PDA

View Full Version : ECU mods



Eric Parham
03-12-2004, 06:59 PM
If I start with a car that has an mass air flow sensor (MAF) signalling the stock ECU, but the modded ECU only accepts a manifold absolute pressure (MAP) input (all of the less expensive ones work this way), 1) am I allowed to add a MAP sensor to the intake manifold (assuming I can get the signal to the modded ECU through the stock ECU electrical connector), and 2) can I remove or disable the unused stock MAF sensor?

Geo
03-12-2004, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by Eric Parham:
If I start with a car that has an mass air flow sensor (MAF) signalling the stock ECU, but the modded ECU only accepts a manifold absolute pressure (MAP) input (all of the less expensive ones work this way), 1) am I allowed to add a MAP sensor to the intake manifold (assuming I can get the signal to the modded ECU through the stock ECU electrical connector), and 2) can I remove or disable the unused stock MAF sensor?

No in both cases.


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

03-12-2004, 07:54 PM
Pandora's ECU box, what a nightmare.

Jake
03-13-2004, 10:52 AM
The rule is simple - you can mod it as long as those mods are done within the stock box. Any mods or aditional sensors outside of the box are clear no-no's.

Banzai240
03-13-2004, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
The rule is simple - you can mod it as long as those mods are done within the stock box. Any mods or aditional sensors outside of the box are clear no-no's.

I believe this includes adding additional wires to the box... In other words, I'm pretty sure it must utilize the stock, unaltered wiring harness/connector.



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

Eric R287
03-13-2004, 09:29 PM
I have the MAP sensor inside the ecu box and a vacuum hose going to the ecu box.

Knestis
03-13-2004, 09:58 PM
Clever... What rule are you using to allow the additional vac line? I've never thought about this approach.

K

122 Vega
03-14-2004, 12:28 PM
Plus, disabling the MAF might fit under the "altering the value" of the sensor. In this case you are just altering it to zero.

Britt

------------------
Soon to be SSC Mazda MP3

Vintage Cosworth Vega

Eric R287
03-14-2004, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Clever... What rule are you using to allow the additional vac line? I've never thought about this approach.


Thanks, but unfortunately I don't even know for sure if this is going to fly when the car is tech inspected. I wonder if anyone has been able to replace their ECU with aftermarket equipment while completely satisfying the rules.

Eric R287
03-14-2004, 01:57 PM
Oh, and for anyone who's interested I used a megasquirt EFI controller. Why? It was cheap and a fun project that kept me busy for months on end. I love projects and I learned a TON about EFI systems. At this point I've tuned it and only assume it's making extra HP, but being able to monitor exactly what's going on with my car is what makes it worth it. http://www.bgsoflex.com/megasquirt.html

BTW Kirk, I've been talking to you on honda-tech/RR as Eric. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Geo
03-14-2004, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Eric R287:
Thanks, but unfortunately I don't even know for sure if this is going to fly when the car is tech inspected. I wonder if anyone has been able to replace their ECU with aftermarket equipment while completely satisfying the rules.

Tech inspectors are not going to look at your car for anything other than safety issues unless someone protests you.

Your car will be illegal.

17.1.4.D.1.a.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."

Unless you were able to fit the stock MAP sensor in the ECU, I don't see how you can get around the fact you are not allowed to add sensors. Also, I don't see how you can get a vacuum line into the ECU housing w/o modifying it.

I wish tech inspections looked for cheating.


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

Eric R287
03-14-2004, 04:00 PM
I still have all the original ECU parts so if I ever start doing any actual competition I can revert back to it. I don't know why, but I have a feeling no one is really going to care about my ecu unless my driving skills + car = unfair advantage. I have a ways to go before that happens...

Jake
03-14-2004, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by Eric R287:
I have a feeling no one is really going to care about my ecu unless my driving skills + car = unfair advantage.

<--- ducking and covering

lateapex911
03-14-2004, 06:31 PM
<---- biting my tongue ....

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

ITSRX7
03-14-2004, 08:44 PM
Once again supporting my theory that the illegal cars are in the mid-pack trying to keep up with the ultra-prepped, well driven cars. No offense intended, just an observation.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967

Knestis
03-14-2004, 11:36 PM
I could be wrong but I don't think that Eric is actually racing in IT with this set-up...

K

TypeSH
03-15-2004, 12:47 AM
Is it legal to replace a standard O2 sensor with a wide band O2 sensor?

Eric Parham
03-15-2004, 01:25 AM
Very interesting, I hadn't thought of putting the MAP sensor inside the box either. I know of several computer boxes (VW) that do have a vacuum connection to the intake (I think for ignition advance rather than fuel metering), so they already have a MAP-type sensor in the box http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif I guess we could use that as the main sensor and just let the computer do whatever it wants with the extra MAF input. Now, do we have to use the stock injectors?

Bill Miller
03-15-2004, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Once again supporting my theory that the illegal cars are in the mid-pack trying to keep up with the ultra-prepped, well driven cars. No offense intended, just an observation.

AB



Andy,

I'd like to hear the explanation of that one.

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

Eric R287
03-15-2004, 10:27 AM
I am not doing any competition of any kind at this point. I'm still learning about racing and learning/working with my car; especially since it has been Winter. I probably won't do any competition this Summer, even.

When I started building that ECU I realized I could more or less make it conform to the rules. So far I just have to deal with a vacuum hose that shouldn't be there. I've overcome a lot, though.

Even if I cannot possibly find a way to make it work I will just have to switch back to the stock set up. I mostly built that ECU for the fun of it. It only cost about $200 to do and as far as I can tell performs like a $2000 set up.

Pics of my ECU... I got this far! I passed the emissions test without a cat...
http://b18c5.org/race/ecu/
http://b18c5.org/race/ecu/10.jpg
http://b18c5.org/race/ecu/passed.jpg

OTLimit
03-15-2004, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy,

I'd like to hear the explanation of that one.



Bill,
I don't think much of an explanation is required. What we have seen and heard at the track over the last 11 years pretty much supports this theory.



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

Eric R287
03-15-2004, 11:58 AM
After doing some reading I've found that my ECU can make calculations based on the MAP sensor(along with the other, standard sensors) OR it can be set to make calculations based on the Throttle Position Sensor(along with the other, standard sensors). Supposedly, this isn't the easiest way to tune it, but if it works I'm sure I'll adjust.

Sorry for hi-jacking this post, but at least this info can be useful to someone else...

ITSRX7
03-15-2004, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy,

I'd like to hear the explanation of that one.



Bill,

I've posted my thoughts on this multiple times before on this board but would be more than happy to take it offline so as not to bore the group. Drop me an e:mail.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967

Bill Miller
03-15-2004, 08:47 PM
Andy (and Leslie),

I don't see how something that someone has done, that has yet to turn a wheel w/ it, supports that theory. I could just as easily say that people getting DQ'd out of the ARRC supports the theory that the folks at the front are there, because they're cheating.

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

Jake
03-15-2004, 09:17 PM
Eric - you're actually more on topic than some others. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Interesting info. What kind of mods/gains do you get with your megasquirt setup?

Eric R287
03-16-2004, 11:07 AM
I have yet to put it on a dyno, but if I see a gain of at least 5hp I'll be happy. I'm going to get some good dyno time in at my friends shop when the weather gets better. I'll have to put the original ECU(L-Jet) back in place and do a before and after.

Knestis
03-16-2004, 12:47 PM
The key here is that, if a system can be tweaked, it can be optimized for the narrower operating parameters of the race track.

It bears remember that it is not ever going to be the case that an aftermarket engine management system simply bolts on more power. In fact, it is as likely to slow a car down as it is to speed it up, unless the entrant commits to the dyno time necessary to get it right.

K

Eric R287
03-16-2004, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
It bears remember that it is not ever going to be the case that an aftermarket engine management system simply bolts on more power. In fact, it is as likely to slow a car down as it is to speed it up, unless the entrant commits to the dyno time necessary to get it right.


The dyno time would certainly take away any doubt that it's set up right. Especially with a wide-band o2. My process for tuning it was not very exacting, but I feel strongly that I have it set pretty darn close judging from how the car's driving. It's definitely running a tad richer than stock. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

The program I use to tune it makes it very easy to figure out and gives so much info if you want it. The info can be logged and processed with a seperate program later on, as well. This seperate program will then make suggestions for smoothing out the fuel map.

Hopefully I can keep this system in the car using either speed-density(MAP) or alpha-N(TPS--no vacuum line). I'm going to have to meet up with some of the local racers and see what advice they can give me--something I should do no matter what.

http://home.earthlink.net/~jcgebhart/mswhys.html

Geo
03-16-2004, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by Eric R287:
It's definitely running a tad richer than stock.

If it's richer than stock, in all likelihood it's slower than stock. Stock maps tend to be on the rich side rather than the lean side. It's a common misconception that adding fuel will add power.

The reason most stock maps are on the rich side is it's safer for the OEM. The engine will run cooler, with less chance of detonation. Leaning the engine out is usually what will add power unless the engine has a lot of parts that have changed VE significantly to already have the car running too far on the lean side.


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

ITSRX7
03-16-2004, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy (and Leslie),

I don't see how something that someone has done, that has yet to turn a wheel w/ it, supports that theory. I could just as easily say that people getting DQ'd out of the ARRC supports the theory that the folks at the front are there, because they're cheating.




<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I don't know why, but I have a feeling no one is really going to care about my ecu unless my driving skills + car = unfair advantage. I have a ways to go before that happens...</font>

Bill,

It's the mindset that 'as long as I am not at the front, illegal parts or modifications don't matter' that supports my theory. Like I said before, if you want to e-mail me, I would be happy to take it offline - or just start another thread.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Eric R287
03-16-2004, 11:05 PM
Any anticipation that the ECU rules will become more lax in the future?

Has anyone been able to accomplish this ECU modification successfully?

oanglade
03-17-2004, 09:24 AM
You need to pick a car who's ECU box is big.

http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


There are cars with MOTEC systems stuffed inside the stock box.

Eric Parham
03-17-2004, 01:32 PM
Okay, ECU = Engine Control Unit, which may control both fuel and ignition. But, many older cars had separate computers for fuel (e.g., EFI controller) and ignition (e.g., ICU or knock controller or electronic rev limiter). Thus, when attempting to upgrade an older system with separate computers, what does the rule permit as far as using a single computer in place of two? Recall that we were allowed to add ICUs even before the new ECU rule, as long as they used the stock spark distribution method (e.g., distributor if there was one). Any reason why the added ICU can't reside inside the stock EFI controller housing along with the fuel control (that is, besides fitment/size issues)?

Very pertinent rules:
17.1.4.D.1.e -- ignition
17.1.4.D.1.a.6 -- ECU
17.1.4.D.1.s -- ECU

Other possibly related rules:
17.1.4.D.9.c -- gauges (sensors?)
17.1.4.D.9.j -- radios (wiring alternative?)
17.1.4.D.1.b -- fuel pumps/lines (injectors?)
17.1.4.D.1.a -- jets (injectors?)
17.1.4.D.1.c -- MAF penalty


[This message has been edited by Eric Parham (edited March 17, 2004).]

Eric Parham
03-17-2004, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Clever... What rule are you using to allow the additional vac line? I've never thought about this approach.
K

How about "Adjustable fuel pressure regulators are permitted" (17.1.4.D.1.a.6, last sentence). Adjustable fuel pressure regulators almost always require a vacuum connection to the intake manifold, AFAIK.

oanglade
03-17-2004, 03:55 PM
Eric,
If your question is "Can I put everything into one box, instead of two?", In my opinion, if you can fit everything you need into one of the stock computer housings and use the unmodified stock harness that plugs to that computer housing to do everything you need, then you can do that and leave the other box empty.

I don't think that you can use one rule like "adjustable fuel pressure regulators are permitted" to break another rule like "Only the stock (OEM) unmodified 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 harness. The stock (unmodified) wiring harness must be used."

On the first paragraph of Section "D" it says: "No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function".

------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA

Bildon
03-17-2004, 04:45 PM
Wow..good thread. This is an issue that is too complex for the SCCA right now, IMHO.

For a while now I've been struggling with the definitions of components outlined elsewhere in this thread and the open interpretations which can be made.

If there are any IT Ad Hoc or CB folks listening in, I'd appreciate knowing if A) there is any talk of refining the ECU related ruiles or B) if they/you woul liek any feedback from the memebership to help with this.

- Bill

zracer22
03-17-2004, 04:51 PM
Now that I've wasted my time reading this thread, I'll waste a couple more minutes writing a reply.

This whole ECU thing has been a cluster f#*% from day one. The ECU rules were changed because everyone(figuratively, not literally) was cheating and they didn't want to police the issue. Now, a rule change that was added to allow aftermarket chips in stock ecu's is being distorted.

I have a chip in my BMW's ecu, and all it does is raise the rev limiter. There are no real HP gains to be had. Why someone would spend the $$$ stuffing a motec into a stock ecu box for IT racing makes no sense. "If" the engine is legal, minimal gains can be made by altering the ecu. Unless you can alter cam timing, altering ignition timing has very limited benifits. No matter what you do with the ECU, you can't change the amount of air going into the engine. Air = HP.

Do you want to see a huge performance gain? Then spend more time in the driver's seat learning to carry more speed thru and off the corners. Tune the suspension, not the ECU. I'll take a great driver in a 150 HP car over an average driver in a 160 HP car any day!



[This message has been edited by zracer22 (edited March 17, 2004).]

zracer22
03-17-2004, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by Bildon:
If there are any IT Ad Hoc or CB folks listening in, I'd appreciate knowing if A) there is any talk of refining the ECU related ruiles or B) if they/you woul liek any feedback from the memebership to help with this.
- Bill


I agree! Either open the rules to allow any engine management system or clarify what mods are allowed. If the intent was to allow aftermarket chips, then rewrite the rule to say that.

Eric R287
03-17-2004, 05:49 PM
"As long as it fits in the OEM casing" I can safely fit a MAP sensor according to the rules. I can't use that sensor because I can't run a vacuum line to it? What good is having the ability to fit whatever is humanly possible into that box if you can't connect to it? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif

The rules talk a lot about unmodified wiring and connections, but nothing specific is mentioned about a stray vacuum line. Vacuum line ain't wirin'. How wrong am I?

I wish this were easier to figure out. I wish this didn't require figuring out.

oanglade
03-17-2004, 06:04 PM
Can you run it inside the box without modifying the box?

------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA

planet6racing
03-17-2004, 06:14 PM
I don't see what is so bad about the current rule. It would be difficult to fit a complete aftermarket system in a standard PCM box with the adapter for the stock wiring harness. It can be done, but it would take a significant amount of time and money.

As for the vacuum line, I'll quote the saying around here. If it doesn't say you can, you can't.

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

Eric R287
03-17-2004, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
Also, I don't see how you can get a vacuum line into the ECU housing w/o modifying it.



Originally posted by oanglade:
Can you run it inside the box without modifying the box?


If that's what it comes down to I will think of something.

dickita15
03-17-2004, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by Eric R287:
If that's what it comes down to I will think of something.

well, fasteners are free how about running it it thru a hollow bolt.

running for cover
dick

Geo
03-17-2004, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by Eric R287:
"As long as it fits in the OEM casing" I can safely fit a MAP sensor according to the rules. I can't use that sensor because I can't run a vacuum line to it? What good is having the ability to fit whatever is humanly possible into that box if you can't connect to it? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif

Damn. Ain't life a bitch? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

The rule is not there to guarantee you can take advantage of it. It has limitations and if you can't take advantage of it due to the limitations, too bad, so sad.


Originally posted by Eric R287:
The rules talk a lot about unmodified wiring and connections, but nothing specific is mentioned about a stray vacuum line. Vacuum line ain't wirin'. How wrong am I?

Well, let's see.....

"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."

Modifying the housing doesn't fall into "within the orginal OEM ECU housing."

Unless there is an unused hole of sufficient size in your stock unmodified ECU housing to pass through a vacuum line, you're SOL.


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

Eric R287
03-17-2004, 11:13 PM
Looks like it's time to start tuning all over again using Alpha-N. Bye bye MAP.

Quickshoe
03-17-2004, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by dickita15:
well, fasteners are free how about running it it thru a hollow bolt.


Dick, I thought of the exact same thing. Thought about posting it but didn't want to get flamed with the "serve no other purpose" clause. And then on another thread you have great big overkill tow hooks suggested (perhaps tongue in cheek?) which clearly serve another purpose (ballast).

Tow hooks are free...so are fasteners http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Knestis
03-18-2004, 12:49 AM
You don't for ONE second think that I was serious about 15-pound tow hooks, do you?

K

EDIT - Further, it doesn't make ANY difference how well a rule is written if people are going to play word games calling additional sensors "gauges" or using hollow bolts as vacuum lines.


[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited March 17, 2004).]

Bill Miller
03-18-2004, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
You don't for ONE second think that I was serious about 15-pound tow hooks, do you?

K

EDIT - Further, it doesn't make ANY difference how well a rule is written if people are going to play word games calling additional sensors "gauges" or using hollow bolts as vacuum lines.


[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited March 17, 2004).]

Welcome to the wonderful world of rules interpretation!

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

tderonne
03-18-2004, 09:39 AM
Ok, I'll keep this going nowhere....

Please quote me the rule where ALL fasteners are free...

dickita15
03-18-2004, 09:45 AM
my comment about the hollow bolt was somewhat tounge and cheek the original tow hook comment was not. while these type of debates drive some crazy, i do gain insight when they go to the extreme. it makes me think of possibilitys that i had not before considered. the "may not perform any other function rule" is a reasonablness standard. my bet is a 4 or 5 pound hook might pass and a 15 pound one might not, but kirk's posting also let me expand my thinking. the fact that you can buy a 15 pound hook makes a 4 pound one more reasonable.

dick

Eric Parham
03-18-2004, 07:05 PM
(deleted double post)

[This message has been edited by Eric Parham (edited March 18, 2004).]

Eric Parham
03-18-2004, 07:06 PM
Please keep in mind that there are two people named "Eric" posting in this thread.

As far as I can tell, the ECU rule (1.a.6) does *not* actually say that the housing cannot be modified! I know, IIDSYCYC, etc., but maybe it (or another rule) DOES say we can! Bear with me...

What the ECU rule does say is that the "unmodified ... connection to the wiring harness" must be used. Thus, only the original unmodified wiring connection must be used, with the original external harness. Other words convey the intent that the housing cannot be enlarged for a bigger computer, but they do not specifically forbid acess holes and the like, as long as the computer would fit within the dimensions of the stock box.

The ignition rule (1.e), on the other hand, is relatively free (except for the requirement of a distributor, if it had one). Thus, vacuum lines and even wires may be added for the ignition (at least in the cases where the ignition was not originally handled by the same ECU as the fuel).

Some example cases may help:

Case A: Car came with a fuel controller/computer for fuel injection, but just a simple mechanical distributor for ignition.

Case B: Car came with fuel controller for fuel injection, and computer controlled ignition (with or without distributor), where the ignition computer was completely separate from the fuel computer.

Case C: Car came with fuel controller for fuel injection, and computer controlled ignition (with or without distributor), where the ignition computer was in the same box (or assembly of boxes?) with the fuel computer, but operated separately.

Case D: Car came with modern combined controller for fuel injection and ignition.

Case E: Car came as any of the above examples, but aftermarket ignition computer was added per rule 1.e.

Obviously, any computer that controlled fuel qualifies as an ECU. It is not as clear whether any computer that controlled ignition also qualifies as an ECU. If it does, many older cars currently have two ECUs (one for fuel and one for ignition). In all cases, the stock fuel computer box must be used, but does the stock ignition computer box also have to be used? I'd say that rule 1.e means no.

Now, if the stock ignition box does not have to be used, are we free to put the ignition control inside the same box as the fuel control? I would argue that the answer is yes, particularly where the stock ignition connector to the wiring harness is maintained (so you'd have both the stock fuel computer harness connection and the stock ignition computer harness connection mounted on a single stock computer box, usually with a cut access hole for the moved connector, but not always required.

I do not believe that either the intent, or the literal rules as written, were meant to put older cars with separate computers (or no ignition computer) at such a significant disadvantage by preventing them from combining the control of ignition and fuel in a single unit.

As for my earlier post supporting adding a vacuum connection to the ECU box for the purposes of regulating fuel pressure, I believe that this is specifically allowed by the rule as currently written, especially since it does *not* recite that the box cannot have added access holes. If it was the intent of the rule not to allow any modifications to the housing, it could have easily required that the housing be "unmodified", which is not currently the case.

What's the solution? Either put the cat back in the bag (not likely), or completely free control of fuel and ignition.

The next problem with the ECU rule is that it allows much more than full tuning control of just fuel and ignition. Some cars have continously variable valve time (e.g., BMW E36 325i has VANOS), and others even have variable valve lift, all controlled by the same ECU.

If we're to allow full computer control of these systems, then, at a minimum, the corresponding specs for conventional cams would have to be freed to equal the playing field. Since, according to my best knowledge, I do not believe that any cars with variable cam lift have yet been classified in IT, I would suggest that they be prohibited for now so that the rules can catch up.

As for the variable valve timing cars that have already been allowed, one possibility is that we allow unlimited valve timing (only) for the rest of the field. Honestly, I can't think of another "simple" solution other than banning that type of technology in IT (perhaps by requiring disablement on cars already classed), FWIW.

Knestis
03-18-2004, 07:46 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">...it could have easily required that the housing be "unmodified", which is not currently the case. </font>

The fatal flaw in an otherwise good argument is that it is not necessary for the rules to say that something must specifically remain unmodified, for that requirement to be there. In my oft-repeated opinion, the single biggest mistake made in the IT rules was taken the first time something was specifically prohibited: The inference for many then became what you have presented - if it doesn't say you can't, you can. That is NOT correct since "Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein." Drilling a hole is an modification.

That said, you aren't going to get much argument from me on the bigger issues of technical equity that you present. The rules did NOT do a very good job of planning proactively for the incremental advance of technology.

K

Bill Miller
03-18-2004, 08:40 PM
The rules did NOT do a very good job of planning proactively for the incremental advance of technology.


Boy Kirk, did you say a mouthful!

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

lateapex911
03-18-2004, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by Eric Parham:


......I do not believe that either the intent, or the literal rules as written, were meant to put older cars with separate computers (or no ignition computer) at such a significant disadvantage by preventing them from combining the control of ignition and fuel in a single unit.


What's the solution? Either put the cat back in the bag (not likely), or completely free control of fuel and ignition.

The next problem with the ECU rule is that it allows much more than full tuning control of just fuel and ignition. Some cars have continously variable valve time (e.g., BMW E36 325i has VANOS), and others even have variable valve lift, all controlled by the same ECU.

If we're to allow full computer control of these systems, then, at a minimum, the corresponding specs for conventional cams would have to be freed to equal the playing field......

As for the variable valve timing cars that have already been allowed, one possibility is that we allow unlimited valve timing (only) for the rest of the field. Honestly, I can't think of another "simple" solution other than banning that type of technology in IT (perhaps by requiring disablement on cars already classed), FWIW.

I agree with your logic in many ways, but you're introducing the term "intent" which can get thorny.

" I do not believe that either the intent, or the literal rules as written, were meant to put older cars with separate computers (or no ignition computer) at such a significant disadvantage...."

Well, this is the defacto 'competition dajustment' that is the result of the "We have no way to police it so we'll allow it " ECU rule. The trouble with the rule has more to do with other procedures, more than it has to do with the rule itself.

Keep in mind that the CRB sets the weight of every car when it classifies that car, so as to make it competitive in it's class. Well, in a perfect world they do, but a lot can happen to screw that up. Look at ITS. The (2.8L?) E36 comes stock with abaout 189 Hp, at the crank, but in race trim, they're putting down about 217 at the wheels !!! Now the 944 (2.5L), on the other hand, comes stock with 145, but in full built race trim can barely make 160, I'm told. Two engines with .3L displacement difference between them, but 57 Hp difference at the wheels. What's up with that? Unfortunately, the CRB doesn't have Karnack (sp?) the Magnificent predicting the future for them.

Any car classified after the ECU rule (post ECU rule, or hereafter: PECU) was instituted should, as part of it's weight setting process, have research done to quantify probable Hp gains, based on variables such as variable valve timing and so on. Those classified before the rule (hereafter referred to as BECU) have gone on to star in threads here at IT.com, but not at the track!

Which brings up the next point. Your thoughts regarding the free allowance of cam timing are going to hit a huge snag when you factor in rotaries. How should they alter their cam timing? Or valve lift?

And cars already classified getting free cam timing would still not be equal to those with continuously adjustable systems.

I'm afraid that those rule changes will get mighty complicated mighty fast, and there will be a lot of sharp clawed cats to stuff back in the bag.

The solution, and one that will work into the unforseeable future, is PCAs.

In a perfect world, they wouldn't be needed, and I know alot of people think of them as a band aid, but it's extremely unlikely that all technologies can be accounted for in the original weight setting period, and that's obvious looking at some of the current situations.

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited March 18, 2004).]

Geo
03-19-2004, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by Eric Parham:
As far as I can tell, the ECU rule (1.a.6) does *not* actually say that the housing cannot be modified!

Does it have to say "you cannot modify this part or you will be sent to the gulag?"(sp?)

Indeed it does specify exactly what/where modifications may be performed.

"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."

Again, all modifications must (emphasis mine - and the word must is a very important word in reading and interpreting the rules) be done within the original OEM ECU housing." Don't tell me that you'll just drill a hole from the inside. That would just be a stupid response.

There is nothing there which says you may modify the housing.

Furthermore, to add to Kirk's point, this rule and almost all the others fall within the heading "AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS." So, if it ain't in there, you can't do it.

I'm the first to look for a loophole. When people say IIDSYCYC, I look for where it says you specifically can and say "if it say you can, you bloody well can." It doesn't say that in this case.

And, as Jake said, intent does not enter in. Intent is something the rules makers must address when writing a rule. It should never be used for interpretation. Of course, if you find a clever loophole you run the risk of it being closed the following year so some clever loopholes can be expensive to undo.


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

B Schley
03-19-2004, 05:48 PM
Good grief, why all the obsessing about the ECU? Spend all the brain power on things like getting the car really set up to handle. I'm sorry, I just lose it with all the technocrats screwing around with the computers. The engine rules are too restricted to allow for any gains through ECU mods. I agree with the earlier post air=HP. Even when you chip an ECU, there is a default code that the ECU's tend to fall into that take away any "gains". Thus endeth the rant.
--Bill

Bill Miller
03-19-2004, 08:12 PM
Bill,

I guess you weren't around when James Clay talked about the significant gains they got from the ECU on the BMW.

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

lateapex911
03-20-2004, 01:45 AM
Yup, I was going to mention that.

The World Challenge (or Speed) cup guys with E36s I've talked with are big Motec fans. Don't bother showing up without it was their comment.

And as the E36 starts with what, 189, at the crank, and the ITS guys (reportedly) wind up with 217 at the wheels, something is going on! That's over a 50Hp gain!

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited March 20, 2004).]

adamjabaay
05-14-2014, 08:12 AM
you literally bumped a thread that was over 10 years old..... To say that?

Greg Amy
05-14-2014, 08:42 AM
:lol:!

I see his last activity was in the PMs, so he's probably still butt-hurt with someone and decided to visit.

Brings back some old memories, though. Life was so much easier back then...<sniff, sniff...>

Knestis
05-14-2014, 11:52 AM
This is still around? Glad I never wasted my time with this shit.

Glad I never wasted my time replying to your posts.

Oh, waitaminute. Damn.

K

Greg Amy
05-14-2014, 12:00 PM
I miss Geo...and Darin too. Hell, even Parham doesn't hang out much any more...

Z3_GoCar
05-14-2014, 03:18 PM
I still see Geo on other message boards. His avatar says he has an ITS 944 under construction, so he may lurk on occasion.

Greg Amy
05-14-2014, 03:20 PM
Yeah, that's a long-ago project. George is into (leg-powered) biking now...

Z3_GoCar
05-14-2014, 03:27 PM
He's not posted there in a while either, but it says last activity was a PM at the end of last month. So I know that he's still lurking.

Leg powered biking eh' I should get mine out.