ECU modification rules

[gran racing]

For a while now I’ve been trying to figure out a way to manipulate my ECU, but am not having much luck. The cheaper methods that are currently legal are not possible for my vehicle’s ECU. It may be possible to modify it within the current rules structure, but it would be very costly. Besides, I’m honestly don’t think there are significant gains to be made. But I still would like to see what possibilities exist for the future.

In the most recent FasTrack, I saw the following: “Allow modifications to the wiring harness as it relates to the ECU rules. (Kamler) Tabled for further discussion by the Advisory Committee.”

I’ve often wondered why the ECU modifications are required to be done inside of the stock ECU housing. I’ve seen other ECU systems (such as Unichip) that could be used to tune the ECU at a much more reasonable cost but require the unit to be wired into the ECU harness. This system would not offer any performance advantage compared to the more expensive units that are contained in the box; it would just be a less expensive alternative. It just seems that this rule makes completing this modification more expensive then the alternatives which is contrary to the IT philosophy.

I’m curious to hear what people’s thoughts are on this subject.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

[spnkzss]

I'm in the same boat your in Dave. I can't even find someone that can promise a Rev Limiter bump. I may have to send it back and forth to someone until the right combination works.

If you allow modifications like that will it open it up to replacing the ECU with say an Electromotive TEC3 system that is completely laptop programable, or is this basic things like piggy backs?

Spanky
ITC #73 '90 Honda Civic WDCR

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">I’ve often wondered why the ECU modifications are required to be done inside of the stock ECU housing.</font>

The intent of that wording, coupled with the "stock unmodified wiring harness", was to write the rules in such a way that expensive aftermarket engine management systems, such a MoTec, would not be used, thereby lowering costs and complexity. Unfortunately, we racers tend to be very creative and clever, and someone figured out how to stuff an expensive MoTec system into a factory ECU housing using the stock unmodified wiring harness...

It's the same result as what happened by outlawing coilovers where the threaded collar is "permanently attached" to the shock body: the original intention was to disallow high-tech expensive shocks; the end result was folks using the high-tech expensive shocks, machining off the threads, then using a slip-on collar.

These are classic cases of rules micromanagement gone awry. The original intent may have been sincere, but it's just not possible to consider - and accomodate - all possible permutations. The only solution is to write a more general rule, but also publish the intent of the rule so that reasonable interpretations can be made by reasonable people.

I'd also like to use the Unichip, as it's a cost-effective solution, easy to install, effective, and configurable. Obviously, it's illegal to the rules as written today. Thus, my supposedly "inexpensive" solution will probably be to use some high-tech engine management system and multiple dyno runs in order to dial in my engine, then use the data I obtain to have the factory ECU reprogrammed (at $100 a shot plus shipping). Then, as conditions change, I'll have to have it reprogrammed yet again.

So much for the true intent of the rule...

[Eric Parham]

I'll bite. I've run into the same problems that you speak of, plus others. For example, cheap do-it-yourself circuit borads are available for speed-density systems (MAP sensors), but not for mass-air-flow (MAF sensors).

Various business practices (some ethical, some not) of manufacturers and the after-market have prevented the average guy from being able to tune a computerized IT car with the same flexibility he enjoyed in the past. Thus, particularly for some models, tuning of OEM computers has become treacherous (both practically and legally).

I've also considered the *relative* impact on various models of opening up the rule to allow wiring and sensor changes. At a certain point, such changes may call for intake tract modifications. I don't know if we're ready for that, or if it can be headed off with a very thoughtfully written rule.

The major problem is still that the cars with computer-controlled variable valve timing effectively run free cam timing, while the rest of us are stuck with the factory bumpstick. Thus, the only solution that I can think of to the current dillema, short of bouncing the variable valve timing cars out of IT into Production (where valve timing is already free) or freeing cams for everyone (combining IT with Prod?), would be to allow completely free computers/wiring/sensors for cars that have fixed valve timing while forbidding any computer mods to those with variable valve timing. Those who want to run their MOTECs would be allowed to do so, but only if they disable all electronic control of the valve timing.

Just my untuned thoughts, although I also consider myself to be a likely candidate to run a variable valve timing car in the near future, so I have at least an imaginary horse in each race. YMMV

[Knestis]

This is one of those areas where people are just going to be forced - someday, I hope - to grasp the reality that costs cannot be controlled by rulesmakers. If I want to spend $100K testing and dyno tuning my IT car, there's not a damned thing the CRB can do to stop me.

I frankly think that restrictions in this area are a sop to owners of old-school carb'd cars, who (incorrectly) think that allowing FI cars to tweak their inputs and outputs is the same as giving them open cams.

Where their concern DOES have merit, is where the computer starts controlling valve timing. Allowing that kind of control IS essentially giving away what has historically been a limitation imposed by mechanical constraints.

I would argue for a fresh answer that allowed all different kinds of hard- and software solutions but placed limitations on functionality. Something like, "Do any dang thing you want with engine management, as long as...

** Cam timing must be as stock, relative to the crankshaft rotational position

** No additional inputs are added beyond those provided as stock (e.g., vehicle speed sensor is OK [came on my Golf] but a pitot sensor for airspeed is not)

** Parameters (inputs, maps, etc.) may not be manually controlled by the driver

** There may be no data links from the pit to the car (don't laugh)

I don't know what to do about traction control and ABS. I'm tempted, as I've stated elsewhere here, to stop worrying and accept their presence in IT.

K

[Eric Parham]

Originally posted by Knestis:
... I frankly think that restrictions in this area are a sop to owners of old-school carb'd cars ...

Maybe, but I think that we/they *were* also trying to contain costs for FI cars.


Originally posted by Knestis:
... I would argue for a fresh answer that allowed all different kinds of hard- and software solutions but placed limitations on functionality. Something like, "Do any dang thing you want with engine management, as long as...

** Cam timing must be as stock, relative to the crankshaft rotational position

** No additional inputs are added beyond those provided as stock (e.g., vehicle speed sensor is OK [came on my Golf] but a pitot sensor for airspeed is not)

** Parameters (inputs, maps, etc.) may not be manually controlled by the driver

** There may be no data links from the pit to the car (don't laugh)

I don't know what to do about traction control and ABS. I'm tempted, as I've stated elsewhere here, to stop worrying and accept their presence in IT.

K

I think that the 1st, 3rd and 4th constraints probably have merit (i.e., stock valve timing, no in-cockpit control, and no distributed computer control), but I don't see any reason at all for the second constraint (only stock inputs). Why should an older or cheaper car with fewer inputs be penalized in this manner? We should be able to add any input wires or sensors to the computer. I actually don't see any reason to limit electrical outputs either, as long as those outputs aren't controlling a variable valve timing system!

Back to the first constraint, this is easy until you try to define a "stock" fixed valve timing for a variable valve timing car (e.g., at what rpm, load, fuel quality, etc.)?

[Scooter]

Originally posted by Knestis:
This is one of those areas where people are just going to be forced - someday, I hope - to grasp the reality that costs cannot be controlled by rulesmakers.

I would argue for a fresh answer that allowed all different kinds of hard- and software solutions but placed limitations on functionality. Something like, "Do any dang thing you want with engine management, as long as...


What? So we go even further down the path of engine management software and hardware? This is messed up. We need to be going the other way on this deal. Something like only allowing chip replacement on stock engine computers. I don't understand why we have to go all the way to MoTec to allow chips. You can't police chips. This is understandable. But you can police stock appearing chips. If you open up a computer box and the circuit board isn't a factory part, then you have a problem. You can even put a coverable hole in the lid of the thing so you just have to open it up and shine a flashlight in there.

Why is this so hard? A chip is $100-$300. A fully-programmable setup is $1000-$2500.

As far as variable valve timing goes, there's a limit to the hp involved there. It's a plus like independant rear suspension or fuel injection. People can adjust it with the chip. Whatever. Add some weight to those cars when classifying them.

K.I.S.S.

[spnkzss]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">e need to be going the other way on this deal. Something like only allowing chip replacement on stock engine computers. I don't understand why we have to go all the way to MoTec to allow chips. You can't police chips. This is understandable. But you can police stock appearing chips. If you open up a computer box and the circuit board isn't a factory part, then you have a problem. You can even put a coverable hole in the lid of the thing so you just have to open it up and shine a flashlight in there.</font>

What do you do about computer without removable chips that you send away, plug into a programmer, and program it? H

[gran racing]

People are going to get the same net result but would be able to get there cheaper if this rule is opened up a bit. I agree with Kirk on limitations.

And there are many cars ECU which can not be chipped. Can the ECU be modified in some other way? Maybe. But there are amount of resources available. So would it cost me $1,000 for a fully tuned ECU / car or $5,000? We are limiting people who are not willing (or in my case can not afford) to pay to get the ECU modified with the current rules structure.

If there were a way to prevent any ECU mods and effectively police it, great. I wouldn't be against that. But there isn't. It just forces people to be more creative and spend more money.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

[cherokee]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">What do you do about computer without removable chips that you send away, plug into a programmer, and program it? H</font>


It would still have the factory number on the main board/daughter, board whatever, check it by that.

I would say it has to have the factory "guts" in the case. Maybe someone will solder all of the little chips off a factory motherboard and solder on new chips in the existing chip sockets....yea right.

[cherokee]

Originally posted by gran racing:
People are going to get the same net result but would be able to get there cheaper if this rule is opened up a bit. I agree with Kirk on limitations.

And there are many cars ECU which can not be chipped. Can the ECU be modified in some other way? Maybe. But there are amount of resources available. So would it cost me $1,000 for a fully tuned ECU / car or $5,000? We are limiting people who are not willing (or in my case can not afford) to pay to get the ECU modified with the current rules structure.

If there were a way to prevent any ECU mods and effectively police it, great. I wouldn't be against that. But there isn't. It just forces people to be more creative and spend more money.



Your car can't take advantage of the rule cheaply...my car can't take adavntage of it at all. All things equal your car has an option to increase HP that my car does not have. The old car guys got shafted by this rule no doubt about it. If opening up the ECU rule did not make you faster over a stock ECU why do you tinker with the computers in the first place?

[Eric Parham]

At this point in our rules evolution, it is no longer a question of allowing more performance out of the fuel and ignition portions of the engine management systems, we've already let that cat out of the bag.

What can be gained is a reduction in cost to achieve the already allowed potential. If we choose to, we can level the playing field in terms of cost/benefit for *all* competitors by doing away with the arbitrary restrictions that cost so much to work around.

I would also like to see carbueretted cars allowed to convert to injection. I have already seen a computer-controlled fuel pressure regulator added to an older carbueretted car, although I have no opinion on its applicability to other cars.

There may be several ways to address this intended leveling of the playing field, but the best that I can think of right now is to completely free at least the computers, wiring, and fuel system components. Note that ignition timing and control is already free (with stock distribution).

I wish there was something we could do to reign in variable valve timing (VVT). VVT must be addressed somehow, but I really don't have a good answer to that one. Maybe it can be solved with weight, but I doubt it.

Perhaps we could borrow from the SCCA Solo Street Prepared (SP) rules on this one. Basically, intake, fuel and ignition are free in SP (note that this allows conversion from carbueration to injection). Some of the best systems that I've seen run in SP are not the ultra-expensive MoTec systems, but rather the more tunable stock systems borrowed from stock donor cars of other make and/or model. There are even some completely custom home-built systems done on a tight budget, but they often require wires and/or sensors that didn't come with the particular car.

[Eric Parham]

Originally posted by cherokee:
Maybe someone will solder all of the little chips off a factory motherboard and solder on new chips in the existing chip sockets....yea right.

As I recall, that's *exactly* what folks were doing with the old L-Jetronic boxes back in the 80's.

[gran racing]

First of all, you can do what ever you want to inside the ECU box right now. I'm not trying to debate wheither the ECU rules should have initially been opened up to modifications or not. It is a done deal and too late to go back. For the record though, I do agree with it. Why? It is extremely hard to police and why penalize people that are staying within the rules?

My ECU box is quite large and could fit a lot of goodies in it as it stands. But it comes down to cost. I found a guy in Canada that says he could help me, but it is pretty costly and a loooong drive for me from CT. Not that you care. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif

And Cherokee - I never said there is nothing to gain. I wouldn't be looking into this if there wasn't. Now how much? That I really have no idea. I do not believe that it will provide a huge gain, but it is worth looking into.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

[cherokee]

For the record I agree with the open rule also it only makes sense. But Give the old cars a bone.

But the part about having no idea on how much gain is what I am talking about. A computer car could be classed with my car and the computer could gain HP but my car has no chance and thats not right. The computer car is fluid the carb car is static.

Thats what I object to.

[This message has been edited by cherokee (edited October 28, 2004).]

[ITZ34]

ECU's, FI, Motec, variable cam timing...What are you folks talkin about? I can't find any of that stuff under the hood http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

Dave Ciufo
ITS 240Z #34

[Scooter]

Originally posted by Eric Parham:
What can be gained is a reduction in cost to achieve the already allowed potential. If we choose to, we can level the playing field in terms of cost/benefit for *all* competitors by doing away with the arbitrary restrictions that cost so much to work around.

I would also like to see carbueretted cars allowed to convert to injection.

There may be several ways to address this intended leveling of the playing field, but the best that I can think of right now is to completely free at least the computers, wiring, and fuel system components. Note that ignition timing and control is already free (with stock distribution).


People! You're killing me. Free fuel and electronic systems? How is that fitting with the class philosophy? What's next, free transmissions so everyone can run a 5-speed?

The only way we "level the playing field" in IT is by weight. Not by allowing everyone to run more and more non-stock pieces. If you need to run a car that allows more modifications, there are classes for that. We're the "just off the street" class.

Again, STOCK IS CHEAP. Keep it stock. If people want to solder new chips onto their motherboard, then that's how it goes. We can't fix that. (At worst, someone custom-burns a chip for their car, and it's still not nearly as expensive as a MoTec setup.) We CAN and should fix the programmable fuel-injection issue. This is clearly not a rule that came out as intended, much like the threaded-body shock rule. They fixed that, they can fix this.

[Geo]

Originally posted by cherokee:
I would say it has to have the factory "guts" in the case. Maybe someone will solder all of the little chips off a factory motherboard and solder on new chips in the existing chip sockets....yea right.

Are you kidding? That's small potatoes.


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

[cherokee]

Originally posted by Geo:
Are you kidding? That's small potatoes.




The only cars that I have with a computer are my day to day transportation, and I have and will never tear into a computer...execpt to replace the entire unit with a new factory part...or one out of a junkyard. I admit that my knowlage in this area is limited.

But it seems to me that it would be a huge PITA to do what you say is small potatoes. But to put new chips not just a EPROM or whatever into factory circuit boards would be a big deal so I thaught. My thinking was that if you had to keep the un-altered factory circuit boards (the board,[not cut up or jumpered all over the place] part not the chips) in the computer it would elimiate all the expensive aftermarket stuff that I guess people are stuffing in the existing case....Maybe I am way off base, I guess I will just shut-up since I don't know what I am talking about.

[Geo]

Originally posted by cherokee:
The only cars that I have with a computer are my day to day transportation, and I have and will never tear into a computer...execpt to replace the entire unit with a new factory part...or one out of a junkyard. I admit that my knowlage in this area is limited.

But it seems to me that it would be a huge PITA to do what you say is small potatoes. But to put new chips not just a EPROM or whatever into factory circuit boards would be a big deal so I thaught. My thinking was that if you had to keep the un-altered factory circuit boards (the board,[not cut up or jumpered all over the place] part not the chips) in the computer it would elimiate all the expensive aftermarket stuff that I guess people are stuffing in the existing case....Maybe I am way off base, I guess I will just shut-up since I don't know what I am talking about.



OK, first of all, if you're not willing to desolder and resolder a chip, what else are you not willing to do to develop your car? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this is a pretty basic change that even street car guys do.

FWIW, I agree with you about requiring the stock board be in place and used with an allowance for a socket or daughterboard to be used to replace the chip. That's what I'd write if it were up to me.


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

[Bill Miller]

You know, after reading Jake's protest story, I wonder why they even bothered w/ the open ECU rule. They should have just left them alone and let people protest them. The would have looked at something stamped "MoTec" and said "looks stock". :roll:

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

[dickita15]

let me ask some questions as my racing background is with low tech cars, computers are in tow vehicles only.
I understand that right now people are stuffing motec units inside stock cases. am i right that motec is pretty well state of the art and the rule just make you do a work around. if the stock case/wiring rule was opened up, could you do more or just do it easier.
dick

[jhooten]

To make it fair for all themembers of the class how about were change the rules to make the FI cars rip it all out and install carbs? That would make it all more fair. Then every body would have the same handicaps.

[planet6racing]

Didn't we go over all of this already? Wasn't it like the first 15,000,000 post thread on the IT site? Didn't we finally just agree not to agree?

FWIW, go ahead and require me to keep the factory guts in my ECU box. It's still big enough to fit a Motec unit in there! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

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

[gran racing]

Dick, this is my point! NOT do more just easier and less costly.

What I'm talking about is allowing the already legal modifications to the ECU to be made outside of the box / plug something into the harness. I am not talking items that are not already possible and legal to manipulate.

The main thing here is that currently these are legal to modify, but depending on the car it can be quite costly. If it would be very simple to make it less costly and not increase what could currently be manipulated, why not?

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

[gran racing]

Maybe Bill, but I saw something related to modifying the ECU harness in the latest FasTrack. What I want to know is why (actual facts) the ECU should not be allowed to be modified outside the box with what can already be done now legally inside the box (just more expensively).

It was not intended to debate the decision way back when to make ECU modifications legal. From my memory and searches, this what that thread discussed.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

[stevel]

Originally posted by Scooter:
People! You're killing me. Free fuel and electronic systems? How is that fitting with the class philosophy? What's next, free transmissions so everyone can run a 5-speed?

The only way we "level the playing field" in IT is by weight. Not by allowing everyone to run more and more non-stock pieces. If you need to run a car that allows more modifications, there are classes for that. We're the "just off the street" class.

Again, STOCK IS CHEAP. Keep it stock. If people want to solder new chips onto their motherboard, then that's how it goes. We can't fix that. (At worst, someone custom-burns a chip for their car, and it's still not nearly as expensive as a MoTec setup.) We CAN and should fix the programmable fuel-injection issue.

the problem is some cars (due to design, aftermarket and/or demand) can run a completely tunable injection system inside a stock ecu and some are rather cheap. Others cannot inside the current rules at all or it is very expensive. That's where the difference lies. If you happen to have a car that is old or just wasn't a hot car with the aftermarket companies you may not have any alternative or it will cost you a ton. Whereas the OBD1 hondas and BMW's have fully tunable ignition and fuel maps as well as other options like multi stage rev limiters, traction control, etc all within the stock ecu and can be done fairly cheap. So, that's the problem. Inside the current rules it's easy and cheap for some, and expensive or not possible for others.

I don't know what else to propose. I think allowing more is opening up a can of worms and will just add more and more cost, especially as newer cars get classed in the coming years. It's a tough call, but like is said in the GCR, there is no guarantee of competitiveness of a certain model, people forget that.


Originally posted by Scooter:
This is clearly not a rule that came out as intended, much like the threaded-body shock rule. They fixed that, they can fix this.

That's probably a bad example to your argument. They "fixed" the rule by allowing threaded shock bodies (at least last I saw they did).

s

[This message has been edited by stevel (edited October 29, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by stevel (edited October 29, 2004).]

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by dickita15:
...if the stock case/wiring rule was opened up, could you do more or just do it easier.

Dick, in my opinion the MoTec stuff is state-of-the-art in engine management right now (it's what the pros are currently using). If we accept the fact that MoTec is right now being stuffed into stock ECU housings using stock unmodified wiring harnesses, then I see opening up the rules as allowing the current state-of-the-art to be done easier and "less" expensively (certainly not "inexpensively").

In addition, opening up the rules would allow the middle-level and less-costly technology, such as Unichip (http://www.dastek.co.za/), to be applied at a lesser cost than the high-tech stuff like MoTec. Those that want to (or are currently) spending the big bucks can do so at a lower development cost, those that want the lesser-expensive street solution can do so legally, and those that don't want to spend the money, well, don't have to.

I just don't see how it can get more expensive - and more capable - than developing an in-the-box MoTec system. However, because we are such an innovative group I certainly cannot consider all possibilities, but if we just opened up the rule to allow mods outside the box and allow wiring harness mods, it would do is open up that existing technology to more people, such as those that cannot find someone to develop and manufacture an "in the box" solution.

The only realistic alternative is to put the genie back in the bottle and try to police stock ECUs.

GregA

[Knestis]

Actually, the threded-body shock rule is a great case study, from which we can learn...

** First, we were allowed aftermarket shocks and struts - the state of the art units used stock-diameter springs (c. 1983).

** Someone decided - rightly - that it was easier and cheaper to use common 2.25 or 2.5" "racing" springs but the only companies that would make struts/shocks for to allow their use on stock-bodied cars were very expensive.

** These spendy units were made illegal by defining a diagnostic characteristic - threaded bodies - that they all shared.

** People quickly found a work-around and put threaded sleeves over shocks/struts that don't have them, adhering to the rules. Some of these units are as expensive - or MORE expensive - than the evil that the rule was intended to avoid. Note here that what was intended to be a cost-saving rule did NOT have that effect, because it COULD not.

** Time passes

** The aftermarket catches up with "racing" technology and the market is flooded with "true" coilover shocks and struts for popular chassis options. Economies of scale make "racing" springs and threaded dampers more and more affordable - I just bought a pair of 600# springs for $50, at the track, from a guy racing a different kind of car from mine. If this were 1983, I would have had to have gotten them custom wound, to the tune of $4-500 bucks a pair.

** The rulesmakers recognized - belatedly - that the rule intended to SAVE money was actually making it MORE expensive to race, and changed the rule to eliminate the necessity to monkey around with sleeves.

I'll say it again. At the end of the day, there is NO way to control costs indirectly and actively with restrictive rules.

If Bob Bigbucks can afford a Motec, he can afford to spend that same money optimizing his engine management by other means. If you take away the afffordable options - the OTS piggyback units, parts from other cars, etc. - the ONLY guy who can tweak is Bob.

If the issue is that older (aka carb'd) cars can't compete, that's a function of the classification and specification process, that can be addressed through PCAs.

K

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by gran racing:
If it would be very simple to make it less costly and not increase what could currently be manipulated, why not?


I agree, however, how would you write and enforce a rule to allow it? Maybe I am not a good enough wordsmith, but I don't see how you can write a rule that will make it cheaper/easier for people such as you and me without allowing people like Bob Bigbucks from doing more than he currently can.

While it may make it easier for us to raise the performance level of our cars, there is the possibility that it will do nothing to close the gap between us and those with more resources.

I am all for rules that make it cheaper to compete, however Bob Bigbucks just used the money he saved on his MoTec for new tires every race, more testing, more entries, fresher motor, better final drive, etc.

We need rules that yield diminishing returns: Lot more expensive to go a tiny bit faster. This can narrow the gap on the track between the guys with money and those without. Hopefully enough so that tallent will make up the difference.

How would you propose the rule be written?



[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited October 29, 2004).]

[Renaultfool]

Some thoughts.
1. Improved Touring is not Showroom Stock and we should not try and make it that. The name alone suggests that changes are expected. Otherwise just open Showroom Stock up to unlimited years and run them. Windshield washer bottles and horns etc. are not performance items that we should be concerned with in IT. I cannot ever remember being beat by a bottle or horn. (Yes, mine are still there, but I think that it is stupid.)
2. I would think that Improved Touring should be parallel to what the import street modifiers are doing now. Not too many are modifing the older cars anymore.
3. It would help all IT racers if the rules would allow modifications that would make it cheaper and safer for all of us. Remember number 1.
4. VVT is all in at race speeds so the variable part is a moot point. The cam is fixed timing at whatever lift and duration it is at high rpms. No one would set their computer to lower the lift and timing for racing. At race speeds, vvt doesn't matter, you are not using it anyway.
5. Timing and mixture is variable on older cars as well as the computer cars. Weber carbs can be adjusted for proper mixture at all rpm ranges using the four different mixture adjusting circuits built into them.
6. An engine is an air pump whose effeciency is tied to the volume of air that can be pumped through the intake and exhaust ports. Intakes, valves, and cams are left stock according to IT rules, so the only thing that ignition timing and mixture will do is let the engine operate effeciently within those limitations. There is no power boost (above 100%) to be gained with timing and mixture, only the ability to maximize the specific engines power (up to 100%) given the limitations of the stock engine air flow componants.
7. Let's finaly let the rumor die that modifying your ECU is equal to a turbo. Spending a lot of money might get your ECU car up to where the carb guys can get with simple factory available adjustments, effeciency wise, but it is a longer, more complicated, trip.
8. Modern engines with the ECUs would still kick butt on the older engine designs if we converted all of them to carbs and standard ignition because the new engine's internal design is more effecient with multiple valves, higher compression, more powerful cam timing. They are just better air pumps.

Sorry guys, park your MGs, their day is passed. If you enjoy them, fine, run them, just don't expect them to keep up with a modern car design.

[bldn10]

"What I want to know is why (actual facts) the ECU should not be allowed to be modified outside the box with what can already be done now legally inside the box (just more expensively)."

I think you answered your own question. The original intent was to allow after-market chips, re-programming, etc. - I cannot fathom why the words "or replace" were included because that has opened up a whole new can of worms. Like someone pointed out, if you take the next step of rules creep and allow the harness connectors to be changed, you might as well say that engine management is unrestricted. Everyone will have to have one to be competitive. I firmly believe that it is not too late to roll back the rule and delete "or replace" from it, and that we should do it. It is not too difficult to open the box and check if the OEM ECU is in there, even if highly modified.

[Scooter]

Originally posted by bldn10:
I firmly believe that it is not too late to roll back the rule and delete "or replace" from it, and that we should do it. It is not too difficult to open the box and check if the OEM ECU is in there, even if highly modified.

Can I get an "Amen?"

I don't want to be forever known as "the hole guy" but again, you could put a hole in the cover of the ECU box so you wouldn't even have to open it up. It's just a dust cover.

Stocker is cheaper.

[gran racing]

Amen.

Believe me, I'm all for rules only allowing a stock ECU as long as it can be policed effectively. I am not convinced it can be, but in theory that would be the best solution.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

[Knestis]

Since I'm not at all sure that the last few posters were all agreeing to the same thing, can I check? Which rule is closest to what you were supporting:

1. All of the hardware in the boxes that control engine function must be original, AND the programming must be as stock

2. All of the hardware in the boxes must be original, BUT the programming may be altered

3. The boxes and all of the hardware must be stock EXCEPT for the integrated circuits that store the programming, which may be replaced with different hardware to facilitate said reprogramming

4. Something else?

K

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Since I'm not at all sure that the last few posters were all agreeing to the same thing, can I check? Which rule is closest to what you were supporting:

1. All of the hardware in the boxes that control engine function must be original, AND the programming must be as stock

2. All of the hardware in the boxes must be original, BUT the programming may be altered

3. The boxes and all of the hardware must be stock EXCEPT for the integrated circuits that store the programming, which may be replaced with different hardware to facilitate said reprogramming

4. Something else?

K



Door number 3 Kirk.

If the FIA cannot police programming, don't expect the SCCA to do so in an amateur series. However, it's easy enough to verify the stock board is there and connected to the wiring harness connector in the stock fashion. Allow chip replacement and daughterboards (or something similar if necessary) to facilitate chip replacement for those cars where it's not feasible in the stock ECU.



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

[planet6racing]

You're kidding me, right? Did you guys read the Protest Story?

Checking to make sure the stock internals are in there? Who is going to know? That's not covered in the FSM's as the assembly is what is sold and replaced, not what is inside the box.

While we're at it, let's make Dunlop Sport A2's the spec tire because everything else costs too much. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif No matter what you do, there is always going to be someone spending more money than you to go faster than you and they probably will. Accept it.

{on edit} My apologies to the thread starter. I'm all for allowing the add on computers. But, this fell into the standard "Open ECU's upset the balance in IT" argument. In the other thread that happened, I asked a question and I'll ask it again: Someone, anyone, prove to me that, by opening the ECU rules, it changed who was running up front.

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

[This message has been edited by planet6racing (edited October 29, 2004).]

[SPiFF]

Originally posted by Renaultfool:
Some thoughts.
1. Improved Touring is not Showroom Stock and we should not try and make it that. The name alone suggests that changes are expected. Otherwise just open Showroom Stock up to unlimited years and run them. Windshield washer bottles and horns etc. are not performance items that we should be concerned with in IT. I cannot ever remember being beat by a bottle or horn. (Yes, mine are still there, but I think that it is stupid.)
2. I would think that Improved Touring should be parallel to what the import street modifiers are doing now. Not too many are modifing the older cars anymore.
.
.
.
Sorry guys, park your MGs, their day is passed. If you enjoy them, fine, run them, just don't expect them to keep up with a modern car design.

Oh my God! Now you have gone and said it! The obscenity! Some people like this whole Improved Vintage thing they got going on. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

gran racing, I hear what you are saying. Some people will have a harder time because off the self solutions may not be available for all cars for a quick, cheap few HP gain. My setup is illegal as is because I am using a $75 OBD2 to OBD1 conversion harness to run a stock ECU instead of tossing a bunch of money at an ODB1 Hondata which plugs into my OBD2 harness. Soon will be fixed with a little application of $$$.

In the long run though, the open ECU rule is for the better. People will always find ways to spend cubic dollars on their car. The more restrictive the rules are, higher cost per HP there is.

Stock ECUs will be impossible to police. Referencing the protest thread and replace piston with ECU. At least with a piston you can look and see if it is different then the stock part from a dealer. Can’t easily do that with software.

More and more cars will have a bunch of stuff in the ECU. There will come a time when disabling certain parts of the stock ECU program will be the only way to prepare a car.



------------------
Zsolt - #18 H3 GSR
http://www.SouthEastHondaChallenge.com

[This message has been edited by SPiFF (edited October 29, 2004).]

[oanglade]

When tech won't look at a diff to see if it has been modified because the FSM doesn't show pictures or any specs beyond ratio and type, what are they going to do with an ECU?

Either make it all stock or make it open.

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

[Geo]

Originally posted by oanglade:
When tech won't look at a diff to see if it has been modified because the FSM doesn't show pictures or any specs beyond ratio and type, what are they going to do with an ECU?

Either make it all stock or make it open.



Hold the phone. How can you say stock when you are already implying tech cannot police it?


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

[oanglade]

Originally posted by Geo:
Hold the phone. How can you say stock when you are already implying tech cannot police it?



Because tech can't or won't police a bunch of other things already and they are kept illegal. At least that way most people don't spend the time, money and effort in development, testing, etc. Only the cheaters.


The sad thing is that there are businesses who's job is to get you the "undetectable advantage", but they call themselves "legal" because they don't get caught.

In any case, I would much rather have an open ECU rule than what we have right now.

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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by oanglade:
Either make it all stock or make it open.


Fair enough... We already have Showroom stock....

I say make it open...



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

[jlucas]

First of all forget about stock. "showroom stock" is not even stock.

I don't know how it is for other makes but all ODB2 Hondas prior to the RSX are not easily/cheaply modified with the way the rules are currently written. The cheapest way is to swap in a ODB1 ecu but it's about 50% bigger than an OBD2 ecu, so you can see why that doesn't work. If intention is to keep the costs down, why not just require any OE ECU to be used that would get rid of the Motec's, etc...

[This message has been edited by jlucas (edited October 30, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by jlucas (edited October 30, 2004).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by jlucas:
If intention is to keep the costs down, why not just require any OE ECU to be used that would get rid of the Motec's, etc...

Who cares about keeping costs down... I just want my car to go FASTER!! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Seriously... How would you police those ECUs that are easily reprogrammable??? How would you police ANY of them, for that matter...???

Again, this is IT... Presumably, these are IMPROVED TOURING cars... It's going to cost a little bit to make some of those improvements...

On this topic, however, every time a change is made, it ups the ante'... I personally think the rule is fine the way it is, but perhaps that's because for $650.00 or so, I can have my programmable ECU... (well... I actually already do, but you get the picture...)

So, if we open up the boxes to any box, then people will complain because they can't modify the wiring... so, the wiring will eventually be opened up... Then, people will complain because they can't add the extra sensors... so sensors will eventually be opened up..., etc., etc., etc...

In the end, as I've said before, those with the means will have, and the rest of us will have not... Just like it is today.

So, at what point do you say the rules are "good enough" and just go racing?? We all have the same options as far as ECU mods go... All it takes is money and talent... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

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

[Dave Zaslow]

I also vote for #3 on Kirk's list.

For OBD2 Volkswagens and Audi's at least 3 companies (APR, Revo, GIAC) sell re-programs of the stock ECU that co-exist with the stock program. They do this without a change in hardware, only software that is ported through the OBD2 connector. Visiting your dealer under warranty? No problem, press a button a few times and your stock program is all the code scanner will see. You can have multiple programs controlled by a key fob that looks like your alarm remote.

How are you going to police this? We already have OBD2 cars classed in IT.

I think all ECU's should be allowed to be modified by altering input signals or replacement of the eprom; but only on the original unmodified circuit board within the original unmodified case that the car came with. That at least gives you a basis to see if something has been physically done to the ECU.

Can someone take a complete Trabant ECU from a hotter model and put it into the original case that came in the base car? Sure. Unless you disassemble all of it and can compare the circuit board numbers and scan for the eprom's coding you are S.O.L.

Dave Zaslow

[jlucas]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
I personally think the rule is fine the way it is, but perhaps that's because for $650.00 or so, I can have my programmable ECU... (well... I actually already do, but you get the picture...)

I'd love to be able to do that, but the point is the rules require un-necessary expendatures. Currently for the Prelude we just built for ITS, there is nothing readily available that fits the rules. Hondata stuff is all OBD1 (same for pretty much any Honda tuner), which won't fit in the stock OBD2 case (same with AEM, Motec, Autronics, etc). Some chance a JDM ODB1 ecu will fit but it will have to be custom ordered, custom re-pined on the circuit board for the stock OBD2 electrical connection, socketed and then tuned. So were talking a minimum of $2000, for something that could cost $450 and an hour on the dyno if a ODB1 OE board swap was allowed.
I think the rule is fine for ODB1 cars, but it's going to be an increasing problem for more and more OBD2 cars as that's the future of IT.
Any other brands/cars out there with no ECU stuff available?

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...but only on the original unmodified circuit board within the original unmodified case that the car came with.</font>

That pretty much eliminates all pre-OBD2 cars - like me, for example. The *only* company I'm aware of that reprogs Nissan ECUs does it by desoldering the factory PROM (it's not re-programmable) and solders in its place a socket and daughterboard. Then, an EEPROM is programmed and dropped in the socket. With your rule, this would be illegal.

Either stuff the genie back in the bottle (impractical and impossible to enforce) or open up the bottle entirely.

GA

[Eagle7]

Originally posted by jlucas:
Any other brands/cars out there with no ECU stuff available?
2nd Gen RX-7. Evidently SpeedSource can pack a Motec into the OEM case for ~$4000.

------------------
Marty Doane
ITS RX-7 #13
CenDiv WMR

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
[quote]We all have the same options as far as ECU mods go...


Darin,

Nothing could be further from the truth. Pre-OBD (either I or II) systems just don't have the same number and kinds of input parameters that the OBD I and II cars have. Since you're limited to the stock, unmodified wiring harness, if you don't have it, you can't use it.

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

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited October 30, 2004).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Nothing could be further from the truth. Pre-OBD (either I or II) systems just don't have the same number and kinds of input parameters that the OBD I and II cars have. Since you're limited to the stock, unmodified wiring harness, if you don't have it, you can't use it.

And some cars have 2.4L but others only have 1.8L...

Some cars have advantages... That's just the way it is in multi-marque racing...

If you want everyone to be on a perfectly equal playing field, GT or NASCAR is always a good option.

Otherwise, pick your weopon of choice.

I don't think that continuing to open up the rules is the right answer. Trying to classify cars around these advantages/disadvantages, however, merits consideration and is what we are currently attempting to do...

[Bill Miller]

Never mind Darin, it's pointless.

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited October 30, 2004).]

[gran racing]

Comparing 2.4 L cars and 1.8 L cars to cars that can easily program their ECUs vs cars that can not is just silly. First of all, a 1.8L car can not convert their engine to 2.4L with all of the money in the word legally. But all cars could technically reprogram their ECUs, but it comes down to money. I'm sure Bill Gates could figure something out for us. I see what you are trying to say Darin, but it just doesn't apply here. Again, for many people it is a matter of opening up the rule and spending $800 or getting the same results and spending several thousands of dollars.

And the comp board looks into wheither cars can or can not get their ECUs programmed when being classed? Is this information based on generalizations and assuming cars wouldn't use a Motec or other similar very expensive unit?

Marty, sure you can buy the Motec for $4,000 but then you have to pay another $10,000 to get it installed and tuned.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

[Bill Miller]

Dave,

Please don't waste your time using logic w/ Darin.

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

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by gran racing:
Marty, sure you can buy the Motec for $4,000 but then you have to pay another $10,000 to get it installed and tuned.



That's not true. The entire unit tuned is in the $3000 range if I remeber correctly from SS. Hardware and dyno time.

$10K more? Where did you get that number?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Dave,

Please don't waste your time using logic w/ Darin.



Bill,

In all seriousness, why would we continue to put ourselves out here on this BBS when all you bring is crap like this?

Darin does more work on the ITAC than probably anyone in the last decade. Feedback has been overwhelming. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you have to be a dink.

How about we all ratchet up our professionalism a notch or two?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Dave,

Please don't waste your time using logic w/ Darin.



Bill,

It's not "pointless"... I understand what you guys are trying to say. But, again, if you guys want GT style allowances, then you are racing in the wrong class...

If we open up ECUs further, (all of this discussion, by the way, is coming from a group that has been bashing the ITAC and CRB for opening up ECUs in the first place... WHERE is the logic in that???), how is that going to help most racers? Those that can afford to do the mods now, will be able to afford to do the maximum extent, and those that can't won't... I'm sorry if you don't see that logic, but it's the way this game works...

You guys are right... the MOTEC deal slipped through the cracks with these rules, but now you are telling us that you want to just open them up as a result???

The bottom line to what I was saying previously is this... Technology changes with time, and we can't possibly write a rule in this case that covers all cases equally WITHOUT opening up several other rules concerning electronics and induction systems on these cars...

With the requirements the rules have now, you are not allowed to modify anything outside the ECU box... That's a good, solid limitation... for ALL cars. What you do inside that box is restricted only by the number of sensor inputs your factory offered, and how much money you have.

Let's face it... if we wrote a new rule that required factory main boards, those of us with plenty of room for Daughterboards would like it just fine, but those of you complaining that you can't fit a Motec would still be complaining because there isn't room for a dauterboard... AND, those that could afford to fit a Motec, would be affording to redesign a Motec to work as a Daughterboard, and we'd all be in the same boat we are today...

If there is a "equitable" solution, I just don't see it. Again, if you open up the ECUs to whatever for everyone, then people will be wanting wiring rules changed, induction rules changed, etc... Where does it end??

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

[Knestis]

Originally posted by gran racing:
... the comp board looks into wheither cars can or can not get their ECUs programmed when being classed?

This gets to the root of Bill's and others' objections - I think. A lot of cars were classified before the ECU modification allowance went on the book.

(We'll set aside the question of how well considered those classifications might have bee, for purposes of this issue.)

When it became possible for the PROM-based FI cars to legally tweak their engine management, a lot of drivers of cars with older technology saw it as a "competition adjustment" after the fact.

Personally - based on efforts over the years to spoof OE FI systems - I'm pretty sure that the net gains to be had are minimal, even if conceptually they should indeed be considered when initial classification happens.

The question of whether one FI car can more easily be upgraded, vs. another, is an entirely different question and one that splits some pretty thin hairs. Personally (again), I don't think that the CRB has an obligation to assess the aftermarket to see how much support there is out there, when it considers classification of Model X vs. Model Y.

Mr. Amy has a tougher row to hoe with the NX2000, compared to entrants of more "popular" cars, because he can't buy OTS parts - but I think he knew that going in. Should he get a weight allowance relative to, say the Acuras, because lots of companies are making bars, shocks, headers, and other stuff for them? I don't think so.

We all pick our weapons but Bill's point is that some weapons got blunted after initial choices were made. The good news is that, if there are significant inequities out there, they can be addressed by PCAs.

K

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Knestis:
The good news is that, if there are significant inequities out there, they can be addressed by PCAs.

K[/B]

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

Did you just say that??? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



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

[Bill Miller]

Darin,

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm in favor of wide of FI/ECU rules, because nothing could be further from the truth. My comment was a contradiction to your claim that everyone had the same ECU options, albeit w/ a different cost schedule. I pointed out that you were wrong because not everyone has the same number/type of inputs/sensors feeding the 'box'. You then went off on some wild tangent (like you usually do, when it's pointed out that you're wrong) about 'picking weapons'.

My take on the ECU rule is, and always has been, put the genie back in the bottle. If you don't see it as a defacto comp. adj. to the folks that can take advantage of it, maybe you shouldn't be chairing the ITAC.

Kirk pretty much hit the nail on the head, as it relates to my gripe w/ the ECU rule.

I still contend that the "we can't police it, so we'll make it legal" excuse was about as lame as you can get. And what really bothers me about it, is the assumption that it makes. It assumes that everyone will want to, and worse yet, would cheat. Is it really that naive to believe, and expect that people will 'play by the rules'?

And I'm sorry, but I don't understand how not being able to police it leads to "anything you can stuff in the stock box". Why not something to the effect of "The engine mgmt. ecu shall show no evidence of tampering. Evidence that shows the box to have been opened will constitute tampering." I've also thought about having an SCCA seal on the ECUs. Granted, it wouldn't do anything for ECUs that has already been hacked, or for ones that you can flash through the OBD port, but it closes the door a bit.

And if they're going to use the "we can't police it" excuse, there are a number of other things that should be legalized. Engine coatings being one of them. And if you don't think there are coating technologies out there that are undedectable (short of advanced analysis techniques, e.g. x-ray, etc.), then maybe I'm not the only naive one. And from Jake's recent anecdote, it would appear that the list of unpoliceable items is larger than I thought.

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

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Knestis:
The good news is that, if there are significant inequities out there, they can be addressed by PCAs.

K


While the "process" may be there, we still have no idea who or what will determine if an inequity exists (or is sufficient), and if anything will be done about it, in a timely manner.

But it is nice to see that they are calling them what they really are, comp. adjustments! No more of this euphamistic rhetoric!


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

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...If we open up ECUs further...how is that going to help most racers?</font>

Darin, I'll disagree with your base premise to an extent, and provide an example.

Andy just offered that the RX-7s can install a SpeedSport-supplied MoTec systems for $3000. Frankly, I'm *shocked* that it can be done so cheaply (yes, "cheap"). However, this is MOST DEFINITELY the exception rather than the norm.

Can you imagine, for example, how much it would cost you or I to design, develop, and market a comparable system for your or my Nissan? First, I'm not confident it can be done, and second there's just not enough market for us to be able to amortize the development costs. So, SpeedSport and the RX-7 wins in this regard by way of available technology (size of ECU housing and factory wiring harness connector design) and market possibilities - as does the BMW and Bimmerworld - but everyone else "loses" because we have low-volume cars that do not lend themselves to this modification. Whereas Nick can improve his RX-7 with top-shelf state-of-the-art engine management technology for $3000, you and I probably cannot do it at any (reasonable) price. Certainly not an equitable situation, in my mind.

However, if the rule was opened up to allow piggyback technology, such as the Unichip, then for about $1000 just about anyone can take advantage of the available street technology and have a fully-programmable engine management system. Granted, it's not MoTec, but it's very close, quite effective, and a damn fine value. *This*, I believe, is what Bill is trying to say in his not-so-graceful manner.

And before we get the expected kickbacks from those that do not have ECUs (e.g., "The Carb People"), your arguments, while well-founded, are not germane to this discussion. This discussion is in regards to "how" to write the ECU rules, not "whether". Once we've accepted that ECUs can and will be modified (and we have) then we should work to make that modification capability as equitable as possible among the population that uses them. I understand your angst, but let's not muddy the waters here.

To be repetitive and redundant: either ban ECU modifications - which we are confident we cannot police - or open up the rules. Pandora's box has already been opened.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by GregAmy:
Andy just offered that the RX-7s can install a SpeedSport-supplied MoTec systems for $3000. Frankly, I'm *shocked* that it can be done so cheaply (yes, "cheap"). However, this is MOST DEFINITELY the exception rather than the norm.



This is going off of memory when we were looking into it. Call it $4000 tops.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[Bill Miller]

Greg,

That's not what I was trying to say at all. I want the genie put back in the bottle. And, it's not just the carb people that are 'left behind'. While many of the ITS and ITA cars will be able to take advantage of the 'whatever you can stuff in the box' rule, many of the ITB and ITC cars cannot. And it's not just because they're carbed.


Case in point, Rabbit GTI. While it's Bosch KJetronic CIS, the only inputs come from the O2 sensor, the thermo time switch, and the full-throttle switch (which puts the system into open-loop). The only thing that you can 'control' is the frequency valve, which goes to full (65%) duty cycle when the system is in open-loop. So the open ECU rule does nothing for these (or similar) cars either.

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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Why not something to the effect of "The engine mgmt. ecu shall show no evidence of tampering. Evidence that shows the box to have been opened will constitute tampering." I've also thought about having an SCCA seal on the ECUs. Granted, it wouldn't do anything for ECUs that has already been hacked, or for ones that you can flash through the OBD port, but it closes the door a bit.

So in this logic, again, you choose your weapon... If you happen to pick a car with a flashable ECU from the factory, then you have a "comp adjustment" (as you put it) right from the start...

How is that any different than we have today? At least with the rule as it is now, MORE people can take advantage of this type of mod... not just those with whatever boxes allow flashing...

AND, to answer your question of is it "unreasonble" to expect everyone to "folllow the rules", in a nutshell, YES, it is unreasonable, because everyone sees their own shades of gray, and I think it's pretty clear that the more you allow, the more people will THINK is allowed.

I strongly contend that the more words you add to the ITCS, the more people will think they "read" in those words... You could use any number of past conversations to prove this point. Everytime we make a wording change, we risk opening an unforseen door. Isn't that, in fact, what happened here???


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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 31, 2004).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by GregAmy:
This discussion is in regards to "how" to write the ECU rules, not "whether". Once we've accepted that ECUs can and will be modified (and we have) then we should work to make that modification capability as equitable as possible among the population that uses them.

OK Greg... best discussion points yet...

I then, ask you all to put together an ECU rule wording package for consideration. It must do a couple of things:

[list=1] Not open the door any further. Not nullify any investments that people have already made to this point. (i.e.: if someone has already invested in a MOTEC, it needs to still be legal) Not require changes to the overall wiring rules. Not allow other induction system modifications. Not allow or require anything else that I may not be thinking of at the moment that would otherwise create further loopholes or allowances within the IT rules...
[list]

I encourage you to do this and see what you can come up with. I think I speak for most of the ITAC when I say that we too would like to do something to reign this in a bit, but to this point, have a hard time meeting all of the above criteria for doing so.

Put together something that is complete and makes sense, and let's see what it looks like on paper...



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

[Eagle7]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
This is going off of memory when we were looking into it. Call it $4000 tops.
From the Mazda forum, BenSpeed called SpeedSource - $4000 installed and tuned.

------------------
Marty Doane
ITS RX-7 #13
CenDiv WMR

[gran racing]

Andy,

I was curious just how much it might cost to get a Motec installed that was IT legal. So I called a few dealers. One of first ones I spoke with was in CT. He told me that for my purposes there wouldn't be much benefit to go beyond the bottom line unit (M4 or something like that - my notes are at work). The unit itself wasn't too expensive compared to what I thought it would cost. Then I asked for the instal and wiring part. He stated that for an IT job, the typical range is in the $10,000 range (not including the unit itself). I then wondered if it was just this dealer and his pricing. Nope. Called a few others in different parts of the country.

So Greg, any ideas to meet Darin's challenge?

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

[This message has been edited by gran racing (edited October 31, 2004).]

[Bill Miller]

Darin,

There you go twisting things again. If the rule states stock ECU w/ stock programming, any mod to that is cheating, plain and simple. Not much gray area there (or between your ears!)

And what's w/ the artificial constraint of not outlawing things because people may have spent money on it? If it's bad for the category, it's bad for the category. Somebody made a mistake. Sack it up and make it right! Nobody seemed to care about this w/ the engine coating rule, or the RR 3x adjustable shock rule. Or the sequential gearbox rule in Prod. That's a BS constraint, and an easy out for not dealing w/ the issue that this crap should have never been allowed in the fist place!

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

[Geo]

Greg, I think you'll find using any piggyback with a Nissan ECU will only be an exercise in frustration. The learning cicruit in the Nissan ECU will fight all of your adjustments.

Why not just go with JWT? It's my understanding they already have a pretty good IT program (race gas only). It would also be a lot cheaper than the Unichip.


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

[dickita15]

darin,
if it is not possible to require ecu's to be stock because because they are not policeable then is there a down side to allow any ecu with the stock harness. would competitors be able to increase performance that way or would they just get what they can now easier and cheaper
dick

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by dickita15:
darin,
if it is not possible to require ecu's to be stock because because they are not policeable then is there a down side to allow any ecu with the stock harness. would competitors be able to increase performance that way or would they just get what they can now easier and cheaper
dick

That would be fine with me, but I'm not the one you guys are trying to please here... I think the real issue with this is getting "ANY" unit to adapt to the stock wiring harness... Most are designed to have their own harness, I believe...

Don't let Miller scare you guys off... What he deems as "artificial" is a real concern to many and needs to be taken into consideration. Also, as I stated before, how do you require "stock programming" on ECUs where it can be flashed as is??? Who's going to make the determination that it's "stock"??? I'm a software engineer, and I don't think I could discern stock ones and zeros from Modified ones and zeros without some sophisticated code dumping programs...

The ITAC is all ears if you guys have some good wording to suggest... Other than telling us to "just fix it", as some here think is the "solution"...

Just remember, it's all of YOU rule's lawyers that have made this type of rule making necessary! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



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

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Just remember, it's all of YOU rule's lawyers that have made this type of rule making necessary! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif




What an absolute crock! That's as bad as George blaming it on the drivers, when it was the rules makers who were culpable.

And Darin, I believe that most dealers can determine if the code has been diddled. That becomes part of the protest process. If you protest someone's ECU as not being stock, it gets impounded and sent to a dealer w/ the appropriate fee. Kinda like sending a cam to Topeka for Jeremy to run Cam Dr. on it.

Why has everyone accepted that you can't police ECUs instead of trying to determine a way to actually do it?


/edit/ And Darin, it's nice to see you're not willing to correct things that may not be good for IT, just because someone has spent money on it. Like I said, sure wouldn't be the first time it happened. Weren't you the one that said something about doing what's best for IT?
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited October 31, 2004).]

[Greg Amy]

Bill said:

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...That's not what I was trying to say at all. I want the genie put back in the bottle.</font>

So noted, Bill. Sorry.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...many of the ITS and ITA cars will be able to take advantage...many of the ITB and ITC cars cannot.</font>

Ok, so if that's the generalized case, then within each class there is a less-likely chance of an ex-post facto comp adjustment. So, speaking generally, if "ITB cars" can't take advantage of the technology then nothing is lost relative to other ITB cars; if "ITA cars" can take advantage of it then again nothing is lost relative to other ITA cars. I know this won't be the case forever, but it certainly addresses the situation short-term.

Of course, this is so generalized that someone will no doubt come up with an ITA car that's not ECU'd and an ITB car that is, but within the current power structure I'd suggest the point is approaching moot.

Darin sez:

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">I then, ask you all to put together an ECU rule wording package for consideration...</font>

I'll do that, I'll give it honest and serious consideration. However, I must dispute your baseline requirements.

First, I don't see how the door can be "opened" any further. As far as we know today, Motec is the cat's meow. This standard is as good as it gets, state-of-the-art, so unless we really think about this the door can't go much farther.

Second, not nullifying investments is a moot point; if the current Motec investments are the new standard (see door discussiona bove) then that can't happen.

Third, I fail to understand your limitation with the wiring modifications. The original base premise for not allowing wiring modifications was to DISALLOW system such as MoTec. Given that we wish to retain this MoTec investment the issue with not allowing wiring modifications to disallow MoTec (yes, it's a vicious circle) is moot.

Fourth, I'm on board with no further induction mods. None, as far as I can recall, have been suggested.

Fifth, it's the lack of imagination that got us here in the first place <grin>. As hard as we try, it is completely impossible to fully comprehend all future possibilities. It's because we tried that we got the current rule, and why we're in this boat today.

As I said, I'll give it significant honest thought, but my initial impressions are that there's not going to be an easy way to stop this. I see conflicting goals in your standards above, and short of breaking Requirement #2 we're kinda stuck. If you accept #2 then you really should consider opening up the whole enchilada and letting people use MoTec without restriction. If you're willing to step on the MoTec investments then we have a little room to breath, but we'd be stepping on that same lillypad crossing as we were when the current rule was written.

Bill sez:

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">If the rule states stock ECU w/ stock programming, any mod to that is cheating, plain and simple.</font>

Bill, you are absolutely 100% correct. However, if we stick to this rigid rule, one that is not enforceable in the extreme of contexts, then you end up with a group of drivers that are - de facto - cheating, but since it cannot be proven, they are - du jure - legal.

Case in point, the Spec Miata engine rule. The rules state (and I paraphrase) that *any* work done to an engine to improve performance is expressly illegal. However, we all know that folks are spending thousands of dollars to have brand-new crate engines disassembled and rebuilt to exact factory tolerances (blueprinting). Are they cheating? ABSOLUTELY! However, can you prove it? Nope!

So, for a category whose goals is to have equal preparation, you end up with two distinct classes of competitors: those true cheaters that spend $5000 on the rebuilds, and those non-cheaters that don't. In both cases, the engines are defacto legal because there is no way to prove otherwise.

My solution for the Wreck Pinatas would be to allow balancing and blueprinting by the rules to factory (not service) tolerances, because it's being done anyway and would open up the market to lower-cost rebuilds. This would allow competitors within the category to be on a much more even parity for less money.

Back to our ECU rule, it is unenforceable. Software is being written today for street cars where the dealer cannot determine if the ECU was modified. The intent of this is so guys can mod their cars and not have the dealer pull the warranty. Even more cool, many are written in such a way that a few stalk or dash switch changes can actually change the loaded programming in the ECU, so if specific values are read the output is as per the factory. Plus, they can be written such that the ECU cannot be overwritten by the dealer. This is a fact of like, and this will only become more prevalent as we move forward.

If you can find a way to enforce the original rule, we're all ears, but short of that you've got to consider the alternative. THAT'S why unenforceable rules are typically stricken, plain and simple.

George said:

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...using any piggyback with a Nissan ECU will only be an exercise in frustration.</font>

Quite possible, but there's only one way to find out. Remember the basis for the team name "Kakashi Racing"? http://www.kakashiracing.com/team.html


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Why not just go with JWT?</font>

Because it doesn't work. I've got JWT's 100 octane ECU program and it did exactly bupkus for us. In fact, the 93 octane street program actually LOST 2 horsepower on the dyno. The trials and tribulations of using street crap on race cars from a single-source supplier to a market...

Dikita Banana sez:

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...would competitors be able to increase performance that way or would they just get what they can now easier and cheaper</font>

The latter, Dick. There just ain't much better than fully-programmable engine management from MoTec. Pretty trick stuff.

GregA

[jlucas]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Why has everyone accepted that you can't police ECUs instead of trying to determine a way to actually do it?

Because you can't, heck some companies even advertise that as a benefit; plus I've talked with the guys at work with ECUs. Why do you think Showroom Stock has such a problem with it?

[Quickshoe]

Trick or treat!

Darin, I posted a similar challenge a couple of days ago. I've been tossing it around for a couple of days...


Originally posted by Quickshoe:
I agree, however, how would you write and enforce a rule to allow it? Maybe I am not a good enough wordsmith, but I don't see how you can write a rule that will make it cheaper/easier for people such as you and me without allowing people like Bob Bigbucks from doing more than he currently can.

How would you propose the rule be written?




------------------
Daryl DeArman

[Renaultfool]

All this discussion is real interesting and all but consider this.

The carb and distributer boys can change jetting in an attempt to maximize their fuel mixture for power, away from the lean smog friendly factory settings, made even leaner with allowable headers. They can modify their ignition timing and advance curves, or completly replace the ignition system in an attempt to maximize the power and performance of their engine. The search is for the perfect combination of mixture and timing. This is all thought to be good, fair, and allowable in the rules. Rules written before the ECU cars were available in large numbers.

Now comes the ECU crowd, who want to do the same things for the same reasons. They must do it a different way, but still can only attempt to maximize their fuel mixture and ignition timing for the best power that their particular engines mechanical design will allow. The search for the perfect combination of mixture and timing. No more, no less. How can this not also be fair?

Placing expensive, restrictive rules on how the ECU guys do it doesn't make any sense. Policing it does not make any sense as mixture and timing is open for the carb/distributer guys now. The ECU guys can't do any better at it than the carb/distributer guys at the end of the day.

A level playing field, if we want to run them "stock", would be to require the factory jetting and timing settings on the carb/distributer cars. Easily policed by looking at the jets and checking the timing.

Oh, and lets not forget the modified fuel pressure regulators on the VWs and the non-stock fuel distributer settings on the same cars. Can't give them a free ride here.

Run them the way they came from the factory? Is that what we really want?

[gran racing]

I just can't see putting the ECU rule back to only allowing stock ECUs. I honestly believe that this would be more hurtful to those people who stay within the rules. Many people would still do it because of how difficult it would be to catch. And can you imagine trying to reverse this rule at this point? I'd be pretty pissed if I spent (o.k, we'll use the lowest number I've heard) $4K on modifying my ECU legally to find out that I need to ditch it.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

[Bill Miller]

Greg,

No problem w/ the misinterpretation.

Interesting point w/ the Wreck Pinatas (I like that! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif ). It's a speck class, w/ stock engine requirments. Here's a perfect case where a claiming rule would work to eliminate the $5k+ Sunbelt et al motors. Set the claim price at the cost of a new crate motor from Mazda. Guys that get their j/y 100k mile motors claimed will be happy as clams. Guys that get their $5k Sunbelt motors claimed won't. People will think twice if they're going to get a 30-40 percent return on their investment, and then have to spend the extra 60-70 percent again, if they want another hi-zoot motor.

But, back to the subject at hand. Here's how I see it, in a nutshell. Prior to the 'open box' rule, anybody that was running altered ECUs/software was cheating. Hard/impossible to catch, but still cheating. Opening it up to the 'whatever you can stuff in there' rule was a defacto comp. adjustment for all the cars that could take advantage of it. Something by the way, that was not allowed for in the rules. It hung a lot of the older cars out to dry. It gave the cars that could take advantage of the rule, a performance advantage that was heretofore only available if you were willing to cheat. And, that wasn't considered when the cars were classified and spec'd. This, as Kirk put it, blunted a lot of weapons.

And I know Darin's going to trot out the 'no guarantee' clause, but the cars that couldn't take advantage of the new rule, should have been given something in return. Probably something in the range of a 50-100 # weight reduction. I know that someone will say that car such-and-such can't even make its current weight, so a weight break doesn't help them. But, at the very least, it would have shown that the rule makers were making an attempt at equalizing things. Rather than the 'sucks to be you' attitude that we got.

And to use the excuse that you can't reverse rules creep because it will cost people money, is one of the things that got Prod to where it was prior to the introduction of the limited-prep concept. And we all know the disdain that some folks hold for Prod. But to Prods credit, even they (I guess it was really the CB) knew when to get rid of things that weren't consistent w/ the category philosophy (e.g. sequential shifting trannies).

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

[Bill Miller]

The ECU guys can't do any better at it than the carb/distributer guys at the end of the day.


Again, something that's just not true. You put a set of jets in a carb, you get one mixture profile. It's more than likely not going to be optimum over the normal rpm range, under race conditions. You can change it on the fly w/ a fancy engine mgmt. system, and optimize it over the entire rpm range. Not to mention that the ECU folks were already allowed to change the signals going to the computer.

I'll invoke Darin's logic here. If the computer is going to twiddle the ignition timing on you, you knew that going in, and might not have picked the best weapon. Or, change the resistence value from the sendor that causes the computer to twiddle the ignition timing. Also, that should have been factored in when the car was spec'd.

But this was hashed over way back when this stupid rule went into effect. But I still don't understand how someone can argue that having a variable mixture profile and ignition advance curve isn't an advantage over a car w/ a fixed mixture profile (based on the jets you use) and a fixed ignition advance curve.

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

[hornerdon]

Originally posted by Renaultfool:
...The search for the perfect combination of mixture and timing. No more, no less....

Not exactly. The folks who argue that the carb people can do the same thing are missing the important ingredient -- sensors. The carb folks can search for the perfect combination, buit it will be just one point, which will likely be valid under just one set of conditions. For example, they can try to optimize for acceleration from a corner or for top end on a straight, but they can't do both. Also, they have to perform their search for the right combination every time the conditions change -- cooler or warmer, wetter or dryer, etc. The ECU folks, on the other hand, can program to an almost limitless set of conditions, which are determined by the sensors, and which can compensate for changing conditions.

The only way to equalize the differences is to go to a completely open induction rule, like Solo Street Prepared, in which EFI can be installed on any car.

Everyone would then have a completely equal opportunity to try to wring a very tiny performance improvement from some very expensive hardware and software, given that everyone still has to run stock compression, valves, cam, head, etc. Sounds OK to me. I'd be willing to bet that $3,000 spent on a driver's school would result in a more dramatic improvement than $3,000 pent on engine management...and that (any number) of driving schools would create more improvement than (any number - 1)+ engine management.



------------------
...Don

[Geo]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
I'm a software engineer, and I don't think I could discern stock ones and zeros from Modified ones and zeros without some sophisticated code dumping programs...

Furthermore, on a number of cars you must know how to crack the code. There are only two tuners in the US that can fully crack the code for Nissan ECUs (JWT and JUN). It would be impossible to tell if the eprom were desoldered and a modified one was resoldered in place if done well.


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

[jlucas]

So if high dollar Motecs are being stuffed in anyways, what's the point of not allowing ODB2 cars to run OE ODB1 ECUs? I'd much rather spend $450 than several thousand for a fully programable unit.

[Geo]

Originally posted by jlucas:
So if high dollar Motecs are being stuffed in anyways, what's the point of not allowing ODB2 cars to run OE ODB1 ECUs? I'd much rather spend $450 than several thousand for a fully programable unit.

Nobody is saying you can't run an OBD1 ECU in an OBD2 car. You just have to wire the guts of the OBD1 ECU to the OBD2 connector and the OBD1 ECU must fit fully within the stock OBD2 ECU box.


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

[pfcs]

It's SO FRUSTRATING listening to this almost pointless discussion!
get this through your thick heads: a)most stock ECUs will not provide enough fuel for engine health (ie life) with the improved airflow caused by legal IT mods. (just ask the guy who melted down his Jetta II Digifant motor at LRP twice!)
B) virtually all (maybe all) ECUs can have the fueling and ignition tables re-written to tailor them to their new application by a savvy chip tuner and for all practical puposes purposes there is no way to say if either anything was done/or that the "file" is not stock as there are endless stock file permutations for different applications which most manufacturers don't know or won't share.
c) changing the fueling and ignition timing/advance curve is what tuners have always done. And yes, I haven't forgotten the latest curve in engine management, adjustable cam timing-later.
From my perspective, the current rule looks pretty sensible. I'd expect that all computer controlled apps are tuneable, it's just a question of how or by who. I spent most of last winter with a test bench, an E-Prom emulator, and some funky data acq on the street until I was able to understand how to write file to my ECU and get my fueling straightened out. My "high tech" solution to my computer controlled timing was to just bypass the ECU and run it locked up, with no advance function.
For those who can't find a way to "chip-tune", they can always try cramming an aftermarket unit into the stock ECU, or, if they just want to survive, they can raise the fuel pressure. AHA! you say-so you can run with a stock ECU and survive!! Great! I say-prove it's not stock. Like I said-I think our rules are pretty sensible. They only allow you to tune your engine in the same way tuners/racers have been doing it forever-don't be confused by the black box! As everyone must know by now, an engine is an airpump-fuel is never the limiting factor-airflow is. I don't understand how anybody can say that allowing fuel injected cars tuneability is an unfair advantage. To my thinking its a basic liberty!
Regarding variable cam timing: variable cam timing gives the ability to have a very tractable/low speed torque setting, while having agressive timing (and sometimes lift) at high speeds. In the area that is of interest to racers, those paramaters are probably maximas anyway. As long as we are unable to change them beyond the pre-exiting manufacted mechanical limits, I don,t see them having any competetive advantage other than driving in the paddock or maybe if you towed something with your racecar, which might be a good idea. phil

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
But to Prods credit, even they (I guess it was really the CB) knew when to get rid of things that weren't consistent w/ the category philosophy (e.g. sequential shifting trannies).


And that saved people money or is a better rule HOW???

Are you suggesting it's cheaper/more proper to use the rule they have now, namely to have to use the stock case, but are allowed any gears or ratios that they can fit inside...??? For a weight penalty, of course...

Last time I checked, by the way, this class was called "IMPROVED Touring"... IT should be a step up in prep from Showroom Stock... In my opinion...

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 31, 2004).]

[Bill Miller]

Well Darin, I guess I'll have to break it down a bit for you. Pay attention now, I know this is complex. A rule had been implemented that allowed some very expensive technology. It essentially raised the bar for everyone. But, some people came to their senses, and realized that there was no need for that type of technology, in that category. So, they made said technology illegal.


It really has nothing to do w/ what the technology actually was. I used the sequential boxes as an example. Has nothing to do w/ the current l-p tranny rule (which I think is wrong, btw). Point is, you CAN put the genie back in the bottle. That is, provided that you have the sack to stand up and do what's best for the category.

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

[Greg Amy]

OK, boys, let's all take a breather here.

First, we have a "Crossfire" type discussion going, with two totally different debates.

Bill, I hear ya. Your (and other's) concerns are valid, in that you see a ex-post facto comp adjustment with the opening up of ECUs. You have a reasonable argument. Problem is, that's *not* the discussion at hand as I see it (I believe I may have been guilty of implying as such; not intended). Bill, you and others are arguing *IF* open ECUs should be allowed, but that's already been decided a couple of years ago. The point of this topic is the assumption that non-stock ECUs will be allowed, thus how we should do it.

Please, if we can, in order to make this a bit more manageable, take the "stock or non-stock" ECU argument to another topic? Adding in that argument is *truly* muddying the waters here.

Second, once we accept that non-stock ECUs will be allowed in Improved Touring (and we have) the issue becomes how far do we allow it to go? This is the issue at hand here.

I'm going to yet again be redundant and point out that the original intention of the current ECU rule was to allow non-stock programming of the stock components, or to allow desoldering and resoldering new PROMs and/or daughterboards, all within the stock ECU housing. Problem was, we tried to get too clever with the rules wordsmithing and someone ponied up the big bucks to install a MoTec system into the stock ECU housing using a stock ECU wiring harness. THIS IS THE BASE ISSUE AT HAND HERE!

Given this reality, the next step is to decide do we continue to allow MoTec systems to exist in IT, or do we re-word the rules to try and get it back to the original intent, that of using stock, slightly modified, and reprogrammed components?

Riddle me that, Batman, and we have a clearer picture of how to proceed forward.

(Again, Bill and The Carb People, I'm not trying to marginalize or negate your concerns, I'm simply stating the direction that the Club has chosen to go. Considering true reality, your arguments are hindsight since the club has over-ruled your position and decided to open up ECUs to some extent...)

Greg

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by GregAmy:
...we have a clearer picture of how to proceed forward.

Accepted, ...

However, if you guys can't even agree to a simple set of constraints, how are you going to get together on a set of rule wording? Those constraints, while you may not all agree with them, are real concerns that must be taken into consideration...

For example, some wish they could add extra sensors... some aftermarket units may require them (pitot tubes, air-flow sensors, whatever...)... How do you write in the limits?

The constraints I put forward were not for my own benefit, they are real concerns that have to be considered in these matters. The ITAC/CRB can't just be concerned with what Bill thinks is "good for the class"... There ARE others out there to consider...

I agree that it's time to stop arguing about this and get to work. If a change is to be made... What wording would you guys propose to get something in place that would make everyone happy... (OK, I'll ease up on you a bit... how about make "most" people happy... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif )

Where are you going to draw the line and, more importantly, HOW are you going to draw it?

You think it's easy, and it's very easy for you all to point to past rules makers as "incompetent", or otherwise lacking the "gray matter" to do it right, but I doubt that's the case... Something tells me that many of them were just trying to do the best they could to do it right... Then, I imagine Bill Clinton came along and made everyone question what "it" meant, and the whole deal went to hell in a handbasket... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

Write us a rule guys...



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

[planet6racing]

Just to re-iterate:

Someone, anyone, show me the results that prove that opening the ECU rule upset the balance in IT. Anyone. Please. Show me.

Until then, are we just complaining that some people are spending more than others? Heck, even if you do make me go back to stock, that's not going to stop me from doing lab work on my car to determine if the factory spoilers (2 options aside from none) will have a positive effect on cornering speed at the higher speed tracks.

Point is, people are always going to spend money to go faster. Whether it's on the ECU or in the wind tunnel, if there's a perceived benefit, it will be tried and money will be spent. If you choose not to spend the money in that area, that's fine. Everyone (and I do mean everyone) can have their ECU reprogrammed, gain access to wind tunnel testing and data, etc. It's just all about the money. Sure, some cars will eat more money than others (Saturn's have nearly 0 aftermarket support and no aftermarket ECU tuners), some cars go faster than others. If you want a spec class, go to Wreck Pinata or to Wreck Racer Ford. But, I'm willing to bet, even there some people will spend money to test new things...

Is it just me, or does this arguement always seem to come up in the off-season? And I'm still lost as to why a Production racer has such interest in the IT rules...

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

[This message has been edited by planet6racing (edited November 01, 2004).]

[apr67]

The SCCA is not able to tell if a throttle body is stock, so maybe we should allow everyone to do anything they want in induction.

It is stupid to open something up because it is unenforceable. The ability to enforce something is directly tied to your interest in enforcing it. Their may be cases where some FI computer mods would not be detectable, for the most part it would be.

The Programing on an OBD1 or OBD2 is downloadable, and has checksums. The older computers generaly would require a chip change, or a resoder. Either still is detectable because it still is software and the manufacture knows what versions they have made.

Cams are equally undetectable. The fellow on line building the Jensen Healy. As long as his cam doesn't say "Crane Cams" on it, how is anyone going to be able to say it is not stock?

Showroom stock has be a national class with years of 'whop de do' National Champions, and the entire time they have had an unenforceable engine rule. Sunbelt didn't build motors for Spec Miata, they built them for Showroom Stock and just found a new market.

Stop the BS and write real rules.

[This message has been edited by apr67 (edited November 01, 2004).]

[jlucas]

Originally posted by Geo:
Nobody is saying you can't run an OBD1 ECU in an OBD2 car. You just have to wire the guts of the OBD1 ECU to the OBD2 connector and the OBD1 ECU must fit fully within the stock OBD2 ECU box.
I understand that, but that is a much more expensive route for no difference in end results (see my previous post). The $450 route is just connect the ODB1 ECU but it's about 50% bigger in size than the OBD2 and currently not legal.

Jeremy
Team Honda Research

[jlucas]

Originally posted by apr67:
The Programing on an OBD1 or OBD2 is downloadable, and has checksums. The older computers generaly would require a chip change, or a resoder. Either still is detectable because it still is software and the manufacture knows what versions they have made.

Checksums.. yes they exist, but did you know you can also program a specific checksum value to be displayed no matter what the real checksum is? You can according to Hondata. Especially with ODB2 cars, the programming changes every year. Even at the manufacturer it's hard to know what originally came on the car, most often just the most current (think supercede) program that is listed. I spent quite a bit of time this year trying to find a way to ensure Showroom Stock ECU legality (at least from Honda perspective). In the end, there was nothing feasible.



------------------
Jeremy Lucas
Team Honda Research
Kumho - Cobalt - Comptech

[Ron Earp]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Cams are equally undetectable. The fellow on line building the Jensen Healy. As long as his cam doesn't say \"Crane Cams\" on it, how is anyone going to be able to say it is not stock?</font>

That is me. It'll be stock, trust me. Why? Because Crane, nor anyone else, made aftermarket cams for a JH. Got no choice.

But, it is a good point. A Tbody is about as easy as it gets for checking an engine part but it went right through the protest and tech. Doesn't make a lot of sense, if we can't detect that then we've got little chance of anything else.

Ron

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

[Bill Miller]

Greg,

I hear what you're saying.

Bill (our Saturn racer),

I'm interested in IT because that's where I started. I think it's a great category, and I enjoyed participating in it. I went to Prod because that's where the friends that I paddock w/ race, and I wanted to race w/ them. Unfortunately, I can only afford (barely at that) one car. I also know a fair amount about VWs. But don't worry, Darin has taken much better shots at me than that.

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

[erlrich]

Just curious (and pondering Darin's comments), about how many (or what %) of IT cars are able to take advantage of the ECU rule (and I'm talking about cars people are actually building and racing)? Are we talking about a majority of the cars, or just a very few? And of those, what options are available, i.e. how many companies are doing ECU mods, and what exactly are they doing? I'm just wondering if all this stink is being generated over a handfull of cars, or is this a more systemic problem.

Earl

[Geo]

One of the very real problems here is nobody really knows the full scope of this issue. Most people at best may know about the options available for their own car and maybe something else. But what works for one doesn't work for another. What's cheap for one isn't cheap for another.

It's been said dealers can tell if an ECU has been changed. Certainly not always. Only the very best of Nissan techs can even tell something is different with a JWT ECU and they have to be a very sharp tech. I'm sure similar things are true for other cars. OBD1 vs OBD2 are issues for some cars and not for others. For some cars the only realistic option is some aftermarket ECU installed in the stock box. Cost of this? All over the place.

And where do we quit if we open things up? At what point to you just say "go to Production?" Personally I'm totally against any modification to the stock wiring harness except for the addition of the resistor rule we've had for ages. I don't even thing parallel wiring fixes to the wiring harness should be allowed because that opens up the category to custom-made harness being used. That's certainly what I would do.

One last comment about the Motec. Yes it's great for being able to tune the maps yourself. But if you are constricted to the stock wiring harness, there is nothing that can be done with a Motec that cannot be done by reprogramming a stock chip. Motecs do not warp space and do not break the laws of physics. Given a finite set of sensors, they have the same input to work with as the stock ECU and effectively the same set of maps. The only real advantage for some is the ability to program it yourself and even this exists for a number of cars.


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

[apr67]

Originally posted by jlucas:
Checksums.. yes they exist, but did you know you can also program a specific checksum value to be displayed no matter what the real checksum is? You can according to Hondata.

If that is the case, it is not really a checksum. A checksum is "A value that is computed and that depends on the contents of a set of data.". It generally is the SUM of all the bits in a program.

Yes, you could create a program that has the same checksum as the stock one. Might not be easy. Especially if you don't know how the checksum is calculated.

[apr67]

Originally posted by rlearp:
That is me. It'll be stock, trust me. Why? Because Crane, nor anyone else, made aftermarket cams for a JH. Got no choice.



Ron, do you have a stock cam? A bunch of places will weld it up and re-grind it however you want.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by apr67:
Ron, do you have a stock cam? A bunch of places will weld it up and re-grind it however you want.

Yep, mine are stock. I didn't even think about the re-grinds as I need to use the stock ones anyhow. Good to remember in case these somehow go bad though.
Ron



------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

[stevel]

i think allowing open ecu's and wiring changes is just going to cause more problems. Like mentioned people with older cars that didn't have the sensors necessary stock are now going to argue while the rules allow them motec now, they still can't do it because they can't add a crank angle sensor any feasible way or whatever other sensor they need. Where do you stop? Allow them to do whatever they need to do to install motec? I think the rule should just stay as it is.

Going back to a stock rule is pretty much completely unenforceable. How do you police that? Like mentioned, companies are writing ecu software that can't be detected by the dealer. If the dealer techs can't detect it now how are you going to expect them to be the ones to tell you if it's been hacked or not when someone gets protested? Like mentioned, if a throttle body can't be determined for legality (i don't understand how they couldn't check the size with a set of vernier calipers but that's another discussion) then good luck enforcing this. I think it's unreasonable, especially at a regional level.

If you're running lean from headers and the like, raise your fuel pressure and play with timing on the dyno. If that's all you got, oh well. You made the choice to run that car, no one told you you had to. That's pretty much what the carb'd guys are limited to, deal with it. Like mentioned in the GCR, Competitiveness of any make/model is not promised. You have to live with your choice.

I say leave the rule as is. I think it'll be impossible not to open up a different can of worms, especially for future technology we don't know about or can't plan for right now.

s

[cherokee]

Originally posted by Geo:
OK, first of all, if you're not willing to desolder and resolder a chip, what else are you not willing to do to develop your car? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this is a pretty basic change that even street car guys do.


I think you may mis-understand what I was trying to say. I am not talking about changing one chip, but trying to build a new computer using the existing boards. One chip, flashing a chip or whatever will give very different results then stuffing a aftermarket computer in an existing box, and one goes with the "intent" of IT and one does not. Doing these basic and simple changes to the only makes sence for IT to do. I personally think we should open the rules a little more, more of a tuner class. I think IT needs to evolve with things that are "in" now.

[Geo]

Originally posted by cherokee:
I think you may mis-understand what I was trying to say. I am not talking about changing one chip, but trying to build a new computer using the existing boards. One chip, flashing a chip or whatever will give very different results then stuffing a aftermarket computer in an existing box, and one goes with the "intent" of IT and one does not. Doing these basic and simple changes to the only makes sence for IT to do. I personally think we should open the rules a little more, more of a tuner class. I think IT needs to evolve with things that are "in" now.



Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Regarding the differences between flashing a chip and installing a stand-alone ECU, as long as the same sensors are used, the only difference is the ease with which changes can be made. Maps are maps. You've got fuel and you've got advance. What else are you going to change?

That said, I'm not trying to defend one position or another with that answer. My personal choice (as I've already stated) is behind Kirk's door number 3.


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

[Bill Miller]

Cherokee,

Interesting point about category intent. Multi-thousand dollar FI systems w/in the intent of IT? I don't really think so.

Side note for the people who were poo-pooing small hp gains as not being that big a deal. There's a topic on the Prod board about fuel. Turns out that there are fuels out there that are passing the SCCA fuel tests, and are netting 2-3 hp gains on the dyno. These fuels are running $25-$30+ per gallon.

One vendor is VP. They have a leaded product (C44) is $30+, and the unleaded product (SR1) is ~$25/gallon. It seems that a lot of the FF/FC/SRF crowd are using them. I believe the add for the SR1 says that it is designed for cars w/ <10:1 compression, will meet SCCA fuel rules, and makes more power than any fuel out there, that meets the rules.

People are out there spending $25-$30/gallon on fuel for a couple of hp. To me, that is a good indication that small hp gains are VERY important. I'm also guess that there are some IT people running these fuels as well.

Hey Kirk, how much would the fuel bill for VIR have been if you used the VR SR1 @ $25/gallon??? Considering most people probably burn 10-20 gallons in a race weekend, that's a $250-$500 fuel bill!!! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/eek.gif

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

[JeffYoung]

Call me naive, and I am new to all this, but when I was looking at (from a rules perspective) where I wanted to do my low cost, amateur racing, I had no idea (from the rules) that IT racing involved $50,000 BMWs and $4,000 engine management systems. Fortunately, I think most outside of the SCCA world who are looking to get into this don't either, cause if they did, they would stay the hell away.

Sheesh.

[Knestis]

I'm confident that you didn't intend it to be and I'm not trying to pull a swifty on you, Bill...

...but the fuel case above is a perfect example of why we are jousting at windmills, if the anticipated purpose of revised rules is to make racing competitively less expensive.

Even IF some secret brew makes an additional 3hp - what, 2% in an SRF? - the fact that drivers are willing to increase their consummables costs every weekend, to that degree, is a clear indication that some people will find ways to spend more money than others.

Jim Politi (SCCA and NASA tech guy, "Grumpy") shared a great saying with me a few years back:

"Racing isn't more expensive than it used to be. I still spend all of my money on it."

K

PS - We used a little less than 90 gallons of gas for the 13 hours - plus another 20 or so for the test day, practice, and qualifying. It was painful enough at $2.00/gallon for BP pump premium unleaded...

[Banzai240]

Guys...

It's not RACING that is expensive... You can do it on a pretty tight budget...

WINNING, on the other hand, takes an investment, regardless of what sport you are in...

You can't expect a set of rules to dictate who is going to put in a full effort. Winners are going to take WHATEVER rules they have to work with to the extent, and because of that, will continue to win.

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

[apr67]

Rules do not limit how much money someone can spend. Never have, never will.

But rules do limit how much gain you can get for your dollar.

If rules didn't affect costs, the IT and F1 would cost the same to be competitive.

The question isn't, why are people spending $100,000 on an (insert class here) car, the question is, can I be competitive at the level I want on $xxx.

My $100 (adjusted for ITS BMW dollars!)

[Greg Amy]

As requested, I've been giving this topic some thought. I've tossed around some ideas and I've basically come to the conclusion that we have conflicting goals. However, I'll toss this against the wall and see what sticks. Please note this is a long post, but please read it in its entirety before you hit reply. I am offering the complete thought process, not a bumper sticker.

First, here is the rule as currently written:

GCR (ITCS) 17.1.4.D.1.s: "The engine management computer or ECU may be altered provided that all modifications are done within the original housing."

First, note that I believe the intent of this rule was to allow reprogramming of the engine control unit and allow soldering and desoldering of factory board components in order to accomplish this. I believe it was written to specifically disallow aftermarket ECU systems such as MoTec. However, in order to try and restrict this the wording became too micromanaged, leaving open the gaping loopholes that it was designed to close. I don't fault the original rule authors, as it's hard to see the future; however, by offering up the suggestions here, the rule proposals can get torn apart here in the light of day before it happens in the tech shed (open-source rulesmaking?)

The first conflicting goals is that some members of this forum actually do not want *any* open ECU rule, believing that alternate ECUs and/or programming are not within the philosophy of the class, are an ex-post facto competition adjustment, and offer an inequitable advantage to various vehicles. For these folks, nothing short of the following will do:

Strike, in its entirety, GCR (ITCS) 17.1.4.D.1.s.

Unfortunately for those folks, the club has made the decision that ECU modifications will be allowed, so we will use that as the basis of further discussion. There seems to be two general positions: the original intent of the rules as I stated above, or to allow innovation in regards to state-of-the-art engine management.

I suspect that a large majority of the members of this forum (that support alternate ECUs), and of the club in general, are more inclined to go with my original stated intent of the rule, which is to change only the mapping or, if necessary, change only the chip(s) necessary to make it possible to change the mapping. However, as I noted, this didn't happen because of the poor wording of the rules. If this is where we want to go with the rules, then I suggest the following change. Note that I "feel the pain" of the original authors, in that I found it antagonizingly difficult to come up with words that properly describe what I desired. In a case such as this, I almost think it's better to explicitly state the intent of the rules rather than try to describe the technology:

GCR (ITCS) 17.1.4.D.1.s: Reprograming of the stock engine management computer or ECU is allowed. In those vehicles where the stock chip(s) are not reprogrammable, replacement of those chip(s) with programmable ones and/or chip sockets is allowed, as is the addition of daughterboards within the stock ECU housing. Note that the intent of this rule is change only the mapping or, if necessary, change only the chip(s) necessary to make it possible to change the mapping.

Finally, we have yet another conflict in that Darin expressed a desire to "...not nullify any investments that people have already made to this point. (i.e.: if someone has already invested in a MOTEC, it needs to still be legal)". This, of course, flies directly in the face of the original intent of the rules and my rule proposal above. If we are to accept that these systems must still be legal, there is also a desire to "not open the door any further", which was expressed by both Darin and George (and others, I'm sure) by saying they wanted to make sure that no wiring harnesses were changed nor were any additional wires, sensors, or outputs used. Therefore, to make this happen, I suggest the following rule:

GCR (ITCS) 17.1.4.D.1.s: "An alternate or modified engine management computer is allowed."

Note that this rule will allow replacement chips, alternate ECUs, and Motec-in-a-box. However it will *not* allow wiring harness and/or connector modifications, nor will it allow the installation of alternate and/or additional sensors, inputs, outputs, or wiring (remember ITCS 17.1.4.B, "IIDSYCTYC"). If there's any question to the matter, then add "The intent of this rule is to restricts modifications and replacement specifically to the ECU hardware itself. This does not permit any modifications of the factory wiring harness or pin connector, nor does it allow the installation or modification of inputs or outputs to the ECU." However, note that trying to get too clever and/or detailed may cause more problems down the line (as it has now). I believe the first rule, without clarification, covers it well.

There you go, three clear choices based on your position. I encourage you to really think these through and try hard to find loopholes and faults in logic. Post it here and we can fine-tune the ideas.

Personally, I'd prefer the second level, that of the original intent of the rule. I understand the position we've placed some folks in with our poor wording of the rules, in that they spent the bucks, but I suspect they knew going in that they were exploiting a loophole and it might get slammed. If I were to make a formal proposal today I'd tell these folks "sorry" and go with Door #2.

GregA

[Geo]

Originally posted by GregAmy:
Finally, we have yet another conflict in that Darin expressed a desire to "...not nullify any investments that people have already made to this point. (i.e.: if someone has already invested in a MOTEC, it needs to still be legal)".

Personally, and speaking only for myself, I'm not concerned about someone's investment into a MOTEC. There are two reasons for this. The first is that if it's wrong for the category it's wrong. If it's a mistake, correct it early because later it's just too darned difficult. Second, a used MOTEC has significant value in the open market. With the demand for stand-alone ECUs among the "street tuner" crowd, I rather doubt those with a MOTEC will lose the bulk of their investment.


Originally posted by GregAmy:
If I were to make a formal proposal today I'd tell these folks "sorry" and go with Door #2.

As would I.


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

[hornerdon]

Back when we had our ITC Toyota, we fell into the group that had ECU's that couldn't easily be chipped. At that time, I was against any change from the stock ECU, becuase it was cheap for, say, a Honda to re-chip, and would have been very expensive for us to develop our own programmable chip, even if we inserted it into a re-soldered connector.

But, as Greg has stated, the box has been opened and my preference is gone, as is the opportunity for his option #1. On the other hand, I don't think that option #3 is consistent with IT, unless it is desired to completely open up induction and allow carbureted cars to install engine management systems. Therefore, Option #2 is the best choice. As far as people who have already spent the bucks for something beyond that concept, it's my feeling that if they can afford to spend that kind of money in the first place, they can afford to lose it.


------------------
...Don

[bldn10]

Damn, Greg, you've pointed out a problem or an inconsistency I didn't know existed. Am I the only one who hasn't gotten this? I had not even noticed the rule you quoted:

"GCR (ITCS) 17.1.4.D.1.s: "The engine management computer or ECU may be altered provided that all modifications are done within the original housing."

I have been focusing on 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. ... "

Does this mean that there is a different rule for EFI and carb cars? Or is it just a drafting mistake?

Personally, and as a lawyer, I think D.1.s. is clear - you cannot gut out the box and install a non-OEM ECU. No mo Motec. The ECU is not the box, it is the boards and chips and whatnot (I'm not a techie) inside the box. I think your interpretation of this rule re re-programming, after market chips, etc. is substantially correct.

I stated earlier, and several agreed, that I'd like to see the words "or replace" deleted from a.6. but, now that I see s, I amend my position to deleting the former in its entirety.



------------------
Bill Denton
87/89 ITS RX-7
02 Audi TT225QC
95 Tahoe
Memphis

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by hornerdon:
...it's my feeling that if they can afford to spend that kind of money in the first place, they can afford to lose it.


That's a really easy position to take when you AREN'T the one losing the investment... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

These people followed the same rules as you or I, and they did nothing more than what was allowed...

Perhaps because of my position on the ITAC, I tend to be a little more concerned about throwing someone elses investment out the door...

And, for the record, I HAVE NOT made a Motec investment, so I'm not effected by removing this allowance...

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited November 02, 2004).]

[m glassburner]

I VOTE for option #2...

[Knestis]

Riddle me this, Batman: Are the Motec systems using ONLY the stock harness and either (a) the OE sensors, or (B) resistors/pots as allowed by the rules? There might be other parts called "ignition system" but that's for someone with more expertise to explain.

Were I in Darin's position - and I do understand it - I'd feel less bad taking away a toy that they shouldn't have in the first place.

K

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...you've pointed out a problem or an inconsistency I didn't know existed.</font>

Hey, Bill, I totally missed that; I've been focusing on "s"! I don't see how this necessarily changes my position, though.

ITCS guys, can this be addressed at the next meeting? Why is the ECU addressed in two different places? Probably a simple oversight on editing.

Also, instead of putting rules within D.1 and changing the Rotary section to reference them, how about creating a third parallel section with "Recip" and "Rotary" labeled "All"? It would make the rules a lot easier to read...

GA

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by GregAmy:
GCR (ITCS) 17.1.4.D.1.s: Reprograming of the stock engine management computer or ECU is allowed. In those vehicles where the stock chip(s) are not reprogrammable, replacement of those chip(s) with programmable ones and/or chip sockets is allowed, as is the addition of daughterboards within the stock ECU housing. Note that the intent of this rule is change only the mapping or, if necessary, change only the chip(s) necessary to make it possible to change the mapping.


Greg,

Great job. Question (I am not a techie): If a daughterboard was able to perform all the functions that a current Motec level system can, how does this rule change anything?

Secondly, how would one enforce/confirm that the daughterboard is only providing functions allowed by the intent of your rule?

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
These people followed the same rules as you or I, and they did nothing more than what was allowed...

BINGO!

[Bill Miller]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Perhaps because of my position on the ITAC, I tend to be a little more concerned about throwing someone elses investment out the door...</font>

But you don't seem to be too concerned about pushing other people's investments further down the grid/results sheet.

Greg,

As far as "Door #1" goes, the Club has changed its mind in the past, and reversed things (e.g. engine coatings, RR 3X adjustable shocks). I wouldn't be so quick as to give up on reversing the open ECU rule. Require stock ECUs, and make the penalties severe enough for cheating to discourage it. And when I say severe, I mean severe. If you're the first person in the logbook (essentially, you're the one that built the car), and you get caught w/ an illegal ECU, the logbook gets pulled, and the car is banned from further competition w/ the SCCA. If you're not the initial logbook entry, you get one pass, as the p/o could have installed the illegal ECU. A note is made in the logbook, and any subsequent ECU violations will result in the same penalty as if you were the original entry. This would hold for subsequent owners as well. The one pass would be for the car, not for every owner.

Since we're required to have VIN# tags in the car, Topeka could maintain a database of the VIN#'s for IT cars that are issued logbooks. And entry would be made if the logbook was pulled. This would prevent people who have had their logbooks pulled from just getting a new one issued. Anyone buying a built car from someone would be well advised to check the VIN# against the database.

You want to put the genie back in the bottle, that's a way to do it. Make the risk for getting caught cheating very high.

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

[Geo]

Originally posted by GregAmy:
ITCS guys, can this be addressed at the next meeting? Why is the ECU addressed in two different places? Probably a simple oversight on editing.

I agree, it's probably something that resulted from editing over time.

Honestly Greg, the best way to ensure it's covered is to write a letter. Despite what may or may not have happened in the past or what was thought to have happened, each and every letter the ITAC receives is reviewed and discussed until there is a conclusion reached. Nothing get's "shelved on the top of the closet in the spare room" if you know what I mean.



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

[jlucas]

Option 1: forget about it
Option 2: biggest problem besides people loosing their current investment, is that still doesn't work for a lot of the OBD2 cars (Honda's especially)
Option 3: I think this is the best choice as there is only so much you can get from the ECU with stock wiring and sensors so it doesn't matter which one you use and it would minimize costs.

------------------
Jeremy Lucas
Team Honda Research
Kumho - Cobalt - Comptech

[ChrisCamadella]

I'd like to put in my $0.02 on this one...

#1 I'm not exactly sure that you're right on the fact that the original 'intent' of the rule was to allow only rechipping and/or remapping using largely the same computer that came stock. I'm not actually sure at this point that the folks that made the rule all agreed on the intent, and it was certainly never stated in the rule.

I actually believe, having spoken with some CRB members, that the ACTUAL intent of the rule was to make it easy to enforce the rule - with so much gray area around what a legal modification was, it got to the point where it was basically impossible to enforce any rule outside of the rule that's currently in place without tracing every single circuit inside the box.

#2. This whole thing about allowing alternate ECU's is mostly irrelevant. Both the MoTeC system and the stock system work very similarly, and either one can be reprogrammed, although reprogramming the stock system takes a fair amount more work (and yes, possibly expense, to do it right) because the documentation of the maps and their locations is not nicely documented as it is with the MoTeC system. At the end of the day, the engine is an air pump. Unless you make it pump a larger mass of air, or compress the air more, or somehow else make the engine have more volumetric efficiency, all the FI system can do (and does) is to optimize the fuel delivery and ignition timing for each set of parameter values (e.g., each combination of air flow, throttle position, engine RPM, and various other parameters, most of which are simply 'correction factors').

Contrary to popular belief, there are very few hp to be gained through the use of a MoTeC system over the stock system, assuming that you can learn about and change every single mapping value in the stock system, which I admit is a pretty big 'IF', but is certainly doable with enough time and money. All that the MoTeC system does is to make it easier.

#3. I am in complete agreement with Darin that it isn't right to negate some competitors current investments in parts and systems for their cars. A good example of this one already happened with respect to the shock rules - we were going to make it 'cheaper' by limiting the number of adjustments and by taking away the remote reservoir shocks that were previously legal.

Now while that may have saved SOME competitors SOME money by ensuring that they did not spend big bucks on shocks, it turns out that you can spend nearly as much money on double-adjustable non-remote-reservoir shocks, and all that we really did is make it so that those folks that spent $1000 each on some nice shocks went ahead and replaced them with some other nice shocks that cost $800 each, and therefore the rule cost those competitors $3,200 each.

Likewise, if we limit the rule to the stock FI box guts with 'chip changes' (whatever that means), you will not be able to prevent a well-heeled competitor from spending money to have custom made 'chips' that effectively imitate the MoTeC box in its entirety. Since I'm not a lawyer, but a software engineer, I know that's very possible to do - it's just more expensive.

OK, I guess I got a little more than two cent's worth...

Cheers,

Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944S

I just realized that I basically completely agreed with a post by Kirk way back at the beginning of this topic. I don't know what I think about that :-)

[This message has been edited by ChrisCamadella (edited November 03, 2004).]

[Greg Amy]

BillD, I think given the IIDSYCTYC, since the "replace" appears in the "a" section, it's allowed. In reading the two, I think "s" should be stricken, as "a" is more descriptive. the only concern I have is the "fuel injected engines" part; should that apply to all vehicles?

George, I'll write an email to the Comp Board in regards to the rules clarification. I'm also considering a separate email to offer adjustments in the rules format without change in content.

Actually, BillM, just to clarify, I personally support the altering of ECUs.

In general, I tend to support any modification in Improved Touring that parallels what a kid could do in his driveway with parts obtained from an ad in the back of Sports Compact Car (for example.) That also means that I tend to support some fluidity in the regs going forward as the technology filters down to the street, and I also support some fluidity in allowing newer vehicles into IT that may displace older cars. I support evolutionary change not revolutionary.

I do not support action that is designed primarily to "protect" someone's "investment" in what they've done to date, such as protecting older cars and/or fixing mistakes. Motorsports is a fluid environment and change is inevitable and I accept that. I counsel anyone that gets heartburn over THIS should seek a defined and rigid spec class.

GA

[ChrisCamadella]

Originally posted by Geo:
Door number 3 Kirk.

If the FIA cannot police programming, don't expect the SCCA to do so in an amateur series. However, it's easy enough to verify the stock board is there and connected to the wiring harness connector in the stock fashion. Allow chip replacement and daughterboards (or something similar if necessary) to facilitate chip replacement for those cars where it's not feasible in the stock ECU.



And my point is that Bob Bigbucks (is that his name?) will build a custom 'daughterboard' (which I construe is an additional board that has a cable that plugs into the slot where the old EEPROM was) that effectively emulates the MoTeC system, and will have the same (probably somewhat imagined) go-fast effect.

This is particularly easy on the BMW's (and, I suspect, other new cars), since they have lots of processing power in even the stock CPU.

Cheers,

Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944S

[spnkzss]

All of these people using th Motec systems did not change the existing wiring. If that's the case then they are not doing anything different than anyone can with a "stock" ECU. In the case that a computer is not "easily/cheaply" modified, then neither is the motec. The computer can only control as much as wired into it. The Motec just allows you to connect your own laptop into the car and change your maps yourself instead of sending out or rechipping.

I don't quite understand (maybe I'm missing something) how it would hurt anyone to allow an open ECU rule AS LONG as the stock wiring harness is used and no additional sensors permitted. All of the people running carbs say that it is an unfair advantage. If that is true than its been unfair since the orginal rule was written. Even if the rule was written as some of you think it was intended (rechip for fuel maps etc).

Can someone explain to me what the difference is between a third party ECU and a stock ECU if the wiring where to remain the same, no additional sensors where added? The only thing I see is the ability to remap the computer at the track, which the carb guys can already do with jets.

[gran racing]

Chris,
From my conversations with MoTeC and what is allowed with the current IT rules, you are correct that it will only generate a few HP. But from what they have said, the gains are really in the torque numbers and would be evident on the track.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

[stevel]

Originally posted by gran racing:

But from what they have said, the gains are really in the torque numbers and would be evident on the track.



Bingo!! And not necessarily in just the torque numbers either. What a lot of people focus on are peak dyno numbers, which tell very little of the story. If you've tuned cars you'll realize that. While you may *only* gain 5 peak whp, sometimes you've fattened up the midrange anywhere fromm 10-20hp even more (depending on the motor of course, probably not that much in a typical ITA motor). That's where the performance advantage lies. Don't be looking at peak numbers, that's the wrong thing to focus on. It's the area under the curve, which most IT cars will benefit from. When you show the exact same dyno numbers as average joe but he pulls away from you on corner exit like you're parked, you'll wish you had a motec too.

To give an example, a typical honda ITA car can be fully tuned. The aftermarket support is there that you have your choice of map editors which allow you to change ignition timing and fuel delivery at pretty much every rpm you need to in addition to some other settings. In the d16z6 series of motors (which were just classed for '05) you may see only a peak gain of 3 whp, you could possibly fatten up the 4000-6000rpm range by 4-6whp and torque by a similar number. That may not sound like much but when the motor only put 120 or so hp to the wheels, it makes a difference. I wouldn't be surprised if you could get a 7 whp increase in the midrange. It really brings the middle of the dyno plot up quite a bit. And right now this is all legal within the current rules. And the tuning really benefits these motors, moreso I think than the previous gen of the d16a6 motors which are doing quite well in ITA.

And to the person you had mentioned you could put all the motec functionality into a *chip*, that kind of development isn't going to get done in an IT car. The advantage of Motec is that you can change your mapping quickly. I doubt you're going to find people pulling out there chip burner and laptop and changing the hex value at adress 0xFFBC to get more fuel in that range. It's extrememly hard to do and is a bad example. I just don't see it happening.

So, the gains are there. As with most everything else in racing it comes with a cost. And for some cars the cost is low and the gains are noticable in lap times, for others the cost is high and might not get them much. But gains are there to take advantage of. If you think they're not, you haven't been at the dyno enough to see them first hand.

s



[This message has been edited by stevel (edited November 03, 2004).]

[stevel]

To add to this for the guys that want to use Unichip or something similar which sounds like a one chip solve all solution, but you can't under the current rules due to wiring or the such, you're really not gonna make out if they change the rules and open them up. I don't really believe all that much can be gained from a "one chip" solves all solution. You need to go to the dyno and tune it there. You need to change fuel and timing advance to across the rpm range to make a difference. A *chip* with pre determined maps will do very little for you, and sometimes if they're written by the wrong people or the chip isn't really for your application (which happens a lot) you could actually lose power. The guys with the fully tunable systems are the ones with the real advantage.

I don't really have a side on this issue, I just wanted to put out some more info so people really know how much of a difference fully tunable engine management makes.

s

[This message has been edited by stevel (edited November 03, 2004).]

[stevel]

.

[This message has been edited by stevel (edited November 03, 2004).]

[gran racing]

But Steve, the Unichip is tuned on a dyno. So it would be tuned for the engine's abilities / way it was built.

I'd love to find some solution for my car other then MoTeC at the associated costs.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

[ITANorm]

For those of us with the K-Jetronic handicap, I've come up with a concept of "Fuel pressure regulator in a box". Since FPR's and pumps are free . . ..

[Knestis]

Originally posted by ChrisCamadella:
... I just realized that I basically completely agreed with a post by Kirk way back at the beginning of this topic. I don't know what I think about that ...

Ooch. Sorry about that, dude. I know it must be painful. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


Originally posted by stevel:
... And to the person you had mentioned you could put all the motec functionality into a *chip*, that kind of development isn't going to get done in an IT car. ...

BZZZZZT. Wrong answer - sorry. There was a point at which someone said, "Nobody would go to the cost and effort to disassemble a perfectly good Motec system, just so they could poke it into a stock ECU housing."

Someone WILL, as long as there is a competitive benefit - real or perceived - to doing so, and they have exhausted all other ways to spend their go-faster money.

K

[John Herman]

Greg, I like the wording for the "rules" you came up with. Its interesting that I requested #3 a few months ago as I was trying to decode my computer. But, got quickly shot down. It would be nice to have a simple stand alone computer that has "factory" support and can answer your questions for you. I think it will only be a matter of time before membership pressure makes it a reality. After all, that's where PCA's came from.

[Eric Parham]

I would propose the following amended language:

GCR (ITCS) 17.1.4.D.1.s: "Engine management computers, including fuel injection and ignition computers and/or electronics, may be added, removed, altered or replaced with any computer or electronics for controlling fuel injection and ignition. Wiring changes are permitted. If any aspect of variable valve timing, overlap or lift was electronically controlled before the addition, alteration or replacement of a computer, such variable valve timing, overlap and lift must be mechanically fixed at a set of values simultaneously attainable with a stock, unmodified computer."


My logic:

My current IT car has CIS, so there's no point to playing with the fuel "computer". But, my new project has EFI just like about every other car sold in the past 10 years. From playing with street cars, I know that it's hard to really self-tune these newer cars with the factory components. Let's face it: OBD2 (since 1996) was *designed* to prevent "tampering".

Sure, it's easy to buy a chip or 10 (only a few hundred $$$ each, right?) and throw them at the car, but I, for one, don't want to rely on someone else's hocus-pocus to tune *my* car. That is, I really don't want to be at the mercy of the chip tuners -- I want to do it myself. Plus, I'd really like to be able to do it at the track rather than guess what's wrong and send it (the computer and/or chip) back and forth in the mail.

I think that IT has always been a "tuners" class, but the current ECU rules have effectively legislated that out (at least on my budget). Opening the rule to allow *any* fuel and ignition control modifications so that we can actually tune the cars ourselves in a more affordable manner would be a step in the right direction. Remove the contrived restrictions and the more universally applicable knowledge will fall into place, IMHO.

I’ve addressed the variable valve timing/overlap/lift issue in what I believe is an equitable manner, consistent with class philosophy, in such a way that a meaningful rule can still be enforced without obsolescing anyone’s investment.

What do you think?

[jlucas]

Can you "mechanically fix" a variable valve timing motor(VVTi,iVTEC, or VANOS motor)? I don't think so.
Also, those motors never run a single setting, so how would you even determine what value to set it at?

[Banzai240]

I'm going to break with my own list of criteria and suggest that IT should simply do the following.


From TCS 17.1.8.D.1.i.2 (Touring Car Specifications page 11 - 2004 GCR)
The engine management computer or ECU may be altered provided that all modifications are done within the original housing.

There, now IT and Touring share the same ECU rules. I'd do away with the extraneous ECU wording, and the extra section mentioning the ECU, and then be done with it. Additionally, I'd add back in the wording concerning the wiring that allowed a variance in the resistance values of the sensors feeding the ECU, as it existed in 2002, but was dropped in the 2003 revision that opened the door.

At least this way the SCCA would be consistant among the Touring/Improved Touring classes as they exist today.

Save the high-end and highly modified pieces for the new "Club Challenge", or whatever they are going to call the classes presently being worked on, currently referred to as "D-Production"...

So, essentially, this would get rid of the Motec, or other stand-alone allowances inside the stock case ("replace" has been removed), but still allows for modifications.

Some will benefit, others not so much, and the difference can hopefully be worked out at the time of classification, or with PCA adjustments, should this be required.

Not a perfect solution, but certainly one that closes the door a little, while still allowing some flexibility, and not making a Motec a requirement to be competitive...

Face it guys, there is no "perfect" solution, unless the one in place happens to favor your car of choice...

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited November 05, 2004).]

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
So, essentially, this would get rid of the Motec, or other stand-alone allowances inside the stock case ("replace" has been removed), but still allows for modifications.


Darin, appreciate your continued efforts. How does this language keep someone from altering/modifiying a stock ECU by bonding a fully functional motec unit to a gutted IC board of the stock ECU and calling the stock ECU "altered" or "modified"?

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Quickshoe:
How does this language keep someone from altering/modifiying a stock ECU by bonding a fully functional motec unit to a gutted IC board of the stock ECU and calling the stock ECU "altered" or "modified"?



It doesn't, but it's consistent with the Touring car rules, and they seem to work fine.

In my opinion, this is kind of like the Presidential race... you are going to have to pick the better of two poor choices... If modifications are to be allowed at all, then there is nothing that is going to stop someone with the means from doing whatever they need to do to make the ECU they want. We can try to spell out every possibility, and try to write out every loophole, but for every word we add to the rule, we write in another possible grey area.

The way techology is today, I can take a single chip, and create an entire ECU brain and memory in a single package, fuse it to the existing pinouts on the stock ECU board, and off we go.

We've established pretty clearly that requiring stock isn't really an option, for various reasons, and that allowing an all-out solution isn't an option either. There are some things that can't be perfected, and I think this is one of them. Remove the word "replace", bring this rule in line with existing Touring car rules, and then at least we are being consistant across classes.

While I can see the argument for allowing "any" ECU (perhaps requiring that the stock wiring/harness/connector stay intact, but any ECU that can be plugged into the stock harness is allowed), I just think it's swinging the door way too far open. AND, I don't think it would be "cheaper", as many would suggest, because I think it would REQUIRE that everyone go out and buy a Motec to stay up to speed...

Maybe that's what they have to do anyway, but if not everyone has the option, perhaps that limits the overall amount having to be spent...

Thoughts???



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

[Knestis]

I understand the upsides of Darin's suggestion and agree that there is a heck of a lot of logic behind aligning the T and IT rules.

However, history would remind us that the birth of the current GT rules paradigm can be traced back to the day (c.1977) when an SCCA tech inspector agreed - passively or actively - with a clever racer who decided that "modify or reinforce" meant that he could modify a suspension arm completely away, and reinforce the remainig air with a tubular structure.

I'd submit that if Darin is willing to set free the confounding criterion that existing Motec-like systems be included in a new rule AND that the consensus is that we require (a) that the OE harness be unmodified, and (B) that only stock system inputs be used, then we are back to an obvious winner - Greg's second option:

GCR (ITCS) 17.1.4.D.1.s: Reprograming of the stock engine management computer or ECU is allowed. In those vehicles where the stock chip(s) are not reprogrammable, replacement of those chip(s) with programmable ones and/or chip sockets is allowed, as is the addition of daughterboards within the stock ECU housing. Note that the intent of this rule is change only the mapping or, if necessary, change only the chip(s) necessary to make it possible to change the mapping.

By not providing for "modification" of the OE board, physical space is limited making it harder (more expensive) to add additional bits, and limiting their complexity in doing so.

It might also be appropriate to stipulate that said daughterboard may only "replace" the OE map chip, by plugging into a socket that exactly duplicates the chip's pin configuration.

One downside to this is that it leaves out the attractive (read, economical) option of the OBDII > OBDI adapter but I don't know how to get that horse out without leaving the barn doors completely open.

K

K

[Banzai240]

Kirk,

WHO is going to determine the legality of these modifications? How can someone tell if you've changed "only the chip(s) necessary to make it possible to change the mapping."??? OR if the modifications "change only the mapping"??? How can someone determine if the chips replaced were only the "not reprogrammable" ones?

Merely by adding all these limitations, you will have created a rule that, while comes close to allowing that which you intend to allow, is all but uninforceable in the tech shed, and can would require a lawyer to completely interpret...

At least that's how I read it... By mentioning specific "chips" and "intentions", you've created a requirement for tech, or protestors, etc., to have to be capable of IDENTIFYING those limitations, and even the specific pieces involved. I just don't see how you'd enforce this rule.

Additionally, "mapping" is a pretty vague term... Could "mapping" not be construed as "setting up a parameter table based on sensor input values"... If that's the case, then the entire function of the ECU is open for modification.

I think, in the end, it seems to me you are right back where we started... a rule that is difficult, if not impossible, to enforce...


For those of you who don't think you can create something yourselves inside the stock ECU housing, check out this site:

Megasquirt success stories (http://members.shaw.ca/megasquirt/itruns.htm)

The mainsite for Megasquirt is here:

MEGASQUIRT (http://www.bgsoflex.com/megasquirt.html)

There are several people who use this system in Production with good success, and everything from parts kits to all the software is available from that site, and, except for the hardware costs, is totally free...

I think someone with some ingenuity could repackage this to fit inside an average size ECU housing, and have a pretty wide array of control over the unit... Though I haven't looked too much at the specific inputs required and what might have to be done to get them in/out of an existing housing... It's worth looking into for those "do it yourselfers" out there...

As for the rule wording, I'll keep mulling it over, using what Kirk and Greg have put forth... There may be a magic word out there somewhere that brings all this intent vs. reality together... Just have to put a series of them (magic words) together in the right order to make it work... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited November 05, 2004).]

[ChrisCamadella]

I guess I basically think that we wouldn't hurt very much if we allowed unlimited FI modifications, including the wiring. The 'haves' have already done it, for the most part, and all we would be doing is allowing more folks to tune their engine parameters more cheaply and easily.

As I stated in a previous post, all the FI system can do is to opmtimize the fuel injection time and the ignition timing based on a number of parameters. It can't make the engine pump more air, or be more mechanically efficient.

The car manufacturer, for many reasons, did not optimize the fuel delivery and the timing for your racing car. Those reasons include emissions, driveability, and the fact that your car HAD a catalytic converter.

Now that you've changed the exhaust system, and you don't care about emissions, you can tune your FI system to optimize the fuel flow and ignition timing for your racing application - the guys with carburetors and regular ignition systems (remember the ones with POINTS?) get to do it already.

And, while we're on the subject, the rules are probably completely outdated on this subject anyway. How about this one:

Any ignition system that uses the stock ignition distributor is permitted

Now, on my car, and probably on yours, the ignition system is part and parcel of the EFI unit. So since ignition units are COMPLETELY free, there's no reason whatsoever that I cannot, completely within the rules, add sensors and wiring to my current EFI box, without using the stock connector or anything of the sort - that stuff was for the ignition system, your honor - disassemble my software and check it our for yourself!

BTW, If I had a car with CIS, and I wanted to spend the money, it would be relatively easy, and also not too expensive, to completely legally add a computer controlled system to it - since fuel pressure regulators are free, no one says that they cannot be completely computer controlled, with any amount of wiring and sensors that you want. You just keep adjusting the control pressure (several times per second) to accomodate the values of your sensors...

Ready for folks to squirt flaming fuel at me using computer controlled technology...

Cheers,

Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944S

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Quickshoe: How does this language keep someone from altering/modifiying a stock ECU by bonding a fully functional motec unit to a gutted IC board of the stock ECU and calling the stock ECU "altered" or "modified"?



Originally posted by Banzai240:
It doesn't, but it's consistent with the Touring car rules, and they seem to work fine.



originally posted by Banzai240: So, essentially, this would get rid of the Motec, or other stand-alone allowances inside the stock case ("replace" has been removed), but still allows for modifications.



So which is it Darin, does it get rid of Motecs in the stock housing, or doesn't it? And while it may work for Touring, I'm not sure what that has to do w/ IT. And don't say that they're related because of 'Touring', because they're not. There's not one currently classified Touring car that currently fits into the IT class structure. And that doesn't even take into account the turbos and AWD cars. Are you going to change IT to allow those?

/edit/ fixed quoting format

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited November 05, 2004).]

[ChrisCamadella]

I think I might have said this before, but there is no magic in a MoTeC box. Somehow some of us have the idea that the instant you bolt a MoTeC box into your car, you have gained horsepower, and as soon as they're allowed, you'll have to buy one to keep up.

That is simply not true. The FI system does not make horsepower. All it can possibly do is get the maximum amount of horsepower that your engine can mechanically make by optimizing how it uses the available fuel.

#1. The box that Darin pointed out costs a couple of hundred dollars, it does everything that the MoTeC box does, and has a faster processor to boot. It requires a little bit more computer knowledge, and you have to solder.

#2. NONE of these boxes, or even the chips, do ANYTHING unless you tune them properly using, probably, an engine dyno and a high speed lambda sensor. You MAY be able to tune one by the seat of your pants, but I kind of doubt it. The cost of ANY of these boxes pales in comparison to the real dyno time it takes to set the system up right. Even if we gave away MoTeC units, most people would not go very much faster, and I'll bet that a lot of people would go slower.

#3. With enough time and money, I can tune any stock system to go just as fast as the MoTeC. You can bet on it. The 'haves' are going to do just that, and they aren't going to go one iota slower than they go now, and by taking away the MoTeC, just like the shocks, all you're going to do is cause the 'haves' to spend more money. You still won't be able to keep up. I'm sorry, but that's the nature of car racing at every single level from dirt tracking to F1.

If we opened up the rule, rather than limit it, we would allow many more people to take advantage of the tuning technology that's currently available, and you still wouldn't have to have a MoTeC to keep up.

Cheers,

Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944S

Edit -

What's more is that I am beginning to think that we are doing a tiny bit too much tinkering with the existing rules. We have a rule in place. People, LOTS of people, build their cars based on the rules that are in place. Then, somehow, we decide, "Well, that's not really fair, let's change the rule to make it more fair." But THAT action is not fair to those people that have already invested time, money, and effort to build their cars BY THE RULES! I really think that we have to be sensitive to this fact.

[This message has been edited by ChrisCamadella (edited November 05, 2004).]

[John Herman]

Darin, thanks for the time you're spending on this topic, and for the Megasquirt info. I remember reading about it in a magazine, but never followed up. Given the low cost for the components (<$200 http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif), and the fact I do have an extra computer housing, I may just give it a try. I'll probably need a lot of help from the younger, more computer literate guys I work with to sort this out, but..........we all have to start somewhere.

[This message has been edited by John Herman (edited November 05, 2004).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by ChrisCamadella:
What's more is that I am beginning to think that we are doing a tiny bit too much tinkering with the existing rules. We have a rule in place. People, LOTS of people, build their cars based on the rules that are in place. Then, somehow, we decide, "Well, that's not really fair, let's change the rule to make it more fair." But THAT action is not fair to those people that have already invested time, money, and effort to build their cars BY THE RULES! I really think that we have to be sensitive to this fact.

I agree completely... The "solution" (if there is really a "problem"...) may be to do nothing...

At the very least, I think we might want to remove the redundency that exists in the rules due to D.1.a.6 and D.1.s... The later actually is the same wording that the Touring rules use, and represents, in my opinion, the true intent of the ECU rules... D.1.a.6 came along and really opened the door. They are essentially the same, with the exception of the words "or replace"...

Other than that allowance, I see little need for both of them to exist, as D.1.s would handle all situations (FI and Non-FI), and D.1.a.6 could go back to addressing varying the resistance of the sensors and allowing adjustable fuel pressure regulators...



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

[Bill Miller]

What's more is that I am beginning to think that we are doing a tiny bit too much tinkering with the existing rules. We have a rule in place. People, LOTS of people, build their cars based on the rules that are in place. Then, somehow, we decide, "Well, that's not really fair, let's change the rule to make it more fair." But THAT action is not fair to those people that have already invested time, money, and effort to build their cars BY THE RULES! I really think that we have to be sensitive to this fact.



Chris,

So what you're saying, is that even if a 'bad' rule is put through, once people have spent money, based on that rule, you can't change it? What about the people that spent money prior to the rule, that essentially lost that investment because of the new rule?

Point of fact is that any rule change / addition will cost some people money.

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

[Eric Parham]

Pressed for time today so this will be brief.

jlucas: YES, it is possible (and easy in most cases) to fix the parameters of the variable valve timing cars. In most cases, one can just disconnect the electrical connector, and in others, an oil pressure or other actuator should also be disabled. The competitor would have to pick one set of stock timing/lift parameters that were attainable when stock and run with it.

Darin: Megasquirt is a great idea, and I wish we could all use it or comparable home-made systems, but Megasquirt (and anything else affordable) only works for Speed-Density cars (which have Manifold Absolute Pressure or MAP sensors) and not for Mass-Airflow cars (which have Mass-Airflow meters, typically with complicated hotwire output drivers). We would have to at least allow the adding of a MAP ***sensor*** to enable everyone to use these.

[ChrisCamadella]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Point of fact is that any rule change / addition will cost some people money.


I don't disagree with that. Although pure logic theory does not indicate so, you're basically reinforcing the fact that NOT changing the rule does NOT cost some people money, which is, perhaps, exactly what we should do.

I guess that I'm not convinced, in this particular case, that this rule is necessarily 'bad'. If it were completely up to me, I would open up the FI systems to be a lot more free, but I'm certainly more than willing to live with the rule the way it is, except that Darin is 100% right that we should fix the apparent inconsistencies in the various sections, which we will certainly do regardless of our future direction on this subject.

Cheers,

Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944S

[spnkzss]

I think the people that inserted a Motec into the ECU showed how easy it is to "open" the rule up. Someone earlier said that the Motec people have an advantage that they can quickly adjust at the track. This is true. What they also said is that no one would sit at the track and burn proms at the track. I don't think that is true. Logically it may be, but I wouldn't have thought someone would shove a Motec into their stock ECU for $10,000 just to win a $15 trophy, so don't think anything is impossible/improbable.

I will repeat what a few other people have said. There really is no real advantage the Motec people have besides ease of changing maps. If you had an open ECU rule (again stock wiring and inputs) you could get the same results out of a Motec or anything else for that matter. If I wanted to take the time, with enough research and test&tune I could get the same hp #'s programming a prom for less than a motec without shoving it into a stock ECU.

I consider it to already be an open ECU rule in place. You can change the perimeters in your stock ECU for x amount of $$$, you can put a motec into a stock housing. Same results. Also, we are not talking about 15-30hp gains here, we are talking about flattening out the torque curve and 5hp max.

Spanky

[Eric Parham]

Unfortunately, the information on eprom burning and/or flashing the ECU in-situ is a closely-guarded secret for some cars (I haven't been able to beg or buy the info for my VW, although I know that it can be done). Thus, it would be *much* less expensive, easier, and *legal* (think copyright infringement for the code) to replace such OEM systems with inexpesive do-it-yourself systems like Megasquirt. IMHO, if we're not going to open up the ECU rule, we should at least allow systems like Megasquirt by allowing the addition of the required MAP sensor and wire to those cars that weren't lucky enough to come with one.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by ChrisCamadella:
I don't disagree with that. Although pure logic theory does not indicate so, you're basically reinforcing the fact that NOT changing the rule does NOT cost some people money, which is, perhaps, exactly what we should do.

I guess that I'm not convinced, in this particular case, that this rule is necessarily 'bad'. If it were completely up to me, I would open up the FI systems to be a lot more free, but I'm certainly more than willing to live with the rule the way it is, except that Darin is 100% right that we should fix the apparent inconsistencies in the various sections, which we will certainly do regardless of our future direction on this subject.

Cheers,

Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944S



Problem is Chris, you've already had a rule change that has cost people money / trashed their investment.

And, once again, how is the ability to modify the fuel/ignition on the fly, who knows how many times per lap/race, equal to picking a set of jets and an advance curve, that you have to run for the whole race?

Pick a pair of data points and go w/ them, or have your engine mgmt system continuously update them throughout the race. Equal? Not even close!

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

[Ron Earp]

If we open up the ECUs for whatever is out there how about one for the carb guys?

Allow the carb guys to subsitute another carb of equal ventrui/body size. That way I could ditch my 40mm Stromburgs for some 40mm Webers that I could actually do something with - i.e. tune.

Very similar analogy I think.

Ron

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
And, once again, how is the ability to modify the fuel/ignition on the fly, who knows how many times per lap/race, equal to picking a set of jets and an advance curve, that you have to run for the whole race?

Last time I checked, Ignition systems were free, so long as they used the stock distributer, so it would be possible to build a system for just about any car that would allow varying "advance curves"...

And, a Weber carb has about 4 different circuits, which activate according to engine conditions, and blend the transition points... These circuits can be individually tuned to optimize a setup for a particular day... I know, because I've touched all of them at one point or another on my CJ-7 with a DGEV... (kind of a pain in the a$$ at times, but doable...)

Now, granted, they won't be adjusting over the coarse of a 30 minute race, but then, when is the last time that a change this minute won or lost a race? We're talking OPTIMIZATION here, not mind altering performance increases... The temp. doesn't tend to change that much, nor the humidity, nor the elevations, so in reality, an FI car selects a mapping for a particular condition and that's what it uses... How much adjustment do you really believe there is over the coarse of 20 laps??

And, if you have an FI car, you DON'T have the option of changing your jets, so this is the only other way to make these adjustments...

Again, you pick your weapon...

This isn't about Carb vs. FI, it's about FI and what should/could be allowed into the future. Wherever the rules end up, it isn't going to change what the Carb guys do in the least... You'll never be able to equate Carbs vs. FI, so for this conversation, I'm going to focus on how the ECU rules should/could be worded, not on whether or not it's "fair" for the ECUs to be adjustable in the first place. They are now, and I, and many others, believe they should be. The question is really HOW far should you be allowed to go... and HOW do you write a rule that doesn't allow more than that...

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited November 05, 2004).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by rlearp:
If we open up the ECUs for whatever is out there how about one for the carb guys?

Allow the carb guys to subsitute another carb of equal ventrui/body size.

Does it REALLY make sense to you guys to tit-for-tat the rules like this?

Again, this debate isn't Carbs vs. FI... It's FI and what should be allowed. The differences between FI and Carbs can (and currently is) taken into consideration at the time of classification/reclassification.

Going forward, Carbs are going to be in the minority anyhow, so we need to get a grip on what to do into the future.

Using your logic, we'd be at Production level prep VERY quickly, were we to follow this line of thinking...

Only my opinion, of course...




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

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
... How can someone tell if you've changed "only the chip(s) necessary to make it possible to change the mapping."??? OR if the modifications "change only the mapping"??? How can someone determine if the chips replaced were only the "not reprogrammable" ones? ...


OKAY. So, if ease of "enforceability" is a criterion - and it has semi-officially been explicated as being so at this point - and if the other criteria still hold, there is really only one logical answer - the one that I currently, actually believe is best:

Open it up.

Look - if we are going to allow Motec-like functionality to be re-engineered into a stupid OE plastic box, at a cost greater than would be the case if we just let people plug the OTS Motec the heck in, why not just quit dinking around and allow any engine management that can be plugged into an otherwise unmodified wiring harness, that uses no inputs other than those afforded by the vehicle manufacturer's original design?

>> Modified OBDI box with adapter in an OBDII car - OK

>> Aftermarket programmable box - OK

>> Piggyback unit that plugs between the OE box and the harness - OK

OK.

It just follows logically that, if we are going to allow the gawdawful expensive hand-made option we should allow less expensive options.

[Renaultfool]

Well at least ChrisCamadella, Banzai240 and I are on the same page. The one point that they missed was that most ECUs go to a "lookup table" at wide open throttle, like in racing, which switches them out of active mode onto a fixed map, much like the carb and distributor guys anyway. Guys, I agree, even in active mode at part throttle, unless you live in Hurricane Alley, your barometric pressure and tempreture do not change enough during a 20-30 minute race to alter the mixture significantly.

What was the last carburator car classified anyway, maybe the 87 Honda Civic in IT-C? Even that one is 17 years old now. They don't even keep them in junk yards that long.

All I needed in my Renault was two $0.15 Radio Shack resistors in the air and water temp sensor circuits to make my car run correctly after I put on the headers. But no, too simple and cheap. Let's put it "in the box". Ok, fine, now my office looks like an electonics lab and the car runs the same as it did before I spent all the time and effort to replace $0.30 worth of parts. Reducing the cost or increasing the safety, no.
IT is not Showroom Stock and it is still a long long way from Production.

[ChrisCamadella]

Originally posted by spnkzss:
I think the people that inserted a Motec into the ECU showed how easy it is to "open" the rule up. Someone earlier said that the Motec people have an advantage that they can quickly adjust at the track. This is true. What they also said is that no one would sit at the track and burn proms at the track. I don't think that is true. Logically it may be, but I wouldn't have thought someone would shove a Motec into their stock ECU for $10,000 just to win a $15 trophy, so don't think anything is impossible/improbable.

I will repeat what a few other people have said. There really is no real advantage the Motec people have besides ease of changing maps. If you had an open ECU rule (again stock wiring and inputs) you could get the same results out of a Motec or anything else for that matter. If I wanted to take the time, with enough research and test&tune I could get the same hp #'s programming a prom for less than a motec without shoving it into a stock ECU.

I consider it to already be an open ECU rule in place. You can change the perimeters in your stock ECU for x amount of $$$, you can put a motec into a stock housing. Same results. Also, we are not talking about 15-30hp gains here, we are talking about flattening out the torque curve and 5hp max.

Spanky

I completely agree with this entire post - except for the fact that a MoTeC unit costs $10,000. The list price is more like $1800 for one suitable for most 4 cylinder engines, I think.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240: And, if you have an FI car, you DON'T have the option of changing your jets, so this is the only other way to make these adjustments...



Yet another one of Darin's unsubstantiated, incorrect claims. That's what the resistence values going to the computer do!

And as far as this stuff being taken into consideration when cars are classed, that's been what, for the past year and a half at best? Leaves out what, 90%+ of the IT field? And picking your weapon is fine, until they change the rules mid-stream that make your choice worse!

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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
That's what the resistence values going to the computer do!


I challenge you to show me in the rules where that is allowed... (Yes, it's a trick question...)

By the way, all that does is richen or lean the ENTIRE MAP... Hardly the same as being able to fine tune for specific RPM ranges, like you can with a Weber...

Again, this is 2004... We're moving forward and looking to the future, not dwelling on what was done in the past... Not EVERYONE (heck, not even a majority from what I can tell...) thinks that the ECU rules are a mistake, or that it was a mistake to open them up. If there are glaring mistakes in classifications, or in the specifications, I think we've shown we are trying to correct those.

I tend to believe that your bitterness toward the ITAC, or me in general, is "unsubstantiated"...

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

[Bill Miller]

There you go again Darin, trying to put words in my mouth. But it really doesn't matter. I'm not going to play your silly trick question games. You slam me for supposedly doing that, yet you'll use the exact same tactic. But, I know it's not your fault. You don't have the mechanism, or the capacity to admit when you're wrong. Instead, you'll ignore, deflect, obfuscate, or simply change the subject.

If you're going to allowd motec in the stock box, then I agree w/ the people that say you should just allow any system that uses the stock harness and sensors. The way it's written now, it's no different than the old shock rule. Make people spend more money to achieve the same result, thereby putting it out of reach for some. If you leave it the way it is, you're helping perpetuate the performance gap between those that can spend the money, and those that can't.

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

[chipbond]

Darin and all.

As the only production classification required to run IT engine prep rules (Caterham in EP) please let me add my thoughts to the proposed rewording of the ECU rule. Though we don't compete in IT, the rulings affect us greatly.

We took advantage of the "replacement ecu" just recently having had little success (at considerable cost) with attempts at remapping the stock unit by a number of firms. I have equipped 3 cars with another 2 in process with this aftermarket ECU. It is nothing like the reported $10,000 conversion. In fact hard costs amount to about $1500 per car plus a lot of time milling the inside of the case, desoldering the factory connector, wiring etc. In the Ford OBD2 application we are working with (98 Zetec from a Contour/Mystique) it's about a 10 hour conversion. We sell them at $2500 which includes the base dyno developed calibration, software and connection cables.

If we loose the "or replace" verbage in the current ruling, as you favor, we will be forced to spend large sums to reprogram the stock ECU every time an engine rules change affects us. The ease with which changes can be made in an aftermarket ECU help keep racing costs minimal. I think that in both the long and the short term, the aftermarket "replacement" is more adaptable and less costly than the repeated expense of modifications of the OEM ECU.

And as time goes on, the cost of these boards will decrease further, we would expect.

Chip Bond
Caterham 7 America #37 EP
GT Classics

[cherokee]

Why not open up the computer rules all the way...then let the carb guys switch to FI if they want. It would solve everything....right . That would solve everything. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif We could also let the carb guys run any carb and intake they want. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif I have a side draft setup I would love to put on the Opel.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by chipbond:
If we loose the "or replace" verbage in the current ruling, as you favor, we will be forced to spend large sums to reprogram the stock ECU every time an engine rules change affects us. The ease with which changes can be made in an aftermarket ECU help keep racing costs minimal. I think that in both the long and the short term, the aftermarket "replacement" is more adaptable and less costly than the repeated expense of modifications of the OEM ECU.

And as time goes on, the cost of these boards will decrease further, we would expect.

Chip Bond
Caterham 7 America #37 EP
GT Classics

Chip,

Thanks for sharing... Am I understanding you correctly in having a desire to leave the rules alone? Or are you advocating allowing any ECU?

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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
There you go again Darin, trying to put words in my mouth.

First of all... what words am I trying to put into our mouth??

Second, I'll go ahead and answer my own question, since you aren't up to the challenge...

Changing the resistance values of the sensors that feed the ECU is currently NOT legal... It was in 2002, but in 2003, when the current ECU wording was put in place, this allowance was removed. We have requested that the CRB add it back in under Errors and Omissions, since we don't believe it should have been removed in the first place, and it potentially made many cars who had implemented this change illegal.




You don't have the mechanism, or the capacity to admit when you're wrong.

Oh, quite the contrary... If I am wrong, I'll admit it... But I'm not... Changing the resistance values of the water temp sensor, which is essentially the main one that gets changed, just fools the ECU into thinking the engine needs to be richer. It does that across the board, unless you use a manually variable resistor, in which case you'd be driving with one hand on the wheel and one on the knob to get the kind of on-the-fly adjustability and tuneability that say supply, or that can be tuned into a Weber with different emmulsion tubes, air correctors, idle and main circuits, etc...



If you're going to allowd motec in the stock box, then I agree w/ the people that say you should just allow any system that uses the stock harness and sensors. The way it's written now, it's no different than the old shock rule. Make people spend more money to achieve the same result, thereby putting it out of reach for some. If you leave it the way it is, you're helping perpetuate the performance gap between those that can spend the money, and those that can't.

Guess what, I don't disagree, but it's not up to me to decide. There are many that believe that if this rule is opened up as you suggest, it will make it mandatory to own a MOTEC to be competitive... right now, there are but a few out there who are actually doing this, compared to those that aren't...

As I said before, this is really a no-win situation, because there are issues at every turn... I wouldn't be suprised if nothing at all got changed, as the rule actually works fine the way it is... Doesn't make everyone happy, but nothing will.



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

[Eric Parham]

I'm one who missed the two different versions of the current rule. My read of the "or replace" version is that we can *currently* modify within the box "or replace" the thing entirely (no need to use the original ECU box at all). Perhaps we should just make the language consistent by adding the "or replace" to the other version, as well as adding back the accidentally omitted sensor resistances part http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Edit: Reasoning is that to "alter" is to modify, but to replace is *not* to modify but to replace in its entirety. Therefore, the requirement that alterations be confined within the stock housing *does not* literally mean that a replacement must fit inside the stock housing. The housing is part of the assembly being replaced!

[This message has been edited by Eric Parham (edited November 06, 2004).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Eric Parham:
I'm one who missed the two different versions of the current rule. My read of the "or replace" version is that we can *currently* modify within the box "or replace" the thing entirely (no need to use the original ECU box at all).

Sorry, have to completely disagree... According to the language in the ITCS, there is a distinction between the "engine management computer, or ECU," and the "original OEM ECU housing."

You "may alter or replace the engine management computer, or ECU, provided that all modifications are done within the original OEM ECU housing."

Context counts... You can't just take one or two words and mix and match them to your liking... You have to use the entire rule...

Even if you "replace the engine management computer"... it must be replaced "within the original OEM ECU housing."

Perhaps I'm daft, but I don't see any other way to read that...

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited November 07, 2004).]

[Bill Miller]

Darin,

You can say that picking a set of parameters and applying them provides on-the-fly adjustability all you want, but that doesn't make it the case.

And if the current ECU rule works fine, then the old shock rule was fine. You can't possibly believe that. How can a rule the requires people to spend more money, and jump through hoops to achieve a legal state (ala the old shock rule) be 'working fine'? BTW, which is it, there are a bunch of people's investments that you have to protect, or only a few who have stuffed a Motec into a stock housing?

And why would people have to buy a Motec? Why couldn't they use one of the many, less expensive alternatives (e.g. Megasquirt, etc.)?

Eric may be onto something. What's the logic behind requiring a replacement ECU to fit inside the stock housing? Make people spend more money because of some variable (and meaningless) size constraint?


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Originally posted by Banzai240:Again, this is 2004... We're moving forward and looking to the future, not dwelling on what was done in the past... Not EVERYONE (heck, not even a majority from what I can tell...) thinks that the ECU rules are a mistake, or that it was a mistake to open them up.</font> So, it's gone from opening it up becaus they couldn't police software to "moving forward and looking to the future". Ladies and gentelemen, I give you rules creep at its finest!!

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

[John Herman]

(As I wrote this, I realized I should clarify that I am talking about computers circa 1990 and newer.)Changing resistance values of sensors feeding the computer does not necessarily allow richening AND leaning the fuel curves or advancing AND retarding of timing curves. At WOT, the computer is only looking at a discrete number (magnitude of 100, not 1000 for ALL atmosperic conditions) of tables to determine fuel and timing, not using a formula to calculate an infintite number of values for the fuel and timing. It uses the values from the sensors to determine which table to look at, NOT plug into a formula. If the computer is all ready in the leanest, most advanced table, it doesn't matter what you do to the sensors, you're not going to lean out the fuel or advance the timing anymore (my car does not use a distributer, so there is no mechanical means to adjust). Vice versa, if the computer is all ready in the richest fuel table, I don't care what you do to the sensors, you're not going to richen it anymore anymore. It will interpolate the value needed if the sensors determine the engine is operating between two points in the table, but it won't magically change the overall values used in the tables (e.g. If operating exactly between two points, the "value" above the point is 10, and the value below the point is 8, the answer is 9. If the "value" above the point is 10, and the value below the point is 10, the answer is still going to be 10. There is NO way to get 11.). Additionally, current OE systems have various "self preservation" modes. Under certain extreme conditions (long periods of WOT under heavy loads for one), if the OE computer determines the driver is going to "melt down" their engine or catalytic converter, it decides, rightly or not, to "save itself." It begins to richen the mixture and retard the timing to cool the engine/converter. So now you don't have improved performance (or consistent for that matter) throughout the race, but just the opposite. I've been told (by a software engineer at Delphi) most OE software is designed to run the engines a bit rich and slightly retarded vs. ideal to protect the catalytic converters. Given the 100k warranty and the $$$ involved in emissions recall, this makes a lot of sense for the car industry to do. But, this explains why tuning the computer for racing can yeild some improvements. The amount of those improvements depend on how conservative the original software engineer was. I also asked him about systems like MOTEC. He stated that IF you can tune the OE system (and we're not talking adding resistors into wires, or those stupid rotary knob things you buy on ebay which we laughed about), there is no benefit to using a system like that. And the "IF" now brings us full circle.

BTW, people talk about choosing their weapon when topics like this come up. I choose the car I did because I worked with the group that did the original engineering work at GM and I "liked" it. I didn't do a detailed engineering analysis of the pros and cons of every single modification vs the potential impact on my car vs the $ impact, vs cars currently competing vs potential new cars being classed vs tracks I was going to run......it was a car that I "thought" could win. Rightly or wrongly. Many custom parts and lots of research later, I am still having a lot of fun. It has been a long, frustrating, but rewarding experience. So when people make comments like, "Yeah, they should have known that piston return springs weren't available, so too bad to them" kind of bother me. When I started this racing stuff 10 years ago, I didn't know how to get a license or how to register for an event. I've liked the IT scene, and , for the most part I like how its going. I like the fact that Darin et. al. are doing their best to please most people. To grow this sport and club, we will need to adapt to the newer cars and technologies. As much as I hate to admit it sometimes, this computer technology is not a matter of IF anymore. My $0.02.

[Knestis]

...and THAT, folks is what a useful contribution to a discussion looks like. Read it again.

K

[chipbond]

Darin, Responding to your question regarding my preference for an open ECU rule or the existing wording, I think I would choose the existing wording, or some variation of it that allows ECU replacement while retaining the stock ECU connector.

As it stands now, selection of a replacement ECU must consider the factory sensor resistance curves, injector resistance, the connector interface and most daunting, the ability to physically fit in the OEM enclosure. The cards we are using are just 3" x 5" but it is suprising how little room is left within the Ford enclosure after installation and wiring. We have to mill parts of the interior to get sufficient room now.

In fairness to all, and recognizing that some enclosures may be too small to fit even a card this small, than perhaps some variation of the existing rule that requires the stock ECU connector BUT allows modification of the enclosure may be the best approach.

Seems that the connector is key in retaining the stock harness and sensors, all big parts of IT class philosophy.

Chip Bond