand-alones that are being put in gutted ECU boxes.

Now, I'm sure somebody would figure a way to still get a stand-alone inside, but I can't imagine how.

Geo,

When the proposal was still under consideration, I wrote the CB asking for a rule written similar to the Grand Am Cup rule which stated:

The OEM hardware must remain factory stock, however modifications to the software contained in the ECU are allowed.

The rule is simple, concise, and wouldn't have needed further clarification with the silly wiring harness wording.



------------------
Chris Wire
Team Wire Racing
ITS Mazda RX7 #35
[email protected]

Geo
12-30-2003, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by Chris Wire:
Geo,

When the proposal was still under consideration, I wrote the CB asking for a rule written similar to the Grand Am Cup rule which stated:

The OEM hardware must remain factory stock, however modifications to the software contained in the ECU are allowed.

The rule is simple, concise, and wouldn't have needed further clarification with the silly wiring harness wording.


That would make things difficult for some cars because they have soldered chips, but then again, when is anything in racing easy.

I think you're right. That would be a better rule.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

oanglade
12-30-2003, 09:10 AM
That would mean that only those with ECU's that can be reprogrammed without changing any hardware could do this modification and all others would have to stay stock.

Might as well just leave the old rule that all ECU's and software must be stock, but those cars with carbs could change the jets.

------------------
Ony

Greg Amy
12-30-2003, 09:44 AM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">That would mean that only those with ECU's that can be reprogrammed without changing any hardware...</font>

'Zactly.

George, that's a BAD wording on the rules. Think about it: any car prior to OBD2 will be left out, including the B13 Nissans. JWT "reprograms" the ECU by removing the chip and resoldering in a socket for a replacement chip. Under the above wording, with no allowance to modifications of the hardware, this would be illegal.

A better solution would be to incorporate wording - as offered above - that would require the original board to be used. This situation is a perfect case where someone was trying to out-think the competitors a got bitch-slapped because they were not imaginative enough; why go to such lengths? Make it more general and enforce the hell out of it, slapping the wrists of anyone trying "torture" the interpretation and intent of the rules. When you torture the rule verbiage you torture the interpretations.

Want to get rid of the Motecs and similar? Remove the words "or replace" from the current rule. I don't know who came up with that rule, but they should be flogged.

Jeremy, I understand your concern, but ECUs have been reprogrammed from the moment they were used, LONG before OBD2. The solution was that aftermarket manufacturers would take in your ECU, desolder certain components from the board, and resolder in sockets that would allow swapping of different EPROMs. To change the program, you change the EPROM.

With a market as large as the Honda, I have to imagine that this is offered for your car. Sure, you can't do it with your laptop at the track, but that is the way virtually all of the cars with ECUs in IT today are handled.

Greg

Banzai240
12-30-2003, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by grega:
JWT "reprograms" the ECU by removing the chip and resoldering in a socket for a replacement chip.

That's NOT how my JWT unit is done... Ours were done by soldering a "daughtercard" to the factory supplied jumper pads on the mainboard. The daughtercard contains the removable EPROM sockets, and has two-pairs of removable EPROMS... (total 4)...

The rules need to be generic enough so as not to offer any one make a particular advantage in this area over another. I like the idea of requiring that the factory mainboard be utilized or in-place, but I don't know if I'd start restricting modifications to JUST the mainboard...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Geo
12-30-2003, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by grega:
George, that's a BAD wording on the rules. Think about it: any car prior to OBD2 will be left out, including the B13 Nissans. JWT "reprograms" the ECU by removing the chip and resoldering in a socket for a replacement chip. Under the above wording, with no allowance to modifications of the hardware, this would be illegal.

<snip>

Jeremy, I understand your concern, but ECUs have been reprogrammed from the moment they were used, LONG before OBD2. The solution was that aftermarket manufacturers would take in your ECU, desolder certain components from the board, and resolder in sockets that would allow swapping of different EPROMs. To change the program, you change the EPROM.

Greg, I thought about the JWT ECUs and how they do it. However, if a stock ECU with a reprogrammed EPROM was the rule, you would simply unsolder the old EPROM as you state above and solder in the new one.

Whoa, you say? You can't do that because it says stock? I say it's covered under the part about repairs meeting factory specs. Unsoldering an EPROM and resoldering a new one in would certainly be a repair to factory specs from where I sit.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Geo
12-30-2003, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
The rules need to be generic enough so as not to offer any one make a particular advantage in this area over another. I like the idea of requiring that the factory mainboard be utilized or in-place, but I don't know if I'd start restricting modifications to JUST the mainboard...

I agree with not giving one make an advantage. So, where do you draw the line? Would JWT desolder and resolder EPROMS for IT? I'm sure they would. For a price. What in racing doesn't come with a price? Actually, for the early 944 this is exactly what people do to use different chips. The same could be done with Nissans.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Greg Amy
12-30-2003, 12:35 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Unsoldering an EPROM and resoldering a new one in would certainly be a repair to factory specs from where I sit.</font>

Eek, George. I don't want to get into a rules nerd argument, but I'd say that that is a tortured argument. Show me in the FSM where that service repair is called out...?

jlucas
12-30-2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by grega:
Jeremy, I understand your concern, but ECUs have been reprogrammed from the moment they were used, LONG before OBD2. The solution was that aftermarket manufacturers would take in your ECU, desolder certain components from the board, and resolder in sockets that would allow swapping of different EPROMs. To change the program, you change the EPROM.

I'll say it again. From everything I've been able to find out, this is NOT possible on a H&A non-flash OBD2 ECU, which is why there are none for sale. All the H&A boards out there with different chips are OBD1 boards, hence the need for a adapter harness ($) or a custom soldered OBD2 connectors ($$).

Jeremy Lucas
Kumho - Cobalt Brakes - Comptech

12-30-2003, 01:32 PM
Im working on a EMP generator built into my alternator thats going to take me to the front in a hurry, should take the CRB 6 months to react in which time ill have it wrapped up.

oanglade
12-30-2003, 02:06 PM
Oh, Actually, I see what you mean. The OBD-2 cars that can't be flashed. Those are the ones that you say that can't be re-programmed.
------------------
Ony

[This message has been edited by oanglade (edited December 30, 2003).]

Geo
12-30-2003, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by grega:
Eek, George. I don't want to get into a rules nerd argument, but I'd say that that is a tortured argument. Show me in the FSM where that service repair is called out...?


Come on Greg, you mean to tell me if a repair is not specifically spelled out in the FSM we cannot repair our cars? That's a little over the top.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Greg Amy
12-30-2003, 03:57 PM
Is it really, George? Put yourself in the shoes of the ScruCrew:

"Mr. Roffe, I see you've made a modification to (insert part here); can you show me where that's allowed in your Vehicle Specs, the GCR, or your Service Manual? After all, I'm sure you're well aware that GCR/ITCS 17.1.4.B states 'Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed for the purpose of gaining any competitive advantage.'"

"Well, no sir, I can't show you in the FSM where it's allowed, but even though it's not specifically spelled out it's a perfectly reasonable repair to make."

"Sorry, Mr Roffe, tell it to the Appeals Committee. You're excluded from the results."

Been there, done that. What makes you think that unapproved ECU mods are any more allowed than unapproved engine repair or unapproved suspension repair procedures?

"If it doesn't say you can..."

John Herman
12-30-2003, 04:49 PM
I'll through something out. If you want to race one of the many cars (or a specific model) not supported by the aftermarket, what are you going to do about the computer? I have NO idea how to crack the code/software on a computer, and I know its not just a simple few line program. I have researched web sights that offer insight into it, but I am no computer whiz. Therefore, I like the idea of purchasing an engine computer/controller with software that was supported by a reputable company. If you are one of the lucky ones who have a big enough case and can fit a MOTEC computer (~$1600) in it, that is one way around the problem. Therefore, why not just make the computer open. Ultimately the engine performance limitation will be the stock cams. This allows people to purchase a readily available product with technical support. Whether we like it or not, the computer and car marriage is here to stay. I think we should embrace the technology.

ITSRX7
12-30-2003, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by John Herman:
Therefore, why not just make the computer open.
Because IT has cars running side by side that have no computer, computers that can't be upgraded, computers that can be upgraded and ECU housings that can accept full blown programmable units. Is that fair or the intent of IT?




Ultimately the engine performance limitation will be the stock cams.


What's a cam? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
http://www.flatout-motorsports.com/images/200_06_checkered.jpg

lateapex911
12-30-2003, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:

What's a cam? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

AB



C'mon, Andy, it's those little holes in the sides of your plates, (intake) and the little holes in the sides of the housings, (exhaust). You know, the ones that you can't touch! Which are connected to the manifold, that you can't touch. Which is connected to the other intake device that you can't port match........

(which was fine, because the rules were written with that in mind....until they changed the rules...for some of the field, that is.......)

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited December 30, 2003).]

downingracing
12-30-2003, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by John Herman:
...Ultimately the engine performance limitation will be the stock cams...

Who runs a stock cam in IT? You should hear some of the cams I hear on the grid... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

------------------
Matt Downing
www.downingracing.com (http://www.downingracing.com)

Greg Amy
12-31-2003, 12:06 AM
Who runs a stock cam in IT? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif


<Waving vehemently>ME!!! JWT wants too much for theirs http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Geo
12-31-2003, 03:25 AM
Originally posted by grega:
Is it really, George? Put yourself in the shoes of the ScruCrew:....

OK.....

Are you trying to tell me that if the EPROM in your ECU goes bad, you are absolutely not allowed to replace it?

If you think so, then we'll just have to disagree. I see no reason you could not.

OK, so if you are allowed to replace the EPROM and you are allowed to alter the programming, replacing the EPROM with one with different code is fine.

If it says you can, you bloody well can. The suggested wording we have talked about says you can reprogram your EPROM. Agreed?

Would you not replace a bad EPROM with a new one? If not, they we will have to disagree (this is all theoretical anyway). If you would, then we can install a new EPROM, and the proposed wording would allow reprogramming. So, from where I sit, problem solved.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Greg Amy
12-31-2003, 09:38 AM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...if the EPROM in your ECU goes bad, you are absolutely not allowed to replace it?</font>

Absolutely not. Replace the ECU? Of course. Desolder and resolder in a new EPROM or even a socket for an EPROM? No way.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">If it says you can, you bloody well can.</font>

Of course, George, but the theoretical rule DOESN'T say you "bloody well can" replace the EPROM on an ECU. Show me where it does?

It's your contention that desoldering and resoldering in a new EPROM on an ECU is an approved repair procedure. It's "approved" then it must be documented somewhere, yes? Problem is, you cannot provide information from either SCCA or the manufacturer (from anyone, in fact) that says replacing an EPROM in the field - short of replacing the ECU in its entirety - is an approved repair procedure. It's not in the FSMs, it's not in any dealer tech bulletins, it's not in any recalls. The approved procedure for a failed ECU is to replace that ECU with a complete unit - new or remanufactured - from the factory.

Further, unless the factory is providing socketed EPROMs in its reman units, it would be contrary to the rules for you to insert one in the field, even if you re-inserted the original EPROM.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...you can reprogram your EPROM...</font>

"Reprogram", not "replace."

This can be easily settled by you: show me where removing and replacing an EPROM on an ECU is an approved field repair procedure in any car. Use something you know, with books you have: the B13 Nissan. Or even the 944. Or a Ford truck. Or a Trabant (do they even HAVE an ECU?).

Document where that approved repair procedure is and I'll admit the error of my ways...

OTLimit
12-31-2003, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by downingracing:
Who runs a stock cam in IT? You should hear some of the cams I hear on the grid... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif



You know, these comments are starting to get old....and insulting.

If you think someone is NOT running a stock cam, then do something about it.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but most of us still follow the rules (at least I like to think so.)


------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers

cherokee
12-31-2003, 09:54 AM
I worked at GM dealerships in the early 80's to the mid 90's, Went to training at GM on drive abality issues (there where lots in the 80's) never ever where we to crack the computer. I was one of the first 25 people back then to be trained by GM. Maybe things have changed in the last 20 yrs. or different mfg's had different practices, but back then it was a replace the entire computer. I was told by one of my instructors that if we opened a ECU the devil would escape....kind of makes me laugh now.

Geo
12-31-2003, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by grega:
It's your contention that desoldering and resoldering in a new EPROM on an ECU is an approved repair procedure. It's "approved" then it must be documented somewhere, yes? Problem is, you cannot provide information from either SCCA or the manufacturer (from anyone, in fact) that says replacing an EPROM in the field - short of replacing the ECU in its entirety - is an approved repair procedure. It's not in the FSMs, it's not in any dealer tech bulletins, it's not in any recalls. The approved procedure for a failed ECU is to replace that ECU with a complete unit - new or remanufactured - from the factory.

Well, reasonable people can disagree, so we'll have to disagree.

BTW, by your logic above, don't even consider using bondo on your car. No where in the FSM does it allow for using Bondo. For that matter, don't even consider using Permatex RTV to seal your engine. You'd better be using the Nissan stuff. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

But, in the spirit of the season (and because we're still friends http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif ), how about if the theoretical rule were altered to say the ECU may be reprogrammed and chips in the ECU may be replaced provided they are attached in the same spot on the PCB and attached in the same way as stock?


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Greg Amy
12-31-2003, 11:24 AM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">No where in the FSM does it allow for using Bondo.</font>

I completely agree: if body filler is not called out in the FSM for body repairs (although most factory-authorized body repair manuals do) then it is an illegal repair to the ITCS. However, I would suggest that the use of body filler is far more acceptable as a "standard practice" than that of replacing chips on an ECU.

I also suggest that it is far less likely to get protested or cause a Steward's RFA than desoldering and resoldering an EPROM on the engine management ECU...


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...how about if the theoretical rule were altered to say...</font>

A much wiser choice of words!

lateapex911
12-31-2003, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by OTLimit:
You know, these comments are starting to get old....and insulting.

If you think someone is NOT running a stock cam, then do something about it.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but most of us still follow the rules (at least I like to think so.)




I agree, Lesley, at least I want to think so! Of course, a majority is only 51%, so that's not saying much!

On one hand, I think most of us do our best to build a legal car. On the other hand I've seen some pretty obvious and malicious items, and I've learned of some things after the fact that really surprised me. Not to mention disappointed me....

I guess I want to believe, but the part of me that stings when I've been 'suckered' is still kind of wary.....



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Banzai240
01-01-2004, 04:26 AM
Originally posted by 7'sRracing:
Im working on a EMP generator built into my alternator thats going to take me to the front in a hurry, should take the CRB 6 months to react in which time ill have it wrapped up.

Someone's seen "The Matrix" one too many times! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Bill Miller
01-01-2004, 09:59 AM
Thanks for saying it Lesley! And you're right, it does get old!

George,

Please show me the p/n for the factory-approved replacement EPROM.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Knestis
01-01-2004, 10:09 AM
Am I confused or are we arguing about a rule that doesn't exist?

Happy New Year!

K

jlucas
01-01-2004, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Am I confused or are we arguing about a rule that doesn't exist?

Yes, I'm afraid my digging on the history of the ECU rules has taken a strange turn....

Jeremy

88YB1
01-01-2004, 04:18 PM
Just for your information, GM "DOES" authorize mecnanics to change the prom in the field. I quote from the Pontiac fsm page 6E2-A-19. Diagnostic tree chart A-2 Won't flash code 12. "check prom installation. If OK substitute a known good prom and recheck for code 12." Pontiac mechanics are authorized to change proms in the field.

Chuck

01-01-2004, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Someone's seen "The Matrix" one too many times! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



yea Darin it goes like this, the alernator build up a charge and when it hits 8000 rpm it lets off this huge electro-magnetic pulse frying anyones ECU within a short distance, they coast to the side and I cruise by. lol
by the way guys, cops have radar type looking guns that do this already, worrys about hospitals and pacemakers have kept them idled so far.

Geo
01-01-2004, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,

Please show me the p/n for the factory-approved replacement EPROM.


You make a decent point Bill.

However, please show me the p/n for the factory-approved bondo for repairing bodywork. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Geo
01-01-2004, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Am I confused or are we arguing about a rule that doesn't exist?

Yep. We've argued about everything else. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Actually, we are arguing over the rule in Grand Am as it would relate to IT if adopted (theoretically).


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

downingracing
01-01-2004, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by OTLimit:
You know, these comments are starting to get old....and insulting.

If you think someone is NOT running a stock cam, then do something about it.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but most of us still follow the rules (at least I like to think so.)

Sorry if you were offended by my comment/joke. Just so you know, my car is 100% legal. If I cared, I’d protest the illegal cars. I don't care, so I don't. And I don't know why my comment is insulting? I'm not talking about you... And the comment about most people following the rules - I agree. (at least I’d like to think so...) But, I can't tell you how many cars I look at on a race weekend that have some sort of 'illegal' modification. I point out what I see to the driver and leave it at that.

------------------
Matt Downing
www.downingracing.com (http://www.downingracing.com)

Prince Makaha
01-03-2004, 09:36 AM
There is a gm part number because I bought one a few years back and replaced it.

Bill Miller
01-03-2004, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
You make a decent point Bill.

However, please show me the p/n for the factory-approved bondo for repairing bodywork. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif





Ok George, so you think you're a rules nerd. What about 17.1.4.D.8.i


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Body repair shall be performed using every reasonable effort to maintain stock body conturs, lips, etc.</font> (emphasis mine)

I contend that the use of Bondo/body filler falls under the 'every reasonable effort' clause. And since we're also bound by 11.2.1.C (Appearance), we have an obligation to fix body damage/rust.

The factory manual for a VW talks about butt-welding repair panels. It also talks about these procedures being performed by an experienced body repair technician. Do I have to go into how the use of body puty/filler is prescribed for use in seam blending (as a generally accepted body repair technique)?

There comes a point where being pragmatic crosses over to strained and tortured. You obviously have no concept of where that distinction is.

So, if there is a factory part number for the EPROM, and it's a defined repair procedure to replace it, you're free and clear (so long as you use a factory, or factory-equivilent part). If it doesn't, you're SOL. Similar to rules that say "unless fitted as original equipment". For example, the VR6 VW's have coil packs and a crank trigger. The way I read the rules, you can swap them out for an Electromotive (or similar product), because it's the same type of ignition/spark distribution system as stock.

Your move. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Geo
01-03-2004, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
There comes a point where being pragmatic crosses over to strained and tortured. You obviously have no concept of where that distinction is.

Reasonable people can disagree. Perhaps you don't think so. My point is simply that you are applying a standard that is convenient to your sensibilities on one argument and ignoring it for a similar argument. But, this is why reasonable people can disagree. And as Kirk pointed out, we are arguing about a theoretical rule wording that will probably never be applied to IT.

Requiring an OEM p/n for a EPROM where you can change programming is just as silly as requiring only OEM brake rotors or an OEM p/n for bondo.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Bill Miller
01-03-2004, 03:15 PM
George,

I'm well aware that reasonable people can disagree. The problem is, all too often, that's held up as a defense for unreasonable positions.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">My point is simply that you are applying a standard that is convenient to your sensibilities on one argument and ignoring it for a similar argument</font>

Please show me where I've done this.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Geo
01-03-2004, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I'm well aware that reasonable people can disagree. The problem is, all too often, that's held up as a defense for unreasonable positions.

I see you're the designated arbiter on this point now?


Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Please show me where I've done this.

Well let's see. On one hand you're rejecting a repair because it's not specifically spelled out in the FSM and does not have a factory part number. On another hand you are not.

You think one makes sense and the other doesn't. I think under the context of both discussions neither makes sense to reject.

I'm sure you won't agree. We'll just keep arguing about a theoretical rule, so I'll stop here and give you the last word. Theoretically. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Bill Miller
01-03-2004, 05:50 PM
On one hand you're rejecting a repair because it's not specifically spelled out in the FSM and does not have a factory part number. On another hand you are not.


Actually George, I'm not. In the body repair case, my FSM talks about the employment of 'experienced body repair technician skills'. That umbrella covers the appropriate techniques/materials for effecting said repair. In the EPROM case, unless the FSM speaks to the replacement of the EPROM or components of the ECU, there's no authorization for that procedure.

And if you look at my earlier post, I clearly stated that if there was a factory part #, and a defined procedure for replacing the EPROM, then it would be perfectly legal.

Seems consistent from where I sit. Perhaps you're seeing them as inconsistent because you don't like the position that they support.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

bldn10
01-04-2004, 03:57 PM
I have been out of racing for a couple of years but I sure thought that the new ECU rule was in effect prior to 2003. As to the wording, couldn't they simply have left out "or replace?" That way you could make all the hardware/software alterations you want to the OEM board but eliminate completely new aftermarket engine management systems. Surely they realized that but chose otherwise. Sometimes I swear the SCCA must be lobbied ($) by equipment manufacturers and tuning shops.