PDA

View Full Version : ECU rule thoughts



C. Ludwig
11-18-2004, 12:41 AM
With the ECU rule as it stands the sky is pretty much the limit as far as pulling the stock guts out of the factory ECU and replacing them with the engine management system of your choice. Agreed? At this point then a large variable and cost factor has been introduced in to IT. Not only can we drop $3000+ on a Motec system but for those without the skills to break that system down and install it in the factory case there would be a considerable expense to pay an electronics expert to do so. And in opening the aftermarket system's case and manipulating it you're certainly going to void any kind of warranty it may have come with and certainly complicate matters should the need ever arise to send the system back to the manufacturer for service. Agreed?

If we're in agreement to this point is it a logical step to make the full leap and ask the ITAC to conisder changing the ruling yet again to simply allow aftermarket engine management systems outright without the need and extra expense and simple hassle of cramming them in to the stock case?

Thoughts?

------------------
Chris Ludwig
08 ITS RX7 CenDiv

Joe Harlan
11-18-2004, 01:06 AM
Or close the door and only allow modifications to the factory board and or daughter board. I have used all the trick ecu's for GT cars ect. When the cars that are currently classed were classed nobody really ever though that engine management would be free... So doing what has been done or opening it up even further will only make those matters worse.

Bill Miller
11-18-2004, 07:55 AM
Can someone explain to me how allowing the addition of a daughter board would be any different than allowing 'free internals'? I imagine that you could pack that whole MoTec system on the daughter board.

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

Knestis
11-18-2004, 09:35 AM
Didn't we just have this conversation? Greg A. even put out straw-man language for possible rule changes.

While it might be safe to say that "we" (IT.com posters, not IT competitors nationwide) were "in agreemment" that the rule needs to be examined, we were a LONG way from consensus about what a change should look like.

Any of us could put a proposition forward to the CRB if we chose to do so, but I think maybe we get a little complacent about the official process since we have access to ITAC folks through this very unofficial board.

K

planet6racing
11-18-2004, 09:53 AM
Kirk, it's been 2 months since that topic was started, so it was time to start it again.

And, no one has yet to show me that the current rule upset the balance (or even changed the finishing order) in IT.

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

924Guy
11-18-2004, 10:05 AM
Hmmm, I'm still struggling to see how I _wouldn't_ fall behind with open-season on engine management, having no ECU to chip or replace, and no carbs to re-jet.

Ah, screw it, why not just open up engine management systems entirely so I can drop in a Motec too? After all, what's the difference, really, between a K-Jet injector and an L-Jet injector? They both perform the same purpose, right? And wiring's free, so I can add more at my leisure, right? </sarcasm>

I'm really surprised the VW guys aren't b*tching up a storm about this - unless they know more about tuning CIS than I do (quite possible)...

------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITA/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com

JeffYoung
11-18-2004, 10:10 AM
I'd like to put Spock's brain in my ECU. It fits in the case. Is this legal?

shwah
11-18-2004, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by 924Guy:

I'm really surprised the VW guys aren't b*tching up a storm about this - unless they know more about tuning CIS than I do (quite possible)...



From my standpoint, I view CIS-E as everything I need because it is simple and reliable, letting me focus my energies elsewhere. It is not hard to dial the air fuel ratio in to what is needed within the 'old' rules, and ignition timing is easy to set static at the optimum point.

However I do personally view the current ecu rule as way outside what I consider appropriate for the class. It just seems odd to me that IT cars can run fully programable engine management systems while the supposedly higher prep level Production cars are running carbs or 'factory type' fuel injection. IMO the rule is a cop out because it was deemed difficult to police ecu modifications when they were not legal.

How many other rules can we open up because the are not easy to police?

Of course just my opinions. I am happy to race under the current rules because racing makes me happy.

Chris
86 VW ITB

Banzai240
11-18-2004, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by shwah:
...while the supposedly higher prep level Production cars are running carbs or 'factory type' fuel injection.

Better go check the PCS... The only thing "production" about a Production cars FI system is the intake manifold... The ECUs, etc., are pretty much open, which is why you see guys building "Megasquirt" systems, etc., for their Prod cars...

If "policing" ECUs is so easy, perhaps you can give us some suggestions on how you'd do it? Everyone keeps saying how easy it should be, but no one seems to be able to lay out any guidelines on how to pull it off... I'm an Embedded Software Engineer, and I can't think of a practical way to do it... (quite the opposite, actually... I can think of all KINDS of ways to hack it!! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif )

Anyone???

------------------
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 18, 2004).]

Knestis
11-18-2004, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by planet6racing:
Kirk, it's been 2 months since that topic was started, so it was time to start it again. ...


Alrighty then, but it seems like 168 posts on a strand that petered out less than 2 weeks ago would have resolved something, if resolution were possible in this forum.

K

apr67
11-18-2004, 12:12 PM
I can think of a million ways to hack a jensen healy or a Alfa Spyder cam.

Does that mean cams should be open?

Joe Harlan
11-18-2004, 12:51 PM
Sure Bill, If it were specified that the only function of the daugter board was to hold the ROM chips.....this would still make full use of the OEM main board and allow chips to be flash programed and popped into a socket...Not a big deal and really limits the amount of mods being done to the ECU... IMHO stand alone ecu's and the continued allowance of Motecing a stock box will further drive down the level of interest in IT due to the cost's associated with having a winning effort.

Banzai240
11-18-2004, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by apr67:
I can think of a million ways to hack a jensen healy or a Alfa Spyder cam.

Does that mean cams should be open?

VERY silly example, and completely irrelevant... A cam can be physically measured, so you could hack away and someone could physically check it...

How do you check something you can't see, or that can be dynamically changed? Guys with Hondas are taking stock ECUs and adding code to them that allows them to turn the key on and off 5 times, or somthing like that, and it changes the ECU program back to stock. And, the change is not detectable by any normally available means...

Again, you've provided no answer, just another question, which quite frankly isn't even of the same nature as what we are discussing here...

Very specifically, HOW do you police something like this, assuming you don't have the resources of the CIA or NSA at your disposal??



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

Joe Harlan
11-18-2004, 01:01 PM
You police it by limiting the allowed mods to something reasonable instead of allowing something that is extreme to the other end.

planet6racing
11-18-2004, 01:10 PM
The only way I can think of to police:

1) Competitor pre-registers (no on-site registration) and pays an extra $300 fee for a new computer.

2) Region purchases computer from car manufacturer and maintains control of it under lock and key.

3) On grid, the 15 minute warning is given and all electronic devices are required to be removed from the area (laptops, palm pilots, cell phone, pagers, etc).

4) After everything is gone, the region hand out new computers and take the old one. The scrutineer/grid worker verifies that the new, completely stock, computer is installed and that there is nothing in the area that can flash it.

5) The race starts and ends.

6) All cars are sent to impound. The computers are pulled and the old ones returned.

7) 3 weeks later, the $300 fee, less a $100 pain-in-the-butt fee is returned to the competitor.

Easy, eh? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

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

Banzai240
11-18-2004, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
You police it by limiting the allowed mods to something reasonable instead of allowing something that is extreme to the other end.


Again... what the heck does that mean??

You allow a daughter board??? I can fit a Motec onto a daughter board...

You allow chips to be changed? I can fit a Motec into a single chip on the mainboard...

You require stock Mainboard processing??? How do you check all those Ones and Zeros to validate they are the stock code? HOW do you know what the stock code is??

What is a "reasonable set of mods"??? The MINUTE you say something can be modified/changed/reprogrammed, etc., you open the door for a whole slew of possibilities. Addtionally, because of the differences in ECUs from model to model, how do you come up with something that would work for the majority???

It seems we have a middle ground right now, so what exactly... EXACTLY are you going to change in the wording to satisfy the majority and stay within "the intent of IT"???

Take out "replace"??? Then we'd have exactly what Touring has... which may be fine...

However...

As an additional note, the CRB contacted me and asked specifically that we be careful in how we suggest rewording any rules to avoid making existing cars illegal. So, similiarly to the idea of reclassifying the RX-7 to ITB and considering making all their 7" wheels suddenly illegal, we have to keep this in mind here, regardless of what might have happened with remote resevoir shocks or Production sequestial shift transmissions...

The more this comes up, the more I'm almost favoring just allowing any ECU, provided that the wiring harness and connector not be modified in any way and no additional inputs be added... Build a small adapter harness to make the plugs mate up and move on... Would certainly remove any abiguity...

------------------
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 18, 2004).]

Geo
11-18-2004, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by JeffYoung:
I'd like to put Spock's brain in my ECU. It fits in the case. Is this legal?

It wouldn't run. Going racing isn't logical. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif


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

Geo
11-18-2004, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by planet6racing:
The only way I can think of to police:

1) Competitor pre-registers (no on-site registration) and pays an extra $300 fee for a new computer.

2) Region purchases computer from car manufacturer and maintains control of it under lock and key.

3) On grid, the 15 minute warning is given and all electronic devices are required to be removed from the area (laptops, palm pilots, cell phone, pagers, etc).

4) After everything is gone, the region hand out new computers and take the old one. The scrutineer/grid worker verifies that the new, completely stock, computer is installed and that there is nothing in the area that can flash it.

5) The race starts and ends.

6) All cars are sent to impound. The computers are pulled and the old ones returned.

7) 3 weeks later, the $300 fee, less a $100 pain-in-the-butt fee is returned to the competitor.

Easy, eh? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif



And if the club's ECU fails can I sue the club for my expenses for the weekend that went down the toilet?


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

Banzai240
11-18-2004, 01:49 PM
Is it too early for me to have a drink??? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

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

Geo
11-18-2004, 01:51 PM
Riddle me this...

What can a Motec do that a remapped OEM ECU cannot?


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

Banzai240
11-18-2004, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
Riddle me this...

What can a Motec do that a remapped OEM ECU cannot?




Joe could answer this better than I, but I believe it is MUCH easier to analyze and modify the parameters of a Motec than it is to do the same on a stock ECU... Plus, I believe the Motec works on a faster processor, etc...

If you know what you are doing, I think you could get similar results with either, but I'm pretty sure the road is much easier with the Motec or other aftermarket systems...



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

Joe Harlan
11-18-2004, 03:16 PM
George and Darin, Lets just say that a motec can do everything a little better and somethings a ton better and other things that a stock unit can't.

Finer control points for 3d control of FUEL,Timing, and load. Program almost as many as you want.

How about Data logging of all engine parameters...Not done in the stock unit. How about being able to dial you VVT into the track you are running with the push of a button. These are some of the smaller points. check out this web page http://www.200sxs13.nismo.org/technical_in...#aftermarketECU (http://www.200sxs13.nismo.org/technical_information.html#aftermarketECU) for some other information.

I forgot the big one. Traction control is available on almost ever stand alone system on the market.

Please take note of the fuel and timing points in the comparison charts on that webpage.

256 for and OE unit and 840 for the Motec

[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited November 18, 2004).]

zracre
11-18-2004, 03:36 PM
If you have to keep the stock plug and ECU box without a biggyback unit, wouldnt it be overly complex to legally motec your ecu? you would have to keep all the stock sensors and inputs through the stock harness connector into the stock box...if someone can id like one please!!!!!! isnt being able to change the duty cycle at different rpms like properly rejetting a carb??? and having different spark curves built into our distributors??? I watched a Z car pull out onto the track at the ARRC outside pole.........

Banzai240
11-18-2004, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:

The more this comes up, the more I'm almost favoring just allowing any ECU, provided that the wiring harness and connector not be modified in any way and no additional inputs be added... Build a small adapter harness to make the plugs mate up and move on... Would certainly remove any abiguity...



NO, strike that... after further thought and discussion, what I really think needs to be done is that the entire wording regarding ECUs in section D.1.a.6 needs to be removed. Change it back to simply addressing the adjustable fuel-pressure regulator. Then, all cars would be covered under D.1.s, which says exactly the same thing as the Touring car ECU rules. This effectively removes the word "replace", but allows the internals to be "modified". The stock wiring harness would then be implied, as it doesn't mention it at all, and it isn't "inside" the ECU housing...

That would make IT consistent with other SCCA classes, and would allow 90% of the cars out there the adjustments they would need to adjust fuel mixtures, etc...

Not sure what kind of CRB support that would get, as there are some members who have gone further who would then be out of compliance, but I do think this would be a correct move heading into the future.

Any thoughts on this???




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

C. Ludwig
11-18-2004, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
The more this comes up, the more I'm almost favoring just allowing any ECU, provided that the wiring harness and connector not be modified in any way and no additional inputs be added... Build a small adapter harness to make the plugs mate up and move on... Would certainly remove any abiguity...




Darin, this is the point I'm trying to make exactly. As long as the cat is out of the bag and the sky is going to be the limit (let's all agree that's what we have currently) why not make it as easy and cheap as possible to install the aftermarket EMS? Why should everyone have to spend several hundred dollars extra to skirt the rules in a legal manner?

Another point to consider if you require the use of stock sensors is that AFAIK only the very high end systems can be programmed to work with stock sensors. MAP sensor cars (Honda) would be at a distict cost advantage because most of the low cost units are designed to work with a MAP sensor and not MAF. As it is right now one can purchase a Haltech system used for around $600 and achieve 99% of the power potential of the highest end $3000 Motec. The problem is that the Haltech will only work with it's sensors (GM OEM for the most part).

Again, my point is that you're not going to keep everyone from spending money. As long as the ECU is essentially open it should be as easy and cost effective to reap the full potential of the rule as possible.

------------------
Chris Ludwig
08 ITS RX7 CenDiv

[This message has been edited by C. Ludwig (edited November 18, 2004).]

Geo
11-18-2004, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
George and Darin, Lets just say that a motec can do everything a little better and somethings a ton better and other things that a stock unit can't.

Better? I'll buy that. I doubt it will make that much difference. With a stock harness and stock sensors, what can it do that the stock ECU cannot?


Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Finer control points for 3d control of FUEL,Timing, and load. Program almost as many as you want.

Do you think that will make more than 1-2 hp difference?


Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
How about Data logging of all engine parameters...Not done in the stock unit.

Data logging is already legal and possible with other hardware/software. Hell, I can hook you up with datalogging of Nissan ECU parameters without even having to touch the ECU.


Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
How about being able to dial you VVT into the track you are running with the push of a button.

Now we are into fantasy land. First, if the ECU can change the cam timing, the stock ECU can be reprogrammed to. Don't you know the track you're going to before you get there? That's a smarty pants question, but I'm trying to get down to the real differences.


Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
I forgot the big one. Traction control is available on almost ever stand alone system on the market.

Is that going to matter for IT cars? All it could control is acceleration wheel slip. We don't do standing starts and OK, I'll buy that it could be an issue for corner exit, but it would be easier to screw things up than to make things better.


Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Please take note of the fuel and timing points in the comparison charts on that webpage.

256 for and OE unit and 840 for the Motec

That's nice. Will that make any real differnce in power production? I doubt it would make enough differnce to even be concerned.

In the end, an ECU sets the amount of fuel to be mixed with a given amount of air and it sets ignition timing (and cam timing on some cars). A Motec must use all the stock sensors so it has no better data to work with than a stock ECU.

I'd submit that the advantages of a Motec are ease of use and maybe 1-2 hp in the mid-range if that.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not in favor of the current wording. I just think there is mass hysteria over this.


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

Geo
11-18-2004, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
NO, strike that... after further thought and discussion, what I really think needs to be done is that the entire wording regarding ECUs in section D.1.a.6 needs to be removed. Change it back to simply addressing the adjustable fuel-pressure regulator. Then, all cars would be covered under D.1.s, which says exactly the same thing as the Touring car ECU rules. This effectively removes the word "replace", but allows the internals to be "modified".

I think it would do nothing at all without more specifics.

If you change the rule to allow modification to the internals and I want to install a Motec, I'll just modify the original board so it doesn't connect to the harness connector, cut out whatever I need and then install a Motec. That's modified.

I don't think that wording change is going to make any difference.


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

apr67
11-18-2004, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:

How do you check something you can't see, or that can be dynamically changed?

Very specifically, HOW do you police something like this, assuming you don't have the resources of the CIA or NSA at your disposal??


Easy.

You don't. Just like the SCCA tech's everything else now.

(see protest story).

The simple rule is, no modifications. So if the seal is broken on the ECU (most have them) its not legal. If the chips inside have been soldered, its not legal. If anything is piggybacked on it, its not legal. If a diagnostic computer hooked to it says its not the right version, checksum, or whatever, its not legal.

If it passes all those tests, it is legal.

Joe Harlan
11-18-2004, 04:15 PM
George, first I must ask, How many motecs or fi system have youactually worked with?

How many fuel maps have you written?

How much knowledge do you have on how VVT is controled by an OEM system compared to a system that has 3 times the function?

You asked for data points and i provided them. You are trying to knock hole through something I think you have very little understanding of.

If traction control was no big deal then ABS would still be legal in IT.

I have 20 to 30 motec maps on my laptop alone and I can promise you that it is far better than 2 or 3 hp on any engine.

Have fun
Joe


[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited November 18, 2004).]

Banzai240
11-18-2004, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
If you change the rule to allow modification to the internals and I want to install a Motec, I'll just modify the original board so it doesn't connect to the harness connector, cut out whatever I need and then install a Motec. That's modified.

At some point, we are going to have to accept that this type of thing will happen regardless of what we do.

I can see where this is heading right now... When these things come to an impass, as the last ECU discussion did, the net effect will be no change...

People can point out problems with this stuff all day long, but it's a lot tougher to find a solution...

The "rule is creeped, so creep it further" argument doesn't seem like that great of a pattern to get into here. Nor does the "take it all back and piss on them" solution...

The solution I suggested is definately middle ground, and the scenario that George has suggested would be a very rare exception... Simply too much development for an IT car. Would some people try, of course they would, but they would be the rare few who are willing to spend $15,000 plus dollars to win a $10.00 trophy and bragging rights for a year...

The rest of us would be just as satisfied with our Jim Wolf modified ECUs and a new set of tires every now and then...

If you take out the phrase "or replace", you take away the arguement to just open it up to any ECU. That saves EVERYONE money, because a full-on ECU doesn't become the standard. Most cars could be competitive with a stock modified ECU, and those that had the $$$ to see if there is more there than that provided could go off and try to find it...

At least not EVERYONE would have to go down that road... in other words, the Motec-modified stock ECU would be the exception, not the rule. Further, the MOTEC modifiers would have to go to just as much work to fit their Motecs into the stock board as anyone else would have to go to to modify the stock board... Sounds kind of level to me... It's still going to come down to who can afford the Motec and who can't, but the upped development costs actually may act as a deterent for all but those few with the means... And again, not EVERYONE would have to go out and do this... and I bet most wouldn't...

I know this doesn't work for everyone, but I also know NOTHING will... I think I'll stick with my statement... Remove the "or replace" wording and go racing...

------------------
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 18, 2004).]

Banzai240
11-18-2004, 04:54 PM
Hey Kirk...

Want to lay odds on how many posts this thread ends up with??? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

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

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

Geo
11-18-2004, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
George, first I must ask, How many motecs or fi system have youactually worked with?

How many fuel maps have you written?

How much knowledge do you have on how VVT is controled by an OEM system compared to a system that has 3 times the function?

You asked for data points and i provided them. You are trying to knock hole through something I think you have very little understanding of.

I'll grant you I have no experience with them. I've never had the need. But that was not my question.

Please answer me this: Given the stock harness and sensors, what can the Motec adjust that the stock ECU cannot?

Given the variables involved, why can you not arrive at the same solution with the stock ECU?

I fully understand that with the Motec and other such stand-alones that you can have finer granularity in the maps. But the question is not how much more power can the Motec make over a stock ECU, but how much more can it make over a remapped ECU? Since the Motec cannot adjust anything more than the stock ECU, how will a Motec make more power than a remapped stock ECU with the same maps? That's a perfectly valid question. You can talk all day about how much more experience you have with a Motec than me and I'll agree with you all day long. But that question would still go unanswered. If I've missed some way the Motec can make more power than a remapped ECU please clue me in.


Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
If traction control was no big deal then ABS would still be legal in IT.

Interestingly enough, traction control is legal in IT.

But back to my question (I guess I framed it as an observation and shouldn't have)... Where are you going to use traction control in road racing (that is only controlled though ECU data, not chassis data)? The only place I can see is corner exit. I'm not totally ignorant of this topic. One of my best friends works on this stuff for a profession and has clients in all levels of motorsports including F1. That doesn't mean I know as much as you, but I'm not ignorant of it either.


Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
I have 20 to 30 motec maps on my laptop alone and I can promise you that it is far better than 2 or 3 hp on any engine.

More than 2 or 3 hp over a well remapped factory ECU? I'm not talking about over stock mapping. Does the Motec go to open loop at WOT or does it remain in closed loop?

Joe, I'm not trying to say you're wrong. Am I challenging your knowledge? Yes. Not to say I know more. But if I'm to make an informed decision on this I need to challenge you. I still am of the opinion that the biggest advantage of the Motec is the ease of changing it. If I'm all wet, please correct me. But let's keep this to talking about the difference between a remapped factory ECU and a Motec.



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

Geo
11-18-2004, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
I can see where this is heading right now... When these things come to an impass, as the last ECU discussion did, the net effect will be no change...

People can point out problems with this stuff all day long, but it's a lot tougher to find a solution...

I couldn't agree more.


Originally posted by Banzai240:
I think I'll stick with my statement... Remove the "or replace" wording and go racing...

And I still have to say this will solve nothing. The closest thing I can see is to require the stock circuit board to be used with some very limited and very carefully thought out modifications.

But I again, ultimately I agree with you that finding a much better solution is going to be nearly impossible. There's just no consensous here.


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

Joe Harlan
11-18-2004, 05:52 PM
George, I point you to a sites that makes a decent comparison and there are many other good sites out there I would suggest some research as I need to get back to making a living. You will not only find a greater gain in HP over the complete map but you will find a great big flat torque line across the complete map.......Peak HP wins dyno show and average HP(torque) wins races.
Imagine being able to run your engine in the perfect control point from 0 to redline with 256 control points. Now imagine being able to do that in 3D over 840 control points. You are able to control things much more accurately with a race ECU and all of these add up to HP and drivabilty over an OE unit. Plus here is the big one. Most of the reprograms that are done on stock stuff are done over the whole stock map. Take the 240sx forone. Most of them are way to rich from the facory and have very limited timing advance curves in them. What I have seen in most of the reprogs is that the fuel mixture is leaned down by x percentage over the whole map....same kinda thing with the timing. To pin point any of these deals you would have to be on a dyno and loading in each and every cell of the map to come up with perfect.(I have done this with the motec)This is not possible for most reprogrammers to have acess to every car and every situation to program like this. Clarke at JWT does the best in the business at estimeating needs based on mods....

Closing the door back to a stock boardand mother board puts everyone on a much closer playing field (development and money) wise than allowing a few to take advantage of a poorly written loop hole in the current rule.

planet6racing
11-18-2004, 06:50 PM
Dammit, I've had it. Everyone keeps on complaining about this rule, but no one will answer the question:

HAS THIS CHANGED IT?

Has the balance been upset? If not, what's the big friggin' deal? Are you upset that your neighbor is out spending you on his car? Big deal. There will always be someone out spending you (just look at GT1). Get over it.

Until someone can show how this is "ruining competition in IT" I don't think anyone, especially the ITAC and CRB should even bother to look at it. It is not value added.

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

ITANorm
11-18-2004, 06:50 PM
I agree with the stock motherboard theory, even though the K-jetronic on my car is not "chippable".

What can be done? Well, here's some 15 year-old technology: A stock ECU vs a TRD built and programmed double board GpA ECU - from the late '80's.

http://home.comcast.net/~jcberry11/87man.JPG
http://home.comcast.net/~jcberry11/GpA-1.JPG
http://home.comcast.net/~jcberry11/GpA-2.JPG

[This message has been edited by ITANorm (edited November 18, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by ITANorm (edited November 18, 2004).]

Joe Harlan
11-18-2004, 06:58 PM
Lets see E36 was classed before open ECU rule.....now where are we at.

I'll give you more....
240sx,CRX in ITA were classed before current ECU rules. The 240sx had a 115MPH speedlimiter when it was classed...Don't act like it has not changed the makeup of IT...It clearly has. The wider the rules get the larger the change will be.

GKR_17
11-18-2004, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
The 240sx had a 115MPH speedlimiter when it was classed...Don't act like it has not changed the makeup of IT...It clearly has. The wider the rules get the larger the change will be.



The E36 also had a governor at 128 mph, but was easily fooled [edit: legally] with the old ECU rules. I suspect the same is true of the Nissan.

On a different note, a lot of people talk about the benefits of VVT with upgraded ECU's. Which cars are supposed to be taking advantage of this? Every one I'm aware of in IT is basically digital (including the E36), though I'm not sure about the 2 liter Alfa's...

Grafton


[This message has been edited by GKR_17 (edited November 18, 2004).]

C. Ludwig
11-18-2004, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by planet6racing:
Dammit, I've had it. Everyone keeps on complaining about this rule, but no one will answer the question:

HAS THIS CHANGED IT?

Has the balance been upset? If not, what's the big friggin' deal? Are you upset that your neighbor is out spending you on his car? Big deal. There will always be someone out spending you (just look at GT1). Get over it.

Until someone can show how this is "ruining competition in IT" I don't think anyone, especially the ITAC and CRB should even bother to look at it. It is not value added.



Has it changed for me? Yes. I know what the air fuel ratios are for my car. I have mapped them. I have had the car to the dyno several times. Under the old rule I could only tune with the pressure regulator. Now I have the option to throw a lot of money at the car and yes there are gains to be made. For example a datalog I'm looking at right now that was run with a stock ECU shows A/F ratios at 16:1 @ 4000 rpm, 14:1 @ 5700, and 11.5:1 @ the power peak of 7500. The graph is a more or less straight line from the way too lean 4000rpm to the way too rich 7500. Tell me there is not legitimate power to be had from a flat graph in the 14-15:1 range? Adjusting the pressure regulator effects power at all RPM but playing with the computer will show gains top to bottom. End result is a faster car. Period.

Now here I am thinking that I have the experience and knowledge to spend around $1000 including used EMS and dyno time to extract that power if the ECU was free. But under the current rule I'll likely have to spend another $1000 to have someone install my ECU of choice into the factory box. For what purpose should I spend the extra $1000 to modify the aftermarket ECU to "look" stock? Speedsource is selling bolt-in Motec systems for a reported $3500. The basic Motec system ca be had on Ebay right now for $2400AUD (~$1870US). Why should I have to pay Speedsource or anyone $1600 more for the system than I really should have too? If the ECU is truely going to be free (I'll admit that wasn't the concept but it is the reality) why should it be made more difficult and expensive to make the modification? So some can say that we tried to keep it close to stock but we can't stop people from spending alot of money? Bah!

I was actually against the rule to open up the ECU in the first place and would be in favor of going back to that. Even if it can't be policed. There will always be people who cheat. Let them have their trophy.



------------------
Chris Ludwig
08 ITS RX7 CenDiv

Bill Miller
11-18-2004, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:As an additional note, the CRB contacted me and asked specifically that we be careful in how we suggest rewording any rules to avoid making existing cars illegal. So, similiarly to the idea of reclassifying the RX-7 to ITB and considering making all their 7" wheels suddenly illegal, we have to keep this in mind here, regardless of what might have happened with remote resevoir shocks or Production sequestial shift transmissions...



Darin,

No such consideration seems to have been given when moving any of the other cars from ITA to ITB. But, it's nice to know that the CRB doesn't have the sack to change a bad rule because it might cost someone some money!

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

Banzai240
11-18-2004, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin,

No such consideration seems to have been given when moving any of the other cars from ITA to ITB. But, it's nice to know that the CRB doesn't have the sack to change a bad rule because it might cost someone some money!



And THAT folks, would be Mr. Millers first attempt to discredit me on this thread, and a rather blatent attempt to sidetrack this conversation...

But, I'll respond, in the interest of addressing the topic at hand.

#1) Owners of these cars ASKED to be reclassified... No one is ASKING If they can have their Modified ECUs taken away...

#2) HOW would YOU know exactly what was or wasn't considered in these moves from ITA to ITB?

#3) You seem to be the only one complaining about it...

#4) News for you... Racing cost money. ANY change to the current rule will cost SOMEONE money. Just reality. Has nothing to do with having "sack"... and everything to do with trying to make the most reasonable moves...


------------------
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 18, 2004).]

Joe Harlan
11-18-2004, 10:22 PM
Did Miller say something?

George, one other thought here. If the Motec was not a performance gain I don't think the big dogs would be working so hard to make it fit a stock box.
I also forgot to say that the sensor values for the motec are mostly bosch based but can be programed for any custom value desired so the OE harness and sensors is not a restriction in anyway.

planet6racing
11-18-2004, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Lets see E36 was classed before open ECU rule.....now where are we at.

I'll give you more....
240sx,CRX in ITA were classed before current ECU rules. The 240sx had a 115MPH speedlimiter when it was classed...Don't act like it has not changed the makeup of IT...It clearly has. The wider the rules get the larger the change will be.



Woo Hoo! Finally, some data!!

OK, 240sx had a 115 mph speed limiter. How many tracks (I can think of 1) does this come into play at? The only place I ever come close to my 124 mph speed limiter is at Road America, and that is only with running smaller tires than the stock size. I think the same stands for the BMW.

Since I wasnt' racing before the changing, can someone post some results on how the CRX was doing before the rule change? I have a feeling that it was either still up front or under development, but I'd love to be proven wrong.


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

Geo
11-18-2004, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
George, one other thought here. If the Motec was not a performance gain I don't think the big dogs would be working so hard to make it fit a stock box.

I understand Joe. Again, please realize I'm not trying to argue. I started off poorly. I am challenging to try to cut the BS from the real.

OK, towards that end...

I still wonder how this plays against my feeling that a Motec is mainly an advantage for ease of adjustment and tuning? In other words, let's say someone wants to optimze their maps (individual or a shop). They could spend time with a Motec hooked up to their stock harness, tune the hell out of it, and then transfer the same values to remap their factory ECU, yes? Now, if I had a Motec, I'd sure rather have it fit the stock box for convenience.

I realize that the resolution of the Motec is greater, but does it really make more hp in the mid-range? And if it goes open loop at WOT, you should be able to get the same hp output from a remapped factory ECU shouldn't you?

Sorry to bombard you with all the questions. You're the only sucker, er, person willing to respond with this knowledge. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


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

Geo
11-18-2004, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by planet6racing:
Woo Hoo! Finally, some data!!

OK, 240sx had a 115 mph speed limiter. How many tracks (I can think of 1) does this come into play at? The only place I ever come close to my 124 mph speed limiter is at Road America, and that is only with running smaller tires than the stock size. I think the same stands for the BMW.

Actually, our SE-R will redline 4th (~125 mph) at TWS and do nearly the same (~120 mph) at TMS, our two closest tracks.

That said, factory speed limiters are usually pretty easy to work around.


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

Banzai240
11-18-2004, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
I realize that the resolution of the Motec is greater, but does it really make more hp in the mid-range? And if it goes open loop at WOT, you should be able to get the same hp output from a remapped factory ECU shouldn't you?

George, in the words of a wise man, peak hp is good for show, but average HP is what wins races...

It takes HP to make HP... The short answer to your question is YES...

Check out this website that Joe posted, if you haven't already...

http://www.200sxs13.nismo.org/technical_in...#aftermarketECU (http://www.200sxs13.nismo.org/technical_information.html#aftermarketECU)



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

Geo
11-19-2004, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
George, in the words of a wise man, peak hp is good for show, but average HP is what wins races...

But I'm not talking about peak hp. I'm talking about the WOT map. If they are both open loop, it should be pretty doggone simple to make them dang near the same. What would matter then is the part throttle maps and my question has to be, how much of a difference to the part throttle maps play into the equation? Other than corner exit, I don't see folks spending any real meaningful time at part throttle where the maps would make any real impact.

Here's my reasoning. At part throttle you are making less that full hp. Therefore maps that are not optimal are a non-issue unless they are total trash. You just add throttle to put down the power you need. It's really the WOT maps that are going to have the big effect.

Where have I gone wrong?



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

Bill Miller
11-19-2004, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
And THAT folks, would be Mr. Millers first attempt to discredit me on this thread, and a rather blatent attempt to sidetrack this conversation...

But, I'll respond, in the interest of addressing the topic at hand.

#1) Owners of these cars ASKED to be reclassified... No one is ASKING If they can have their Modified ECUs taken away...

#2) HOW would YOU know exactly what was or wasn't considered in these moves from ITA to ITB?

#3) You seem to be the only one complaining about it...

#4) News for you... Racing cost money. ANY change to the current rule will cost SOMEONE money. Just reality. Has nothing to do with having "sack"... and everything to do with trying to make the most reasonable moves...




Not quite sure how anything I said was meant to 'discredit' you, but that's ok, keep making it up as you go along.


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

shwah
11-19-2004, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Better go check the PCS... The only thing "production" about a Production cars FI system is the intake manifold... The ECUs, etc., are pretty much open, which is why you see guys building "Megasquirt" systems, etc., for their Prod cars...
I guess this shows some ignorance on my part. The only production cars that I know much about both run GP with CIS injection systems. One set the fast traps at the runoffs. The other one finished 4th. I didn't realize they had such an open field for the ecu as well. My mistake.


Originally posted by Banzai240:
If "policing" ECUs is so easy, perhaps you can give us some suggestions on how you'd do it?
Look again. I never said it was easy. I said that is why I believe we have the rule we have now. My point was "it's not easy to tell who's cheating" could be applied to a lot of other things. Regardless of how easy or hard it is to enforce, the ECU rule as it is now does not fit MY impression of what the improved touring class is.

Chris

edits to put in left out words...

[This message has been edited by shwah (edited November 18, 2004).]

Banzai240
11-19-2004, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
Other than corner exit, I don't see folks spending any real meaningful time at part throttle where the maps would make any real impact.

Even if the whole point were getting off the corner better than the next guy, that's a HUGE advantage...

I can only tell you what I've seen, as I've never used one myself... but I have been directly involved with cars that have them... if I have the option of tuning EVERY point along the curve to it's optimum, and you don't have that same option... I'm in better shape. I don't think you are in WOT as much as you might think, and corner speeds, getting off the corner, etc., make or break a car...

Further, anything that can make the job of setting all this up easier, is an advantage...

The bottom line is really this... IF it WEREN'T an advantage, WHY would people be paying so much to do it???



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

Banzai240
11-19-2004, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by shwah:
Look again. I never said it was easy. I said that is why I believe we have the rule we have now. My point was "it's not easy to tell who's cheating" could be applied to a lot of other things. Regardless of how easy or hard it is to enforce, the ECU rule as it is now does not fit MY impression of what the improved touring class is.

Chris



OK, that's understandable, but what IS your "impression of what the Improved Touring class is."???

Also, perhaps we'd get further with this (and I'd have come across less arogant... sorry about that...) if I had replaced "easy" with "possible"... I'll try again:

Can you give us some suggestions on how policing ECUs might be "possible"???

I just can't think of any practical way to do it in an amatuer, Regional level series like IT... Perhaps you guys have something in mind that would work??

------------------
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 18, 2004).]

Knestis
11-19-2004, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
... IF it WEREN'T an advantage, WHY would people be paying so much to do it???


Not saying that high-tech engine management isn't an advantage but the truth is that some people will spend the dough just because they can.

How much faster does a Stack dash make someone? Have you seen them in IT cars? Sure...

K

Joe Harlan
11-19-2004, 01:28 AM
OK George your right I am a sucker. to answer your question the Motec has a programed WOT....Actually thats the beauty of the Motec is it is never in closed loop unless you don't know how to program then you can run it that way I guess....It can compensate for small to med needs in the map if of signals but not the same as OEM.

Lets just look at the part throttle value. If I make make the engine make 10 more HP at part throttle say 5500rpm as an example. and lets say 5500 was my perfect rpm for corner exit in 3rd gear. would I not have the advantage of more acceleration of the corner? If I am aking 10 more HP I must be making more torque also? Now again races are not won on top speed they are won with average speed. I can show you data from Mid-o where we gave up 4 MPH topend and put the car on the pole by doing so. We made the car better with a different map that caused the car to be faster in the key parts of the track. Again I ask if it isn't worth it why would they do it.
As to your other question you will never get an OEM box to map the same way as a stand alone be cause you cannot dial it in close enough to a stand alone to find the same advantages. I don't say all this because of any personal interest. actually I could be building Motecs for Nissan IT cars and making money. I have worked on many different IT cars over the last 10 years and I think Open or even the rule we have hurts the playing field in a way we may never come back from if we go to much further. Allowing the stock ECU to be modified is equal to allowing jets and needles in carbs. Allowing a free ECU can not be compensated for in our current system.
The speed limiter can be hit at PIR with a 4:37 gearset in a 240sx. While I understand they can be tricked in an early car the 95 to 98 cars must have them written out of the loop in the software. Again the cars were classed with them there. I am sure there are plenty of first gen RX7's and MR2's that would say the 240 and the CRX effected ITA when the rule was opened up.

Geo
11-19-2004, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
OK George your right I am a sucker.

Well, thanks for hanging in there. I was certainly not laughing at you. I said that totally tongue-in-cheek.


Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Lets just look at the part throttle value. If I make make the engine make 10 more HP at part throttle say 5500rpm as an example. and lets say 5500 was my perfect rpm for corner exit in 3rd gear. would I not have the advantage of more acceleration of the corner? If I am aking 10 more HP I must be making more torque also?

OK, it's late here and I may not be thinking of this in the right way, so please bear with me a bit further.

My assumption is when we're not at WOT we have some reserve on tap that a little more throttle application can call up. Furthermore, I'm assuming that we only call up the power that can be put down to the ground right up until WOT.

It's a little simplistic (perhaps a lot, I'm tired), but if we look at the friction circle, until we get close to pure forward acceleration, we cannot use WOT and my assumption is again that we have more on tap in reserve that we don't call up because we cannot use it. So part throttle becomes less important. Perhaps my "model" is just too simple (I may be embarassed when I read this tomorrow http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif ).


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

Joe Harlan
11-19-2004, 03:00 AM
Actually I think youare trying hard not to get it so I am not going to continue to spend time with it.

Lastly you comment about not being able to use it......Now add traction control and you have found a definate advantage that wasn't there in the factory ECU...

Thanks for the entertainment and I hope other CRB and ITAC folks learned something.

Joe

Eagle7
11-19-2004, 07:26 AM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Actually I think you are trying hard not to get it so I am not going to continue to spend time with it. </font>
I'm with Geo on this one. He's not talking about RPM, but about throttle position. Why do you need more power when you're not at WOT?

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Thanks for the entertainment and I hope other CRB and ITAC folks learned something.</font>
Sigh... Trying to start another fight?

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

chipbond
11-19-2004, 11:02 AM
So why does a production racer post here to the IT site? Well, as I stated a couple weeks ago, we are the only production car required to run an IT engine specification. Not an enviable position, as I’m sure you realize. We find ourselves monitoring the two sets of rules and two sets of rule-makers and hope that once in a great while, something transpires that benefits us. It must be obvious that the two rule sets are never examined with our particular case, and the impact to us, in mind. Thought engine management is open to the rest of production, until the IT ECU rule, it was not to us.

As I stated, I have done the ECU conversion to three of the Caterham EP cars. It IS a benefit, no doubt. But the figures being thrown around for the ultimate cost by the nay-sayers are laughable. I’m not an EE. Advanced, specialized education is not a requisite. Nor does it require any special skills or tools or insight or magic. If you can wire a relay, or keep your brake lights working, you can do the conversion.

In our case the Ford ECU connector is a 104 pin unit. Daunting?...hardly. Go to the factory manual, find the ECU pin-out and eliminate circuits related to automatic transmissions, warning buzzers, emissions and all the other unnecessary items and you are left with maybe 25 circuits that need to be wired to the new board. In our case we retain; injection, crank signal, air temp, coolant temp, TPS and spark. You may wish to retain radiator fan and a few others.

From there it’s a question of wiring your 20 to 30 circuits from the pins of the new ECU to the pins of the stock ECU. Solder and adhesive lined shrink tubing can be had for 10 bucks. In our case we had to mill the inside of the case to allow fitment within the housing. IF the case were allowed to be modified, then any conceivable aftermarket ECU could be used.

Hard costs:

ECU $800
Doner factory ECU from junk yard: $65
9 pin sub D connector from Radio Shack $5
Sublet desolder of 104 pin connector from factory board $30
Wiring supplies $20
(OK) pencil style soldering iron $30
aluminum and fastners for new chassis support $15
standoffs $5
dyno development of calibration ($2500 split 5 ways) $500
interface cable from manufacturer $80

Total: $1550/car

As mentioned, 10-12 hours conversion time was required.

Come on guys, these are real numbers, it can be done by anyone with any sense. If you can find 3-6 others running the same vehicle, the dyno costs should be as shown above. If not, buy a wide band oxygen sensor (lambda boy) for $275 and monitor real mixture under real conditions to develop your fuel map.

Some say that the “haves” are the only ones that can afford to do this conversion. They hold that they will have to spend the same dollars to stay competitive. I think it is more a question of fear of a new, unfamiliar, technology that keeps us stagnant. Like painting your car, or rebuilding your engine, this is just one more skill set that budget racers should investigate and develop. The “haves” will continue to farm out all the above because their time is worth more than the costs of professional preparation. It will always be that way. You can bet your shirt that someone, somewhere will outspend you. But at $1500, how big of an issue can this be, given the benefits? Oh yes, let me repeat, $10,000 Motec conversions may exist...but so too do Carbon Fiber race wheels at $3000 a set and $80,000 tow rigs.

Keep the ECU rule but allow modification to the factory housing.

Chip Bond
GT Classics
Barboursville, Virginia

Joe Harlan
11-19-2004, 12:09 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Sigh... Trying to start another fight?</font>

Sorry that was not my intent.....

zracre
11-19-2004, 12:15 PM
That does not seem legal as you are modifying the plug to the stock ecu....easily found in impound when they look at the connector...and are you wiring in another ecu??? like a piggyback unit???

[This message has been edited by zracre (edited November 19, 2004).]

chipbond
11-19-2004, 12:43 PM
Zracer

The harness and its connector remain untouched. The mating connector from the stock ecu remains untouched other than being desoldered from the original board.

Sorry if that was not clear.

Chip Bond
GT Classics.

Banzai240
11-19-2004, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by chipbond:
Zracer

The harness and its connector remain untouched. The mating connector from the stock ecu remains untouched other than being desoldered from the original board.

Sorry if that was not clear.

Chip Bond
GT Classics.

Chip,

Thank you VERY MUCH for sharing this with us... You make some great points and really added to this conversation.




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

apr67
11-19-2004, 01:18 PM
Chip.

Thanks for adding fuel to the fire. But can I ask you a question? Or serveral?

Do you really think you are done? With the amount of dyno time you did, it sounds like quite a simple fuel and ignition map, do you belive their is no room to improve?

What kind of Dyno? Did you do adjustmets for top HP, or did you adjust to improve the total area under the curve?

Is any of this going to need to change when you change headers? Fuel?

Stock computers generally bow out a Full Throttle. An aftermarket computer doesn't have to. Can the gains be great? It would depend on how you measure great. But if you and a buddy race the same cars and he gets 1% more power/torque under the curve than you, you lost.

Geo
11-19-2004, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by apr67:
Stock computers generally bow out a Full Throttle. An aftermarket computer doesn't have to. Can the gains be great? It would depend on how you measure great. But if you and a buddy race the same cars and he gets 1% more power/torque under the curve than you, you lost.

Ok, now see, here is where I am trying to get down to earth with this question. I know you just threw out the 1% figure, but let's say an E36 can make an additional 1%. That's a smidgeon above 2 bhp. My answer is "so what?" There are so many little things in an engine build if you don't get them exactly right, even an experienced builder could lose more than that in a engine build. Or any of a number of things. Differences in drivers can make a bigger difference.

So what is the real number? What is the real world difference over a remapped factory ECU (not a stock mapped one)?


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

Joe Harlan
11-19-2004, 05:28 PM
George, I would challenge to do a little research on your own here.

http://www.motec.com/definitions.htm

I am not certain you can have an general estimate of performance gain. Peak HP gain has never been the issue as far as I am concerned.

Banzai240
11-19-2004, 05:45 PM
WOT doesn't have as much to do with winning races as you guys are making it out too. Anybody can hold their foot down on the gas on the straight. Usable HP and were you get it is what wins races... You know, the times when you are balancing the car on corner exit and using something OTHER than WOT... Think about it for a moment... The ONLY time the computer goes into WOT mode, is when the throttle-position-sensor (TPS) is signalling it to do so. Otherwise, you are in whatever other map curve the ECU has selected. THIS is where the finer granularity comes into play. WOT maps have little to do with this mode, and this is where you are going to spend a descent % of your lap...

If it were Drag Racing, you guys would have a point, but it's not...

Go do some research on what you can do with one of these things (MOTEC), and it might open up some ideas on what you might be able to do, and not to do, with your modified stock piece...

A modified stock piece can be good, but a MOTEC, et.al., can be made to be GREAT...

Think about that 2hp you mentioned above... In a class like ITB or ITC, that's worth about 38lbs of weight... In ITA or ITS, about 30lbs...

How much would you have to spend on wheels, or other weight savings measures, to get that much weight off the car?? Or, perhaps a better question... how much would it be worth if your car was at it's minimum weight, but had the benefit of having the additional power to accelerate as if it were 38lbs lighter, assuming only a 2hp increase at any point in the curve???

As an example... assume that an car makes 150hp at the flywheel and is spec'd at 2380lbs. That's a 15.86 wt/pwr ratio. 152hp would make that a 15.66 wt/pwr ratio... 0.2 better... I think that's significant... Now, imagine being able to fine tune your system to have that kind of gain over the entire map? To be able to finely optimize EVERY point...

------------------
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 19, 2004).]

Bill Miller
11-19-2004, 06:17 PM
George,

There are folks out there running $30+/gallon fuel to get those extra 1-2 hp. You keep dismissing small hp gains as insignificant. Also, as others have pointed out, it's really the area under the curve, not the peak value.

Even if you got no more hp from a MoTec system, but you broadened your powerband by 1000 rpm, it would be a significant advantage.

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

Joe Harlan
11-19-2004, 06:26 PM
Thanks Bill,
If I knew how to communicate I could have said that well.

Joe

John Herman
11-19-2004, 06:35 PM
George, if its any consolation, I understand what you're trying to get at. Unfortunately, I don't know that I can ask your question(s) any better to get a better understanding/response.

GKR_17
11-19-2004, 07:06 PM
I'm with George on this one. If you're not at WOT, then you either need to be, or you have more than enough power at that time. If you improve the power at that throttle position next time (assuming you're fully at the limit) you'll need even less gas. The tires can only handle so much force.

If this is what people are buying MOTEC for I'm amazed...

Grafton

Quickshoe
11-19-2004, 07:34 PM
My data aq showed that in my Rx7 I was at 100% throttle over 85% of the time at WSIR. In the Vee it is probably closer to 95% (no DA yet). That is about 12% of the time during braking and 2% during shifting, 1% where my foot and brain had different ideas.

As far as George's argument I see the logic. If you aren't at full throttle because your tires/chassis can't handle the application of more power, then when you make more power you are going to have to give it less throttle netting the same HP.

But now you have the same HP at less throttle, so even with the same HP at full throttle you will be making more power everywhere in between.

Who has dyno runs at 3/4 throttle anyways?

[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited November 19, 2004).]

shwah
11-19-2004, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
OK, that's understandable, but what IS your "impression of what the Improved Touring class is."???
It has a nearly stock motor, it has stock carb or fuel injection system (and computer), it has better shocks/springs/anti-roll bars, it has less weight than stock and lots of safety equipment. Again, I enjoy the class as it is, but it is my opinion that the allowance of any engine control that fits in a certain box is too far for IT cars.


Originally posted by Banzai240:
Also, perhaps we'd get further with this (and I'd have come across less arogant... sorry about that...) if I had replaced "easy" with "possible"... I'll try again:

Can you give us some suggestions on how policing ECUs might be "possible"???
Unfortunately I don't really know. I know that sucks but I'm really far from an expert on this subject.

I am one of those guys who does not want to cheat. I believe that the majority of my competitors are those kinds of guys too. So with the old rule I like to think that most cars were 'clean'. I am sure some of them were not, and I have no idea how to fix that - but I imagine that those people will do, or are doing other things beyond the rules (intentionally) becuase they place less value on the integrity of following the rules, and more value on winning plastic trophies.

There is a big difference between interpreting a rule differently, or doing something illegal out of ignorance and actively trying to cheat without getting caught. I think (maybe hope) that the vast majority of IT racers are in the former rather than latter category. If you look at this without assuming that everyone will be cheating then enforcement does not become as big of an issue in my mind (I am not saying it is not required).

Of course having said that...The more I think about it, I guess If I were smart I would be pulling for a more open rule. If I could run a MAP based Meqasquirt system, I could ditch the massive restriction that is the CIS air meter in my intake tract. OTOH when you consider that plenty of people have seen 160+ whp with this system on modified engines it makes you wonder if the fuel injection system would make much difference with stock head, valves, cam.

Chris



[This message has been edited by shwah (edited November 19, 2004).]

Geo
11-19-2004, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
WOT doesn't have as much to do with winning races as you guys are making it out too. Anybody can hold their foot down on the gas on the straight. Usable HP and were you get it is what wins races... You know, the times when you are balancing the car on corner exit and using something OTHER than WOT...

Thank you for that lead-in. Let's talk about this for a moment. You're balancing the traction at corner exit. You're at part throttle. Why part throttle? Because WOT will deliver more power to the tires than they can use and you will lose traction. So what good does having 2 or 20 more hp at part throttle do for you? Nothing, because you CAN'T use it. The only thing that will make a difference is throttle tip-in response. Think about it.


Originally posted by Banzai240:
Think about it for a moment... The ONLY time the computer goes into WOT mode, is when the throttle-position-sensor (TPS) is signalling it to do so. Otherwise, you are in whatever other map curve the ECU has selected. THIS is where the finer granularity comes into play. WOT maps have little to do with this mode, and this is where you are going to spend a descent % of your lap...

But if you cannot use the power on tap already at part-throttle, what good is another X hp?


Originally posted by Banzai240:
Go do some research on what you can do with one of these things (MOTEC), and it might open up some ideas on what you might be able to do, and not to do, with your modified stock piece...

I looked at the web site Joe posted. The only thing I see that you can do is traction control. But since the ECU gets no chassis info, it's pretty rudimentary. The only thing you can program it for is to keep the rpm from climbing at too fast a rate. In some situations that could even be a disadvantage. This is not full-on road racing traction control with feedback from all four wheels.

Some of the Motecs can use a wideband O2 sensor. But that is ilegal in IT unless the car came with said wideband O2 sensor.

Data logging is already legal.


Originally posted by Banzai240:
A modified stock piece can be good, but a MOTEC, et.al., can be made to be GREAT...

Why? Because of the finer resolution in the map points? If so, how many hp is generated from this greater resolution. Unless I misread that website, a stock Nissan ECU has 256 rpm points. With an 8000 rpm redline, that is a point every 31.x rpm. Again, I know I don't have experience with this, but I'm dubious about how much hp can be found between the points, especially since all ECUs that I know of interpolate between the points.


Originally posted by Banzai240:
Think about that 2hp you mentioned above... In a class like ITB or ITC, that's worth about 38lbs of weight... In ITA or ITS, about 30lbs...

Thirty pounds. That's finer resolution than we can make in estimating a car's potential. I understand your point. And many people spend thousands chasing 2 hp. But is it truly significant. Botch one corner per lap, just a little, and you've lost more than you would gain from 2 hp. In a lot of cases, 2 hp is within the margin of error of a dyno or the error window of the person running the dyno.

I'm not saying 2 hp is nothing, but it's hardly worth screaming about.

I'll say again, I AM and always have been against the wording of the current rule that allows the Motec to be used. I don't think it fits the class philosophy. What I'm trying to get down to is how much real world difference does a Motec make over an equally well remapped factory ECU? I further have said that I think the real advantage of the Motec is the ease of adjusting it (tuning). The other advantage is that it offers a solution for some cars that otherwise have no aftermarket solution.



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

chipbond
11-19-2004, 08:54 PM
Our engine application, Ford Contour/Mercury Mystique, never came from Ford with any aspirations other than dependable transportation. Testing in 2003 we hooked an OBD scanner to the car on track and learned it went open loop, retarded timing and increased fueling at WOT. While these changes were happening, the car fell on it's face and, really...no kidding, other competitors would hit us in our butt....

The stock system is a VCT on exhaust only that maintains a large overlap at low RPMs (reducing emmissions) and a small overlap on midrange and higher (maxing torque). Great for a 4-door grocery getter, but not anyting any self respecting IT competitor would ever consider for sprint racing. That was our lot and the engine was codified by the CRB in 2001(?).

The ECU rule and the "or replace" language was a God send for us. Where before the stock rev limiter kicked in at 6900 RPM we now pull cleanly to 7300. And the Ford techs designing the system, knowing the engine would never see anything other than 6900 did not work on tables beyond that figure...why bother? It will get the kids to soccer practice just fine.

Am I avoiding the direct question....Yep. Lets just say that it's good for 400 RPM and peak Hp is several times the 1-2 HP increase. With a Cd of .62 our lap times at Summit and Mid-O are about a second quicker. It's a bunch.

Will it work for you in the same way? I think most of the modern IT entries were designed and sold as performance sports cars or sports salons. Their design teams envisioned something much different than the mini-van motor we are required to run. I don't know, but I'd expect that you typically would not see the same gain we have. You will see some... and the benefits don't stop there. Go to Colorado and throw an overall fuel factor decrease of -15% at it, it will probably like it. Takes about 3 minutes. Check plugs (or EGT's or wide-band O2) and see you are still fat, go to -18%. You won't miss a session trying to adjust the fuel pressure regulator or change out a resistor in the coolant temp circuit. Running too hot? throw a litte more fuel at it and turn on the fan at 160. Another 2-3 minutes.

I've rambled. Thanks for listening. Cheers.

Chip Bond

Geo
11-19-2004, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by chipbond:
The ECU rule and the "or replace" language was a God send for us. Where before the stock rev limiter kicked in at 6900 RPM we now pull cleanly to 7300. And the Ford techs designing the system, knowing the engine would never see anything other than 6900 did not work on tables beyond that figure...why bother? It will get the kids to soccer practice just fine.

Ok, I can understand this one.


Originally posted by chipbond:
Am I avoiding the direct question....Yep. Lets just say that it's good for 400 RPM and peak Hp is several times the 1-2 HP increase. With a Cd of .62 our lap times at Summit and Mid-O are about a second quicker. It's a bunch.

Chip, don't forget, I'm not talking about 1-2 hp over a bone stock ECU. I'm talking about over and above what an equally remapped factory ECU can make. I strongly suspect you're comparing to a bone stock ECU (but certainly could be wrong). It's quite possible the additional 400 rpm yields a greater hp increase, but most IT spec engines don't make additional hp above the stock redline. They just get more range to work with. Can you tell me if my guess above is correct? You don't have to reveal any secrets.


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

chipbond
11-20-2004, 12:21 AM
Geo

Fair question. The cam phasing issue on our engine may contribute 50% or so. We did not spend a lot of time on the dyno with permutations. I cannnot speak to any gain from a "remapped" to a "replaced" ECU.

We never had any success with remapped ECUs (though several were provided by persons within the Ford loop).Driver feedback was always that it was a tad better in midrange, but nothing up top. No hard dyno numbers were obtained. Understandable, since it was the WOT tables when it went open loop. And we did not find anyone who would take a crack at the tables. Nor did we see any help with resistors.

Please keep in mind I'm here from a unique perspective. We are production and our spec line overrides some IT build specs. Issues here affect us, but maybe not as directly as the rest of the IT community. Twice in the last 5 years rulings have made all the Caterhams illegal...now...right NOW and in any form. It's not that the CRB intended it. More, its an oversight where we fell between the cracks..because we are working two separate rule sets. And, brother, if you want complexity, well...


I'm off the box now.
Best
Chip Bond

ShelbyRacer
11-20-2004, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
Thank you for that lead-in. Let's talk about this for a moment. You're balancing the traction at corner exit. You're at part throttle. Why part throttle? Because WOT will deliver more power to the tires than they can use and you will lose traction. So what good does having 2 or 20 more hp at part throttle do for you? Nothing, because you CAN'T use it. The only thing that will make a difference is throttle tip-in response. Think about it.

And thank YOU for that lead in...

I program my own ECU's. Granted, not for any IT cars, but for something much more interesting.

Point is, transition *response* is much more important than horsepower. Even with the typical mods allowed in IT, the stock computer can make mistakes on transition. This is because of a lower number of waypoints and BLM (block learn module or mode) regions. On transition from one region to another, you can have, um, hiccups at times. If this happens coming off the turn while applying throttle at traction limit, your results may vary http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif . Also, BLM's affect long-term fuel trim numbers, which affect WOT maps (these cannot be locked in most ECU setups without hard-editing the hex code). If your ECU is constantly hunting for the correct map, it will tend to vary car response, which is not the most desirable thing.
Most of all, there's the issue that all stock ECU's require closed loop to function even reasonably well at part-throttle, and if you're running leaded fuel or something exotic, your O2 sensor may not be, shall we say, reliable. Mapping solid forms on all open loop mode allows the car to run very consistently (even if it may not be optimized at that moment) and therefore make it be subject to the driver, rather than vice-versa.
With stock style ECU's, emissions, part-throttle driveability (with stock parts only), and component longevity were the primary concerns, so closed loop is the best choice. Under racing conditions with modifications, the lack of processing power, low number of modifyable blocks, and the interconnection of all feedback systems are all limiting factors, and using an aftermarket ECU allows you to take control of the situation, rather than having to work against the instincts of the car system.

Make more sense?


------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

[This message has been edited by ShelbyRacer (edited November 19, 2004).]

Geo
11-20-2004, 01:46 AM
Originally posted by chipbond:
Please keep in mind I'm here from a unique perspective. We are production and our spec line overrides some IT build specs. Issues here affect us, but maybe not as directly as the rest of the IT community. Twice in the last 5 years rulings have made all the Caterhams illegal...now...right NOW and in any form. It's not that the CRB intended it. More, its an oversight where we fell between the cracks..because we are working two separate rule sets. And, brother, if you want complexity, well...

Actually Chip, you've provided some excellent insight. In some ways, what you've just provided makes me much more open to believing the Motec does have a place in IT. For cars that you can't get a remapped ECU or one that works worth a damn, the Motec (or something similar) may be the only option. Either way it's a really tough call.


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

Geo
11-20-2004, 01:56 AM
Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
Make more sense?


Indeed it does. Thank you Matt.

I understand throttle response (transients) are an issue and figured a remapped factory ECU could be mapped to work nearly as well. Perhaps not. I get what you're saying.

Care to take a guess at the hp differences between a stand-alone and a well remapped factory ECU, driveability aside? It also sounds like you're saying that in open loop there is more than one map. Is this correct? If so, can you explain or if not can you correct me?

I know the Motec is more powerful (not talking ECU, talking mapping and processing) than factory ECUs. The real question for me remains just how much additional power can be made over an equally well remapped factory ECU. I mean, basically you have air, fuel, ignition advance, and in some cases, cam timing to work with. Thanks for hanging in there.


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

ShelbyRacer
11-20-2004, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
Care to take a guess at the hp differences between a stand-alone and a well remapped factory ECU, driveability aside? It also sounds like you're saying that in open loop there is more than one map. Is this correct? If so, can you explain or if not can you correct me?

I know the Motec is more powerful (not talking ECU, talking mapping and processing) than factory ECUs. The real question for me remains just how much additional power can be made over an equally well remapped factory ECU. I mean, basically you have air, fuel, ignition advance, and in some cases, cam timing to work with. Thanks for hanging in there.




Well, again, I'd say it's not so much of a power issue, as much as it's a consistency issue. While there is only one real WOT map, it can change on the fly on a stock setup from changes to the long-term block learn numbers. Now, this adaptability can be good because if the stock system is tuned properly, it will actually try to keep the car in optimal tune. Problem is, if conditions vary drastically from, say, qualifying to racing, the car will be trying to adapt while you're racing, and as it does, it will change data points. If they don't all change at the same rate (and the NEVER do), you'll get weird reactions from the car on transients, which is just the time you don't want the car to be unpredicatable.

One other issue I didn't think to mention is that early ECUs will run a 2D table map with scaling modification of values, while I would assume MOTEC runs a 3D surface map. With this difference alone, you're talking about a system that operates much more smoothly. You need three axes because your lookups are TPS vs. MAP vs. RPM. The 3D tables make a surface plot that allows the ECU to direct read a value, while the old systems use multiple 2D tables and make the ECU jump back and forth comparing values.

Again, I'd say it's not about power. but to put it in those terms- I'd say both systems are capable of making a smooth curve which makes. lets say, 200hp at a certain point. Difference is, on a day where conditions are not perfect, the MOTEC may make 195hp at this point and be happy with that (actually, it just won't care). The stock ECU will attempt to get you back to where you were, but it doing so, might make 190hp one time, 196hp the next time, 194hp the next time, 201hp the next time, 198hp the next time, etc. and by the way, that imagine that 194-201 jump happening while feathering the throttle at the limit of traction while coming out of the infield onto the bowl portion of your typical oval/road course track...

Oh, and now imagine having a turbo car that does that through a corner, but the difference now being 250hp-290hp since the boost curves are also affected...

DISCLAIMER- I am very aware of the difference between torque and HP, but since the question was asked in terms of HP, that's what I used.


------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

Knestis
11-20-2004, 05:18 PM
I know that this strand isn't about carbs but part way through Matt's last explanation, it struck me that anyone with OE management systems who thinks that advanced technology systems aren't fair should really sympathize with the "carb guys" argument against FI tweaks being allowed in the first place.

I think it's a safe summation to say that the difference between a plain-Jane OE system (diddled or otherwise) and a really good race system, boils down to "faster and more often." Stock injection's advantage over a carb is that adjustments happen "faster and more often," too.

This doesn't mean that I don't think a more liberal rule might be a better answer, if we are truly as constrained as it seems, of course.

K

stevel
11-22-2004, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by Geo:

I still wonder how this plays against my feeling that a Motec is mainly an advantage for ease of adjustment and tuning? In other words, let's say someone wants to optimze their maps (individual or a shop). They could spend time with a Motec hooked up to their stock harness, tune the hell out of it, and then transfer the same values to remap their factory ECU, yes? Now, if I had a Motec, I'd sure rather have it fit the stock box for convenience.


it's never that easy. "Values" are never the same. On a program with a gui such as motec you have values that might or might not mean something. In a stock ecu if you're truly hacking the values, you're probably modifying hex numbers. And trying to get rpm and load points matched up is a mess and usually is not a good solution. You're better off just remapping the stock ecu, dyno, change values, dyno again, etc.


Originally posted by Geo:


I realize that the resolution of the Motec is greater, but does it really make more hp in the mid-range? And if it goes open loop at WOT, you should be able to get the same hp output from a remapped factory ECU shouldn't you?



motec is used for a reason, and besides convenience, it just makes more power. period. If you have 1/3 less points you can use, then what the stock ecu does is interpolate that value based on the values before and after and usually just makes a linear relationship. In actuality that relationship usually isn't linear. What would you rather have? Your stock remapped ecu guessing at values based on others or a precise value that you came to based on tuning?

And if you add VVT to the mix it just makes a greater difference because it's another variable added to the mix. Like someone said, the big dogs are doing it because it works. Just wait til we see variable valve AND cam timing cars making it to IT. I assume something will be clarified by then, but if not the difference will be night and day.

steve




[This message has been edited by stevel (edited November 22, 2004).]

Geo
11-22-2004, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by stevel:
motec is used for a reason, and besides convenience, it just makes more power.

Ok, how much more? In the end there is one ideal fuel/air mixture.


Originally posted by stevel:
If you have 1/3 less points you can use, then what the stock ecu does is interpolate that value based on the values before and after and usually just makes a linear relationship. In actuality that relationship usually isn't linear. What would you rather have? Your stock remapped ecu guessing at values based on others or a precise value that you came to based on tuning?

OK, a stock Nissan ECU (for example) has a point each 31.x rpm (unless I really blew the math). How much more power can be generated by having an accurate value every 10.x rpm? That's basically what we're talking about.


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

Jeremy Billiel
12-12-2004, 11:33 PM
I do not mean to bring this up again, but with the new ECU rule in the Jan Fastrack I have a question. Could one modify the ECU case in order to run a cable to datalog?

------------------
Coming Soon: 1995 ITS Acura Integra

Eagle7
12-13-2004, 11:19 PM
Or even run the cable without modifying the case. I would think not.

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

Greg Amy
12-13-2004, 11:32 PM
Jeremy, the rule is very clear: it must fit within a stock unmodified ECU housing.

Note that the proposed rule also states, "The allowance to modify the ECU in no way permits the addition of wiring, sensors, or piggybacked computers outside of the OEM ECU housing."

So, I say "no".

GA

Quickshoe
12-13-2004, 11:40 PM
How do they know that your data acquisition system is actually a DA system and not an external computer actually controlling something?

Tak
12-14-2004, 03:31 AM
Self police ECU's with a simple claim rule. After the race, you can claim your competitor's ECU for the cost of a new one. Anyone want a MOTEC system cheap?

Of course, being the driver of a carburated car, It would be amusing to see a rule allowing any FI on any car. Amusing, but not cheap.

Tak

turboICE
12-15-2004, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by GregAmy:
Jeremy, the rule is very clear: it must fit within a stock unmodified ECU housing.

It is clearer than that and I wish it was worded like that - if it only had to "fit" within it wouldn't actually have to be within, just fit if it were in. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">provided that all modifications are done within the original OEM ECU housing.</font>

And what is the definition of the housing? Is it the metal case that encloses it or if the car has a housing that the ecu (including case) resides in could it be there? If the housing were considered the body cavity where the ECU is I could put an AEM in there with the OEM harnesses no problem.

[This message has been edited by turboICE (edited December 15, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by turboICE (edited December 15, 2004).]

Knestis
12-15-2004, 10:55 PM
I don't do this very often, but...

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

K

Greg Amy
12-16-2004, 09:32 AM
Yeah, me too. I'm just *not* in the mood to fight that battle...

stevel
12-16-2004, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
OK, a stock Nissan ECU (for example) has a point each 31.x rpm (unless I really blew the math). How much more power can be generated by having an accurate value every 10.x rpm? That's basically what we're talking about.


well, not every ecu has a point each 31.x rpm. That's my point. Some are every 300 rpm or much more than that. That's where the advantage lies.


Originally posted by Geo:
Ok, how much more? In the end there is one ideal fuel/air mixture.

now that's a loaded question if i ever heard one. I don't necessarily agree that one a/f mixture is the right one for the entire powerband. Some motors respond to being rich in the bottom end and lean in the top end, vice versa, or rich in the middle. So, I disagree with that statement. Also, the a/f mixture that makes the most power may not be the ideal choice as far as reliability is concerned. So, it's never that easy.

s

Geo
12-16-2004, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by stevel:
now that's a loaded question if i ever heard one. I don't necessarily agree that one a/f mixture is the right one for the entire powerband. Some motors respond to being rich in the bottom end and lean in the top end, vice versa, or rich in the middle. So, I disagree with that statement. Also, the a/f mixture that makes the most power may not be the ideal choice as far as reliability is concerned. So, it's never that easy.

I agree. But if WOT at 5000 rpm works best at X mixture, if you get that mixture built into your map, who cares if the map is in a MoTeC or a remaped factory ECU? See what I mean. I do get your point about some ECUs don't have that much resolution.

BTW, folks should be careful reading into my arguments in this discussion. It's a matter of fact finding and cutting through the BS. If I'm all wet, I'd like to know, but I'd like to know why because then I can understand it better. I DO think there are people out there who think a MoTeC can make mysterious power, but when you get right down to it, there are limited parameters to a map.

That said, I have a bit better understanding of one way a MoTeC can increase power. But now we are down to how much more? I don't believe for a second it's even 10 hp, assuming you can remap your factory ECU.

In the end, this is not a simple issue and there are a lot emotions in this issue, largely (I think) because of the dollars involved.

Now, to throw another monkey wrench into this (hey, I'm a bit of a monkey, so why not?)....

Greg mentioned one time about the Unichip. Is it not possible to install a Unichip inside the ECU box and interrupt the signal inside the box? If so, there is still opportunity for using a Unichip.

I mention this because once I said something about merely requiring the stock ECU board be in place and folks told me they could still place a MoTeC in the box with the stock board in place.



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

turboICE
12-17-2004, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
I don't do this very often, but...

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

K

I agree, I roll my eyes at most of these threads the rules are not very hard to interpret by reasonable folks - was just illustrating how silly interpreting could get. :shrugs:

Bill Miller
12-17-2004, 08:14 AM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Originally posted by Geo: I don't believe for a second it's even 10 hp, assuming you can remap your factory ECU.</font>

George,

Increase in peak hp is not the issue, it's the increase in the area under the curve. We've had this discussion before. It's entirely possible to not increase peak hp, but to signifcantly increase the area under the curve, which translates to a broader power band.

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

Geo
12-17-2004, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,

Increase in peak hp is not the issue, it's the increase in the area under the curve. We've had this discussion before. It's entirely possible to not increase peak hp, but to signifcantly increase the area under the curve, which translates to a broader power band.



I understand area under the curve quite well. But the question still remains, if mixture X at Y rpm is ideal, what's the difference if you're using a remapped factory ECU to do it or a MoTeC?

I also realize the MoTeC has finer resolution on its maps. But the question remains, how much difference in hp is there going to be?


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

Andy Bettencourt
12-17-2004, 09:38 AM
Geo,

The difference will be nothing. A map is a map. But HOW do you get the data to burn that static chip if you don't have a fully programmable unit to do the testing?

Dyno pull, examine results, tweak. Repeat hundreds of times in order to get optimum.

Now if you were an entrapanuer, you could develop using MOTEC and sell a remmapped plug-in as a product but then you have other issues:

- everyone must be using the same exact 'power package' as you. ie: filter, exhaust, internal engine configuration, fuel pressure, plugs, etc... Otherwise the data doesn't 'fit'. How ya gonna insure this?
- it doesn't take into account the aging of the engine. A remapped ECU will only be optimal for a finite period of time while the MOTEC unit can be tested and tweaked at the end of every season or x amount of hours.

It's small potatos but that is what these things are meant to smooth out and optimize.

Andy

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

x-ring
12-17-2004, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
Now, to throw another monkey wrench into this (hey, I'm a bit of a monkey, so why not?)....




So would that make you,,, CURIOUS GEORGE?

Sorry, I just couldn't let that one pass. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif



------------------
Ty Till
#16 ITS
Rocky Mountain Division

chipbond
12-17-2004, 10:21 AM
George,

Matt Green's very informative posts above include this:

"Also, BLM's affect long-term fuel trim numbers, which affect WOT maps (these cannot be locked in most ECU setups without hard-editing the hex code)."

Though I'm not certain what is involved in "hard editing", it certainly sounds beyond the ability and budget of most club racers. Even more so when, to do so will require a combined dyno/"hard editing" session.

Also keep in mind that the stock system I am most familiar with (maybe all?), looses all "learned" data whenever +12V is lost...like battery change, winter storage, etc....

I think the answer to your question is "yes" a stock ECU could, perhaps, deliver the same level of performance as an aftermarket, but the effort to get it there...AND TO KEEP IT THERE....would be a budget breaker for even the best funded efforts.

Contrast that to a one-time investment of the $1500 I describe above.

Chip Bond
#37 EP Caterham
#227042

stevel
12-17-2004, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
Geo,

The difference will be nothing. A map is a map. But HOW do you get the data to burn that static chip if you don't have a fully programmable unit to do the testing?


That's why I like pre 2001 hondas. Don't need a fully programmable unit. An EEPROM emulator, gui map editor (which are free or can be aftermarket), a wideband, serial port soldered to the stock "chipped" ecu board for datalogging and some dyno time and I can pretty much get out of it what a motec can. It's nice when there's so many people out there reverse engineering the ecu for you.

s



[This message has been edited by stevel (edited December 17, 2004).]

Geo
12-17-2004, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by chipbond:
I think the answer to your question is "yes" a stock ECU could, perhaps, deliver the same level of performance as an aftermarket, but the effort to get it there...AND TO KEEP IT THERE....would be a budget breaker for even the best funded efforts.

Contrast that to a one-time investment of the $1500 I describe above.

Chip, I have not forgotten Matt's explanation. I'm not trying to push a single point here. I actually do believe a MoTeC is an advantage, not the least of which is ease (if you call it easy) of tuning.

Looking at this from the position of a rule maker (or advisor in this case), you (or at least I have to ask, "What happens if we tried to change the rule?" (which is not in current discussion AFAIK). As Andy suggested, someone could do tuning with a MoTeC and then burn maps that match (other than resolution) in a replaceable chip. What happens if someone rigs a Unichip inside an ECU box?

I just think that A) this is not as simple as we'd like to think, and B) the MoTeC fear is (IMHO) a bit over blown. It's not going to make a mid-packer a sudden winner. It might make someone knocking on the door a winner.

That's what's going through my mind, however empty, warped, and twisted as it may be. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


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

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited December 17, 2004).]

ShelbyRacer
12-18-2004, 02:11 AM
Originally posted by chipbond:
George,

Matt Green's very informative posts above include this:

"Also, BLM's affect long-term fuel trim numbers, which affect WOT maps (these cannot be locked in most ECU setups without hard-editing the hex code)."

Though I'm not certain what is involved in "hard editing", it certainly sounds beyond the ability and budget of most club racers. Even more so when, to do so will require a combined dyno/"hard editing" session.


Wow, I feel loved! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Hard editing is going into the hex code itself and not just changing the settings and tables, but changing they way that they're read and implemented. I would compare it to suspension prep-

In IT, you can do lots of stuff, but it has to fit in the original layout essentially. This is changing the values, but the design (and its limitations) is the same as stock.

In Production (full prep), you can move pickup points and change geometry- not only are you changing the compliance value of the suspension, but also changing the way it works completely. This is "hard editing" the suspension.

I think I've finally started to better understand George's question though. At first, I thought is was a "it doesn't do anything so why do they need it/ use it/ want it?" I think now that it's a "Why not just let it free since it can't be doing that much in the grand scheme of things?"

Am I right, George?

Oh, and BTW- I'm all for open ECU rules. Someone screwed up and opened the door just enough, why not let it go?

Coming from a person who does ECU tuning (me)- I can tell you that in most applications, it's worth some hp. So is rejetting a carb and changing distributor settings. Why not make the allowance to help those who can't get their stock ECU reprogrammed? Also, I've seen calibrations that cost 3/4 or more of the cost of an aftermarket system. However in the factory vs. aftermarket vein, you're looking at relatively minute differences. Sure, in certain cases, there's features available that would be much more usable with an aftermarket ECU, but as many have asked, does it really change anything?

BEWARE- I AM ABOUT TO HIJACK THIS THREAD.

I personally would like to see the wiring rules relaxed too. There's no reason for the "stock harness in all its glory" language that's currently used. Why not ditch unused wires that result from allowed modifications? Why not custom harnesses? What's the point really? My stock harness in my turbo car would've gone up in smoke if I hadn't upgraded a few little things. Can someone give me an example of a performance gain that occured STRICTLY from the CHANGING of the wiring harness?

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

Ron Earp
12-18-2004, 09:31 AM
Hear hear on the stock wiring harness rule change. If those electronic guys can run all sort of ECUs, then what difference does it make if my electrons flow through the crappy 32 year old wires or some nice new ones?

Only difference I see is that eventually some cars would not be able to race (100% legally) due to harnesses being NLA and the originals in bad shape. Yes, in 30 years you ECU/tuner/modern car guys, it will happen to you too - so don't write the complaint off as coming from vintage/old school racers only.

I'm biased of course, I had to add wires to my car since my harness was a fire hazard and they are NLA. So now, before I even run my first race, I know I'm not 100% legal. Bad feeling, but at least I won't go up in flames on the grid.

End of thread hi-jacking - if anyone is wanting to file or write on this matter let's start another thread.

Ron

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

seckerich
12-18-2004, 11:18 AM
Ron you missed the intent of the wiring rule. Is is acceptable to "repair" any portion of your car including wires. You may replace any wires in the factory harness if you use the same guage and they are the same length. Open the harness and do the repair and close it back up. Falls under repairs must be as close as possible to factory.
Originally posted by rlearp:
Hear hear on the stock wiring harness rule change. If those electronic guys can run all sort of ECUs, then what difference does it make if my electrons flow through the crappy 32 year old wires or some nice new ones?

Only difference I see is that eventually some cars would not be able to race (100% legally) due to harnesses being NLA and the originals in bad shape. Yes, in 30 years you ECU/tuner/modern car guys, it will happen to you too - so don't write the complaint off as coming from vintage/old school racers only.

I'm biased of course, I had to add wires to my car since my harness was a fire hazard and they are NLA. So now, before I even run my first race, I know I'm not 100% legal. Bad feeling, but at least I won't go up in flames on the grid.

End of thread hi-jacking - if anyone is wanting to file or write on this matter let's start another thread.

Ron

Ron Earp
12-18-2004, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by seckerich:
Ron you missed the intent of the wiring rule. Is is acceptable to "repair" any portion of your car including wires. You may replace any wires in the factory harness if you use the same guage and they are the same length. Open the harness and do the repair and close it back up. Falls under repairs must be as close as possible to factory.

I don't think I missed that. When I asked this question months ago it turned into a free for all. Basically I DO NOT HAVE a wiring harness from the factory front of the firewall. It is gone. Where it went who knows - the engine has been rebuilt 3 times and everything I had for electrics was rigged to say the best. There were a few scraps of it, but nothing except headlights. With no replacements available one has to make do. And, in making do it is not going to be just like the factory harness - no way possible. I'm sure there are those that would say "well that car shouldn't be raced, get another one" but I do not agree.

Who cares what wires carry the electrons? There is no performance advantage for me, unless, as I mentioned on the other posts, I'll be a better competitor since I won't fear fire everytime I get in the car.



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

ShelbyRacer
12-18-2004, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by seckerich:
Ron you missed the intent of the wiring rule. Is is acceptable to "repair" any portion of your car including wires. You may replace any wires in the factory harness if you use the same guage and they are the same length. Open the harness and do the repair and close it back up. Falls under repairs must be as close as possible to factory.

See, this is part of my issue though. In my car (albeit not an IT car), I will be shortening a few wires, lengthening a few (both to fix some routing issues), and finally, using a heavier gauge for a few critical places (since the factory choice of gauge was, shall we say, conservative). Also, I CAN'T get the pins to repin my stock ECM connectors anymore. They are simply NOT available. That means that my only choice is to go chop a harness out of something so that I have spares for when I screw up some of the ones I pull out. While I have said this isn't an IT car, it very well could be (several IT legal car choices use this setup), but I'd be screwed if I ever wanted to do things the RIGHT way. Basically, you have to hack and cobble your wiring to be legal, and that just ain't right.

I stand by my signature line (which actually was a quote from my best friend, but I stole it fair and square).



------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

Geo
12-18-2004, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
I think I've finally started to better understand George's question though. At first, I thought is was a "it doesn't do anything so why do they need it/ use it/ want it?" I think now that it's a "Why not just let it free since it can't be doing that much in the grand scheme of things?"

Am I right, George?

Close, but not quite. I've actually not come to any conclusion yet, although I have a few ideas I lean towards. My question at this stage is to figure out (if possible) just how large an issue this may be. Part of me thinks that a MoTeC is an advantage, but is it really a drastic advantage? Again, from what I know at this time, I'd guess it won't make a mid-paker a front runner, but might make someone knocking on the door a winner. Then there is the question regarding whether there are real alternatives to a MoTeC.

I just don't have the answers. And while there are a lot of opinions floating around (including mine), there are only a few who really know how big a difference it may make.


Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
Oh, and BTW- I'm all for open ECU rules. Someone screwed up and opened the door just enough, why not let it go?

We're virtually there with the only limitations being having to use the stock box, sensors, and wiring.


Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
Also, I've seen calibrations that cost 3/4 or more of the cost of an aftermarket system. However in the factory vs. aftermarket vein, you're looking at relatively minute differences.

And this is key to my questions.


Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
I personally would like to see the wiring rules relaxed too. There's no reason for the "stock harness in all its glory" language that's currently used. Why not ditch unused wires that result from allowed modifications? Why not custom harnesses?

IMHO, you're now playing in Production territory. One can say "but it's a race car, why make the limitations?" to which I would answer that the limitations are the key to defining the differences between the classes.



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

Greg Amy
12-19-2004, 12:36 AM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...the limitations are the key to defining the differences between the classes.</font>

Actually, I see it a different way. Since the root point of the restriction of requiring the stock unmodified wiring harness - that being to disallow high-falutin' aftermarket ECUs like MoTec - has already been breached, then that restriction no longer makes sense.



[This message has been edited by GregAmy (edited December 18, 2004).]

ShelbyRacer
12-19-2004, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by GregAmy:
[B] Actually, I see it a different way. Since the root point of the restriction of requiring the stock unmodified wiring harness - that being to disallow high-falutin' aftermarket ECUs like MoTec - has already been breached, then that restriction no longer makes sense.
B]

My point exactly. If you're going to allow the system (that's expensive to begin with) but make it so that you have significantly more expense (and less reliability) to make it work within the rules, you've essentially just made the monetary investment that much higher. This would be, according to the old Comp Board terminology, "not following class philosophy."

We all have seen that making something more expensive is NO deterrant to certain people. It just prices the rest of us out of the market. And THAT issue does more to put us into Production territory than the wiring rule change.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the rules creep issue, along with a lot of others. I'm saying this here in this forum because from what I've seen, I'll get some honest feedback (along with some other things...) and we'll see if it's worth writing in to CRB about.

I really think the ITAC has its hands full at this point, but I also think that it's really time for a Spec Book overhaul.

Yes, I realize exactly how much time it takes and exactly what's involved. And yes, you can tell me it's easy to sit here and critique the stuff when I haven't written it. Well, I'll say this- when the new Time Trials program rules come out in another month or two (pending approval), you can critique why rules-writing ability, because I did the majority (read-pretty much all) of the book.

And honestly, I'd REALLY like to hear feedback from some of you, because I've seen rules interpreted in ways I hadn't thought of. I can tell you that I did revise a few things after I started reading these forums, but I know I'm not perfect. I look forward to your commments in the future, especially from George, Andy, and the other ITAC guys (Greg- I'd also like to hear from you, since I understand you were, um, pretty active in Solo 1 for a while...).

Sorry for the digression, but I just wanted to say that I think it's time to really examine the class. Do we really want to keep modifying and tweaking and massaging a set of rules that aren't as applicable as they once were, or is it time to tear down and rebuild the right way? I'm not saying to throw the baby out with the bath water here, but it might be time to drain and refill...


[edited for spelling errors due to lack of sleep]

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

[This message has been edited by ShelbyRacer (edited December 19, 2004).]

Knestis
12-19-2004, 02:57 AM
That "incrementalism" is both the worst and best thing about the ITCS.

It's massively frustrating how it evolves without any real direction but at least you don't have to worry about someone jacking radical changes on you, on short notice.

It's a little like our two-party legislative system in that respect.

K

Bill Miller
12-19-2004, 07:50 AM
I don't know Kirk, I think the current ECU rule was a radical change, and it happened fairly quickly.

As far as evolving w/o any direction, what's going on w/ the strategic plan? Haven't heard anything about it in several months. Having an overall strategic plan, and a mission statement for each category, would at least give us an idea of which way the ship is headed. [/hijack]

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

Ron Earp
12-19-2004, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by GregAmy:
Actually, I see it a different way. Since the root point of the restriction of requiring the stock unmodified wiring harness - that being to disallow high-falutin' aftermarket ECUs like MoTec - has already been breached, then that restriction no longer makes sense.
[This message has been edited by GregAmy (edited December 18, 2004).]

Precisely my point on another thread. If MoTecs are allowed then to me that whole topic has just been made mote with respect to wiring harnesses. Allowing one competitor to use whatever ECU they wish while looking at another competitors car with the evil eye regarding his lack of a complete factory wiring harness just doesn't make sense to my feeble brain.

Certainly, any performance gains from a non-factory harness (which I suggest there are none) is eclipsed by the gains from a MoTec (of which certainly there are some). I think the wiring rule needs to be examined with the ECU rule. Changing the wiring rule would do nothing to folks already racing, but for those building cars, particularily burned out cars, salvage cars, old cars, or wrecked cars, it could make their dream more a reality by not having to worry about a silly "stock harness" rule. I don't think this takes the IT class into production, according to the GCR online, a lot more makes the classes different than a stock wiring harness.

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

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 19, 2004).]

dickita15
12-19-2004, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
IMHO, you're now playing in Production territory. One can say "but it's a race car, why make the limitations?" to which I would answer that the limitations are the key to defining the differences between the classes.


while rules creep and not becoming production are worthy goals we should take a lesson from the coil over history lesson.
is requiring a stock harness actually limiting the work done to make a car fast or is it a rule that just makes it harder to build a car simply and still make it reliable. it is interesting to note that in A sedan the rule was changed last year to allow non stock wireing in order to make it easier to build cars from salvage sources.
dick patullo
ita rx7

apr67
12-19-2004, 11:32 AM
The only thing about the stock harness rule (and loss of it) that I think would be significant is cheating.

With a stock harness, we can go to the shop manual, and see the wire codes (magenta with yellow tracer) and see where they are supposed to go. With a non-factory harness it would be quite easy to obscure cheating.

What kind of cheating? Adding sensors to feed the ECU. Such as a wide band ox sensor, which would allow a good ecu to run closed loop at WOT.

Its one thing if I see a 1968 Volvo with a non-factory harness. I probably won't worry about the ECU too much.

But what about when you see a 99 Vtec honda and the whole harness has been replaced. Are you going to assume it was bad, or that they found an advantage?

Geo
12-19-2004, 01:59 PM
Guys, I really appreciate all of the thoughtful responses.

I still believe the limitations define the classes, despite what may be possible with the limitations. SS (and IIRC, SM) do not allow internal machining to the engine. Yet, in both classes, the very best engines are balanced and blueprinted. They are just done through parts bin engineering. One could make the argument in those classes to just open the rule up to machining, but once again, the limiations define the class. But, I digress.

On the subject of wiring, IMHO if the wiring were opened up, then the rest of the EFI system would follow suit like falling dominoes. You can say no now, but the same arguments being made now will be made for opening up the air metering devices (oh, I can get a cheap MAP sensor based EFI that I want to replace my MAF based EFI with). You may argue with me, but I fully believe this. And if this happened, EFI would be absolutely fully wide open. Someone made the point about adding sensors and I just said I agree in a long winded way (sorry).

Then, once we open up EFI and wiring, the next big thing will be traction control (I just have to add one wheel sensor for cheap and easy traction control....).

Lastly, I'll come back to my main point of discussion and that is how much real advantage a MoTeC is. Yes, it's an advantage. But how much in terms of hp? Ease of programming (relatively speaking) is a very real advantage. Actual on-track advantage? And what of installing a piggy-back inside the ECU box?


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

Ron Earp
12-19-2004, 03:21 PM
George,

You are never going to get the answer to that question about a MoTec. The only possible real answer would be if a car, probably a BMW or 2nd Gen RX7, were to be developed 100% and dynoed, with results open to all.

Then, the ECU would have to be replaced, developed 100% again, and dynoed. Considering I've received two negative emails for posting Jeff Young's TR8 dyno plots and Jeff Young received one as well (correction - Jeff got a positive encouragement, my bad), it appears folks don't like to discuss dyno plots and gains. And, that has been shown here on another thread too when dyno numbers and ECUs were discussed. Everyone got antsy and information was not forthcoming.

What is it worth? Don't know. I have helped tuned two cars with a MoTec, Ford small blocks, and I can say the flexibility was frankly awesome. Is it worth some power, certainly, but I don't know how much. Traction control can be built into the high end unit by watching the derivative of the RPM curve and pulling spark to cylinders when the slope increases too much, indicating wheel spin. Much like the cheater MSD boxes - no wheel sensors needed - so, for all you know traction control is alive and working now in IT.

The top ITS car developers use them, so, that should be a hint that they're worth an increase that IS statistically significant to play a role on the track.

Still don't agree with your logic on the harness rule in face of the MoTec situation. The MoTec, when boiled down to it's basic components, is a non-factory wiring harness - albeit an extremely small one.

Ron


[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 19, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 20, 2004).]

lateapex911
12-19-2004, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:
George,

..... Considering I've received two negative emails for posting Jeff Young's TR8 dyno plots and Jeff Young received one as well, it appears folks don't like to discuss dyno plots and gains. .....

Ron

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 19, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 19, 2004).]

What? You received emails from people who said you shouldn't have published your numbers?? Why?? And they were upset enough to write you?? What the...???? What were the resons?



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

Ron Earp
12-19-2004, 09:19 PM
One asked why I was posting dyno plot from a car I didn't own, was the owner aware, and furthermore he felt that these types of things should be kept off board due to the nature of the information. He didn't know Jeff and I are good friends and that Jeff wanted to share them. The other was about in the same vein although much shorter. Maybe I shouldn't say negative, that might be too strong, maybe I should say emails of concern. I have not tried to match them with screen names and will not do so if I can help it - don't want any bias when I converse with people here.

I remember when someone wanted dyno figures from a E36 a month or so ago something like this happened - someone had the numbers but would not post them, only hinting at what they were. I don't understand this behavior at all. But, that same reasoning might be why I didn't understand the email.

And, not to bogart this thread, but, a dyno section on the IT Forum would be cool. We have one at my GT40s site and there is a dyno section on the Lightning site I frequent as well as a few others. Very informative and I personally don't think it causes any problems. Incidentally I just saw a 240 plot at the local shop I frequent that was pretty good, 158hp and 155 lb/ft torque at the rear wheel. Neat and I bet more available in IT trim.

Back to your regularily scheudled ECU Rule programming.

Ron

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 19, 2004).]

lateapex911
12-19-2004, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:
...... only hinting at what they were. I don't understand this behavior at all.....

And, not to bogart this thread, but, a dyno section on the IT Forum would be cool. We have one at my GT40s site and there is a dyno section on the Lightning site I frequent as well as a few others. Very informative and I personally don't think it causes any problems. Incidentally I just saw a 240 plot at the local shop I frequent that was pretty good, 158hp and 155 lb/ft torque at the rear wheel. Neat and I bet more available in IT trim.

Back to your regularily scheudled ECU Rule programming.

Ron

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 19, 2004).]

Me either! The sceptic in me would say that they didn't want to release numbers because they could be used to support the case of E36s having too much power....or perhaps there is another perfectly good explanation...I've just never heard one.

I like the idea of a dyno thread, but I doubt it could happen in a racing environment like this, as we've witnessed here.

An interesting benefit could be the formation of a large database, which could help pin down the differences in dynos.

The 240...was that a ITA 240SX? or an ITS 240SX? or an ITS 240Z?



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

JeffYoung
12-19-2004, 11:45 PM
A street 240z, stockish I think.

Reportedly, a well built 240z motor can make 190 or so at the crank.

If you run the ITS cars by achievable wheel hp, I think you see something like:

BMW: 215 or so
240z: 175 or so
RX7: same

I'm at 159 now, probably 175 acheivable. 944 is supposedly around 160 at the CRANK best case, not sure about the 944s. At its weight, the 944 probably needs the most help in S -- more so than my car, which surprised me. Although, the 944 handling/brake package does help it compensate.

The other major players I've not heard about include the GS-R, the 190E, the Alfa Milano and the 2nd Gen 240sx. The Corrado might be a contender too, still haven't seen one on track though.

Geo
12-20-2004, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by JeffYoung:
944 is supposedly around 160 at the CRANK best case

Actually, best case, money no object is 185 hp at the crank for the 944. And unlike most engines where you can make most of the gains for considerably less, with the 944 you get very little until you mortgage your children's futures.


Originally posted by JeffYoung:
Although, the 944 handling/brake package does help it compensate.

No doubt the 944 is an excellent handling car. A lot of excellent handling in stock form is due to a very rigid chassis (compared with other road cars). When you build a race car, much of that advantage is lost if you build a proper cage (stiffen the chassis) and build an all out suspension with spherical bearings and good dampers.

Interestingly enough, I was told the 944 would be a horribly expensive car to build, but other than buying an all-out crate motor, it's really no more expensive than the Sentra SE-R we've been running and developing. A Jon Milledge crate motor is probably (I'm guessing from rumors) about 25-50% higher than say a Sunbelt Nissan engine. But at those kinds of numbers it's all "lost in the sauce" anyway. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


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

JeffYoung
12-20-2004, 10:29 AM
Interesting...185? Higher than I thought, but I have no problem pulling the 944 race cars I run against on a straight as is. It's a shame, that should be a "classic" ITS car. It needs some weight help.

Ron Earp
12-20-2004, 12:30 PM
You pulling the 944s and George's estimates might be a case of IT horsepower and real-world dyno horsepower. Using an "IT Rule of Thumb" you should be at about 160 flywheel right? You're there at the crank now and it'll be even more soon.

I'd love to see more dyno plots of IT cars so that we can see what the real deal is on produced power, expectations, and classification.

Geo
12-20-2004, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:
You pulling the 944s and George's estimates might be a case of IT horsepower and real-world dyno horsepower.

Actually, it's not an estimate. Jon Milledge develops his engines on an engine brake dyno. The 185 figure is accurate and I've yet to hear of anyone else even getting close to that.

But I thank Jeff for his data point about pulling the 944s.


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

ShelbyRacer
12-20-2004, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by dickita15:
is requiring a stock harness actually limiting the work done to make a car fast or is it a rule that just makes it harder to build a car simply and still make it reliable. it is interesting to note that in A sedan the rule was changed last year to allow non stock wireing in order to make it easier to build cars from salvage sources.


EXACTLY my point. If you want to restrict something, restrict it. Don't play these games with "we're not saying you can't do XXX, but you can't do this, this, and this, so it would be too much trouble to try." Bullsh!t. You're simply restricting the mods to the people who have the cubic dollars to throw at it.

And don't tell me about the whole "it makes it easier to see someone cheating" thing. True cheaters are going to cheat no matter what, and they're going to hide it. Well. No matter the cost. You think someone won't go out and get stock looking wiring, and then repin the connector so that the illegal part will look like it's supposed to be there? You must be pretty naive. I could tell you things from the old Showroom Stock days that would make you puke. So could a lot of others on here. A cheater (a real cheater) is going to cheat no matter what the rule is. It's nothing personal. It's a way of life.

Oh, and one more point. This is a REGIONAL class. I'm sorry, but you can buy a NATIONALLY COMPETITIVE T2 or other car for what some people have in their IT cars. I'm all for the spirit of competition, but come on... If IT is meant to be the budget alternative where anyone can run (but not necessarily be competitive), then why is it that the whole class is turning into the legislative nightmare that parallels the Production class that we're supposedly striving not to imitate???

I know it's too late to help '05, but how about a rewrite for '06? NOW is the time. There's a lot of restructuring going on in Club Racing. Jump on the wagon (just make sure it has the right size wheels, a stock wiring harness, and a frame that hasn't been welded illegally).


------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

Knestis
12-21-2004, 12:09 AM
Okay - so you obviously don't like the status quo but what's the compelling reason for allowing harnesses to be built from scratch? There's already a repair allowance so "I can't buy a new harness" doesn't seem like enough...

K

Ron Earp
12-21-2004, 10:00 AM
K,
There is a repair allowance, but, I maintain that anything I do when I rebuild mine (I don't have one, can't get one) will not be 100% accurate to factory specs, therefore, illegal. At what point is close good enough? Same connectors? Same wire? Or, just basic layout? Length? Gauge? There is no repair procedure in my ship manual, so, there are no directions to follow.

I think we're all in agreement that a "custom" wiring harness offers no performance advantage other than simplicity, ease of build, reliability (all British and older German cars benefit) and in some rare cases like mine compliance with the rules.

I don't think that we need to pretend that IT is cheap, so cheap that you could run your street car with a cage, if this was behind the reasoning 20 years ago. Nobody does that, everyone has dedicated race cars in IT with a lot more trick stuff than a Painless wiring harness or a simple home harness rig.

Like I said before, MoTec are legal now and that is just another wiring harness, a very small one with probably more wire length inside than the entire car harness, were one able to pull all the chips and ICs apart. Lots of benefits from a MoTec for performance but there is no performance gain from a simplistic race car wiring harness.

Ron


------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
My electrons don't care if they flow through OEM wires, do yours?

dickita15
12-21-2004, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Okay - so you obviously don't like the status quo but what's the compelling reason for allowing harnesses to be built from scratch? There's already a repair allowance so "I can't buy a new harness" doesn't seem like enough...
K
Kirk
this is not a huge deal, it is just a nagging irritation. of the three rx7's I have had a part in building mine is the only one that had any kind of useable harness. in the case of older cars or salvage cars the harnesses are usually junk and in the case of carb cars like i am used to dealing with you only need 7 wires to race the car. makeing us restore the old harness increases the work required and reduces the reliability of the car. as i sighted before it is just a work around like coilovers used to be. it does not change the performance one wit, it just makes it harder to prep the car.

I am not sure, and have not heard any statements that convince me that this is creep for injected cars but for those of us with carb cars it is just a pain.

again not a deal breaker just a frustration.

dick patullo
NER ITA Rx7

Knestis
12-21-2004, 08:51 PM
Remember that this is the Internet so the entire conversation is completely academic.

First...


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...a \"custom\" wiring harness offers no performance advantage other than simplicity, ease of build, [and] reliability ...</font>

It's an entirely reasonable proposition that it does indeed offer a performance advantage if a car is simpler or easier to build (it's cheaper so time and money can be spent on tires or track time), or if reliability is enhanced - a car that finishes more regularly is inherently more competitive, just as one that busts often is not.

When we built the last rally car that I rode in, we stripped the entire harness out (it was a Golf), spread it out on the floor, got out the wiring diagram, unwrapped the entire thing, tie wrapped all of the junctions loosely to keep it in shape, and removed all of the wires we didn't need. We then wove all of the additional wires that we needed, including some redundant pieces that could be easily plugged in if something got damaged, and wrapped the entire thing back up.

We did NOT do all of this for fun, that's for sure. (That goo on the black tape the Germans use stays under your fingernails for days.) We did it to make the car more competitive.

If the rules allowed it, I'd do the same on my current car - with the added benefit being the loss of a few pounds of wire, since there are yards of stuff there that are useless. I didn't even HAVE the heated seats and I get the wire.

If you've ever seen an e36 wiring loom (I have) you'll understand that this job would be at the top of my list, were I running one of those bad boys and the rule allowed removal.

K

ShelbyRacer
12-21-2004, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
It's an entirely reasonable proposition that it does indeed offer a performance advantage if a car is simpler or easier to build (it's cheaper so time and money can be spent on tires or track time), or if reliability is enhanced - a car that finishes more regularly is inherently more competitive, just as one that busts often is not.


No, that's just good economic sense. A performance advantage is something that given an infinite amount of time and money, one car will benefit significantly more than another.

And, I'm not saying IT racing is cheap. But I am. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Seriously though, sorry if my last post was a little, um, forceful. Again, I'm trying to stir things up (as if they needed to be) to find out real opinions on the topic before I submit a proposal. I know that this forum doesn't mean anything in the rules-making process, but it is a good sounding board and a great place to get some honest feedback.

I think I'll be starting a new thread soon though, since I've taken this much more off-topic than I originally intended.


------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

seckerich
12-21-2004, 10:56 PM
If the harness rule was open the average fuel injected late model car could loose 15 to 20 pounds behind the dash with useless wires and connectors. I call that an advantage. It is unfortunate that the older cars with no source for replacements fall under the same rules. I would take digital pictures of another car with a factory harness and duplicate its routing and connections as close as possible on these carb vehicles. The rule is to stop extra sensors and to stop the dumping of the stock harness,relays, and connectors to save weight. I would never protest a car with a fabricated duplicate.

ShelbyRacer
12-21-2004, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by seckerich:
I would never protest a car with a fabricated duplicate.

Right, but you're not the only person out there. I know a great many IT drivers who would protest that if I was finishing in front of them. It only matters what the worst-case scenario interpretation is. In this case, it sucks bigtime.

On the weight thing, I'll concede, BUT we all have minimum weights. If that helps me get to my minimum, so what? Even if it's the matter of that 15 lbs getting moved down and back a foot, it means very little in the grand scheme of things. Sure, the little things add up, but this is only changing one thing at this point. You also make a distinction between carb and fuel injected cars, where I would say it's more a matter of model option availability. There are lots of cars (as mentioned above) that are wired for every concievable option. Why should they be penalized? This ain't Showroom Stock.

I almost wonder... If we went out and checked every harness out there, what percentage do you think have some runs of "wire" that are just insulation (the center conductor has been removed)?



------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

Knestis
12-22-2004, 12:07 AM
But that's simply cheating, and rationalizing an allowance in the rules simply because someone will otherwise break them is counterproductive.

Look - the same arguments can get made for pretty much every step loosening the regulations: Safety, cost, ease of maintenance, availability or lack thereof, etc., etc., etc. At the end of the day, the line is drawn pretty arbitrarily between SS, IT, Prod, GT, and for that matter the formula and sports racing categories.

In order for the cost/benefit ratio to make sense, a change has to be universally a pretty good thing for the health of the category. Otherwise, every additional thing the rules allow us to change just creeps us farther down a road we pretty much can't travel backward on.

K

Quickshoe
12-22-2004, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by rlearp:
MoTec (snip)is just another wiring harness, a very small one with probably more wire length inside than the entire car harness, were one able to pull all the chips and ICs apart.

No kidding! You brought back bad memories of an electronics lab in college where I had to create this complex logic circuit for a street signal controller. A simple 4 way intersection with some kind of "J/K flip-flop" circuits utilizing some AND/NAND/OR/NOR gate chips---hell I don't remember. All I know is this breadboard with these chips and a rats nest of wiring all over the place was incredibly complex looking no matter how neat I tried to make it (important for troubleshooting purposes when it doesn't do what it is supposed to the third time you do it). When all was said and done, I am the first one in class to get it to work (most gave up before going postal). The professor holds up this little chip saying this thing does the same thing that circuit and all those chips and wires does in this neat little package. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/mad.gif

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

Quickshoe
12-22-2004, 01:04 AM
How about carb'd cars get open wiring harnesses? FI cars must retain stock wiring harness?

Geo
12-22-2004, 01:48 AM
There is a provision for repairs. That is all that is necessary.


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

lateapex911
12-22-2004, 03:18 AM
Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
..... I know a great many IT drivers who would protest that if I was finishing in front of them. .......

I almost wonder... If we went out and checked every harness out there, what percentage do you think have some runs of "wire" that are just insulation (the center conductor has been removed)?



If you know that many guys who are so protest happy, you must race in a differrent world than the guys I know. Protests, to the best of my knowledge, are pretty rare considering the number of legitimate illegalities I see.....

I highly doubt guys are going to protest a well intentioned repair.

I think guys SHOULD protest obvious and flagrant violations involving missing wire harneses etc., but doubt I'll ever witness one...



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

Bill Miller
12-22-2004, 07:33 AM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...and rationalizing an allowance in the rules simply because someone will otherwise break them is counterproductive.</font>

As evidenced by the ECU rule. I think you'll get differing opinions about it being good for the overall health of the category, as well.

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

dickita15
12-22-2004, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
There is a provision for repairs. That is all that is necessary.


there was a provision to work around the no coilover rule as well, why did we change it. I think it was because it was now cheaper and easier to use real coilovers and the end result in performance was the same.
there was not a very good reason to make people jump thru extra hoops to get to the same end.
dick

Ron Earp
12-22-2004, 09:01 AM
I think the rule needs to be re-visited. Clearly, the ECUs are allowed to be changed and an ECU is simply a three dimensional multiplanar wiring harness with more feet-wire than the rest of the harness in the car. I'll be happy to explain this to anyone who doesn't understand Seimens and Motorola ECUs (used in many cars) and their construction.

Simplicty is a good reason to change something. I mean, I can put a MoTec in my car, but, to wire up my Autometer gauges and MSD ignition I've got to jump through some hoops. It shouldn't be like that.

Geo, the repair situation does not cover all instances. I'm basically going to have a 100% legal car, except for the wiring forward of the firewall. The sad thing is that nobody will care what I do, until I start beating them (big if there). If I consistently get the car to run up front then all of a sudden people will become "interested" in looking at my car. I just went to the graphics place the other day to get things made for my car, maybe I should also include some 4" block type "I'm illegal - are you?" banners for the car.

Seriously, what would relaxing the harness rule do? I can think of numerous positive aspects:

*Allow older cars to run safely - older Brit/German cars have an inclination toward FIRE. FIRE bad. Lucas, The Price of Darkness, still lives in my chassis. His offspring lives in many of yours. We could banish him from my car and others allowing safer and more reliable cars.

*Increase the number of available IT race cars. Fire damaged cars could be used since they could then be wired for racing without a lot of cost.

*Make race preparation easier - lord knows there are enough things to deal with. We don't need to be worrying about "is that an original or OEM type wire carrying those electrons?"

*Simplify cars for troubleshooting. I imagine newer cars could really benefit here.

*Cars could still maintain "street functionality" in case we're still working under the guise of these cars being "street cars on the track". Not sure why we keep that guise up when I see people pull up in tractor trailers for IT racing and set up a mini-shop in the paddock, but what the hell.

*Possibily add a couple of cars to the field. Every tiny thing done to make it easier to race and get a car on track helps us all out by bringing new people to the Secret, uhoh, I mean SCCA.

And, the negative things about relaxing the harness rule?

Only thing I hear from people is something call "rules creep", which I don't fully understand. Where are we creeping to? Seems to me if we SIMPLIFY the harness rule we are reducing the number of rules we have to worry about to race our cars.

IT racing is, as I understand it, the lowest level of racing in the SCCA. It should be simple, the cars should be simple, the rules should be simple to understand, and even better - the reasoning behind the rules should be simple to understand. In this case I feel the reasoning for the rule is flawed and furthermore not simple to understand.

Ron

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
My electrons don't care if they flow through OEM wires, do yours?

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 22, 2004).]

Knestis
12-22-2004, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by rlearp:

I... It should be simple, the cars should be simple, the rules should be simple to understand, and even better - the reasoning behind the rules should be simple to understand. In this case I feel the reasoning for the rule is flawed and furthermore not simple to understand.

All valid points but they move forward from the presumption that something is actively being "done" to the harness - in your case, bringing it back from the dead.

If you take the same question and assume that the default setting is that the original one is there - and stays there - there is no simpler rule, or cheap answer, than "don't do anything to it."

Taken to a logical conclusion (not hyperbolic, even) the simplest rule is "you can to anything you want." That does NOT result in simple cars however, even if it is dead easy to understand and enforcement is a non-issue.

My point about "good for the category" requires that rules changes be considered in the context within which most IT cars are built.

There's no secret that I'm an Anti-creeper but it's also clear that one man's "rules creep" is another's "progress." It just depends on our perspectives. Since I joined the secret club in 1979, I've seen numerous examples of creep resulting in revolution:

** Clever rules interpretations and rising costs drive Production participation down, until someone calls a Mulligan and we essentially start over with LP cars.

** Showroom stock cars get faster and faster, to the point that current C cars are faster than A cars used to be. Trunk kits seem like a good idea until escalation wars set in and they are legislated out in one fell swoop.

** T1 cars get faster ever year until someone decides that the category needs a complete overhaul because performance of the cars has evolved too far beyond the capacity of IT-type safety rules.(Hasn't happened yet, my guess is this becomes an issue before 2008.)

** Some regions have started "Showroom" Spec Miata because the national SM rules evolved beyond what some folks wanted to see - and that's essentially a brand new class.

I really like Dick's coyote/roadrunner parable: If we catch the bird, the cartoon has to end. If we open up another rule, we are one step closer to killing the bird, HOWEVER small that step might be. We need to be very sure that there is an overwhelming benefit to that move.

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited December 22, 2004).]

apr67
12-22-2004, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by rlearp:
I mean, I can put a MoTec in my car, but, to wire up my Autometer gauges and MSD ignition I've got to jump through some hoops. It shouldn't be like that.



I think you are over exagerating.

Adding a guage is specifically allowed, and you can add whatever wiring you want to that end.

I don't understand the difficulty of running a new wire from the fuse box to replace the wire that is shorted, has cracked insulation.

I really don't see how replacing wiring that is gone would make you illegal. Do your best effort to reproduce what was there. Maybe no one else races your car, but they do exist and you should be able to see what the engine harness looked like.

Ron Earp
12-22-2004, 11:12 AM
I have wired my car to run, and, since the car is simple is is somewhat like the original - in function. But, it would not pass the "original rule" nor the "repair" rule if strictly interpreted.

As I've mentioned in numerous posts here, part of what I object too, and why this thread is here I think, was the allowance for a MoTec ECU but not an aftermarket or non-OEM wiring harness. The logic escapes me. If MoTecs were not allowed, then I would not give thought to the wiring harness rule. But, since MoTecs are allowed, then I question the harnesss rule.

You can replace a ECU with anything you like as long as it fits in the original container. How about allowing a wiring harness replacement as long as it fits in the original container, the chassis? Just kidding.

To me the MoTec is a serious piece of equipment that has performance advantages, raises the bar in the class, and certainly, if anything smells like rules creep, unlimited ECUs is it. But, to me the ECU situation is such a large deal then the much smaller and loosely associated wiring harness rule makes no sense if the ECUs can be replaced.

Maybe my itsy bitsy brain just works in a odd way on this one. Anyone else feel the same way?

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
My electrons don't care if they flow through OEM wires, do yours?

bldn10
12-22-2004, 02:10 PM
IMO the problem here is not w/ the restriction on stock harnesses, it is the allowance of replacement of the computer. Once that door was opened, desire to change the harness was a logical but unintended next step. Keep going and the final result will be "ECU's and associated wiring are free." I have written the CRB asking that we go back to the original intent - to allow modifications of the stock ECU - not complete replacement. I invite you to do likewise. Let's put this genie back in the bottle before it is too late.

"If the harness rule was open the average fuel injected late model car could loose 15 to 20 pounds behind the dash with useless wires and connectors. I call that an advantage. It is unfortunate that the older cars with no source for replacements fall under the same rules."

FWIW it can be argued that 17.1.4.D.1.6, the rule under discussion and that contains the harness restriction, applies only to fuel injected cars since it starts out, "Fuel injected cars may alter or replace the engine management computer ...." Buttressing this interpretation is the fact that 17.1.4.D.1.s also deals w/ ECU modifications but is not preceded by "fuel injected cars." I have also asked the CRB to examine this rule and determine if we really meant to have different rules depending on manner of fuel delivery.

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

Ron Earp
12-22-2004, 03:14 PM
Bill,

If they canned MoTec installations then I'd shut up about wiring. If MoTec's were disallowed then, at least to my feeble brain, logic would be restored to the system (at least regarding this issue) and I could except the harness rule, although I still wouldn't like it. As it is, in my eyes, you can change the biggest wiring harness in the car(ECU) but not the smallest.

Ron

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
My electrons don't care if they flow through OEM wires, do yours?

Knestis
12-22-2004, 04:13 PM
Okay - since we are back on the original topic, we ask the same question again: How does that rule get worded? We can't say, "Motec is not allowed" for reasons that I hope are obvious...

K

Matt Rowe
12-22-2004, 04:29 PM
I would also like to see the wiring harness rules relaxed for reasons of reliability and availability of stock parts. Repair procedures can only go so far when a harness reaches a certain age or when it isn't there to start with. Never mind issues like added instrumentation, electric fuel pumps, kill switches and all of the other allowable modifications that require working around the stock harness. I would gladly allow my fuel injected competitors to trade 15 #'s in wiring for 15 #'s in ballast as long as I can trade 2 #'s without having to worry about obtaining or maintaining a harness that has nothing to do with a safe race car. And on the note of safety, you would think that removing 15 #'s of combustable, toxic plastic insulation from the passenger compartment would be a worthy goal. The idea of molten insulation dripping onto my feet from dash wiring isn't fun, but that is what the rules force on us.

As for this change allowing rules creep, I think the distinguisher factor here is the modification to wiring (without adding sensors) does nothing to make the car faster. Cost and reliability improve, but assuming a car is at minimum weight the removal of 15lbs or wiring with the addition of equivilant ballast is not going to drop your lap times. ECU modifications, adding sensors, traction control, etc will drop lap times and that should be a watershed test when halting rules creep.

And of course the most frustrating aspect is being told that changes like unrestricted wiring constitute "rules creep" and add to the cost of preparing a car when a $3000+ Motec computer is allowed. I agree with Ron, either give us modifications to the whole harness and ecu, or allow mapping changes only to factory ECUs. Otherwise the application and intent of the rule makes little sense.


------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

Matt Rowe
12-22-2004, 05:37 PM
Knestis,

A starting point for wording I would favor is along the lines of -

"Changes to fuel and timing maps are allowed as long as the changes are not performed while in motion and provided the stock ECU performs all engine management calculations. The burden of proof for additional "daughter" boards to provide map tuning is on the competitor."

Keep in mind this is just a starting point for another endless discussion. But a couple of points

* It allows the same adjustments a carb can have (fuel and spark) so that is equivilant, if not equal.

* If some one has another set of maps they want to suggest thats fine.

* The "while in motion" statement limits anyone from getting tricky and altering the maps on the fly in order to effectivly bypass the stock ECU calculations

* A MoTec or any other aftermarket ECU is disallowed by the engine management calculations statement.

* Finally the burden of proof lies with the competitor. Which would require wiring diagrams and details. Not easy to meet, but we have put similar requirements for proof on aftermarket shop manuals and such.

So, who is going to be the first to shoot holes in this? I'm certainly not saying this is the answer but it seems better than the current situation.

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

Ron Earp
12-22-2004, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Okay - since we are back on the original topic, we ask the same question again: How does that rule get worded? We can't say, "Motec is not allowed" for reasons that I hope are obvious...
K

Well, we have laywers on the board. I think I know two. Seems like it would be right up their alleys.



------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
My electrons don't care if they flow through OEM wires, do yours?

Team Rocket
12-22-2004, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:
Every tiny thing done to make it easier to race and get a car on track helps us all out by bringing new people to the ... SCCA.


This is a great comment, and a great philosophy. Maybe there are times a little "rules creep" is good for the sport.

Jim

Bill Miller
12-22-2004, 07:36 PM
* It allows the same adjustments a carb can have (fuel and spark) so that is equivilant, if not equal.



I guess this is one of those things that if enough people keep saying it, it will become fact.

I'm not going to get into it again, but I have yet to see anyone prove that a fixed advance curve and static jetting is the same as stuff than can change on the fly. I'd buy it, if the ECU was stuck w/ only one map (that you selected, from a wide variety of maps, kinda like picking your jetting), or that ignition timing didn't change. Look at something as simple as the knock sensor on an A2 VW. It will retard the timing if the car starts to detonate. Somebody explain to me how you do that, on the fly, w/ a points distributor or an electronic ignition that doesn't have said knock sensor (or any other inputs that can alter timing).



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

seckerich
12-22-2004, 09:38 PM
So with this logic only those models that have had their codes cracked would benefit from the stock ecu being doctored, but the rest would be screwed. So now the 20 plus people who can burn a chip for a BMW, Nissan, etc gain while the mazda gets screwed again because all we could do was clip the rev limit. The ability to tune with the stock ecu in most cars is very different. The Motec can only use input from the FACTORY sensors and tune for optimum mixture just like most altered stock computers. This is not a magic bullet, it just allows the average tuner to not need a code expert to do it. If you open the harness to anything you will get 4 wire wide band tuning and a host of other things you don't want to see.
Steve Eckerich
ITS 18 Speedsource RX7
Originally posted by bldn10:
IMO the problem here is not w/ the restriction on stock harnesses, it is the allowance of replacement of the computer. Once that door was opened, desire to change the harness was a logical but unintended next step. Keep going and the final result will be "ECU's and associated wiring are free." I have written the CRB asking that we go back to the original intent - to allow modifications of the stock ECU - not complete replacement. I invite you to do likewise. Let's put this genie back in the bottle before it is too late.

"If the harness rule was open the average fuel injected late model car could loose 15 to 20 pounds behind the dash with useless wires and connectors. I call that an advantage. It is unfortunate that the older cars with no source for replacements fall under the same rules."

FWIW it can be argued that 17.1.4.D.1.6, the rule under discussion and that contains the harness restriction, applies only to fuel injected cars since it starts out, "Fuel injected cars may alter or replace the engine management computer ...." Buttressing this interpretation is the fact that 17.1.4.D.1.s also deals w/ ECU modifications but is not preceded by "fuel injected cars." I have also asked the CRB to examine this rule and determine if we really meant to have different rules depending on manner of fuel delivery.

Geo
12-22-2004, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:
I think the rule needs to be re-visited. Clearly, the ECUs are allowed to be changed and an ECU is simply a three dimensional multiplanar wiring harness with more feet-wire than the rest of the harness in the car.

Thankfully those who write the rules won't buy that silliness. It's much more than a wiring harness.


Originally posted by rlearp:
I can put a MoTec in my car, but, to wire up my Autometer gauges and MSD ignition I've got to jump through some hoops. It shouldn't be like that.

Methinks you've got that all backwards and sideways. You have to jump through hoops to install a MoTeC, but installing gauges and an MSD ignition are about as straight-forward as it gets.


Originally posted by rlearp:
Geo, the repair situation does not cover all instances.

Hmmm.... You have a bad wire or connector, you cut it out and replace it. What could be simpler?


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

Geo
12-22-2004, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by seckerich:
The Motec can only use input from the FACTORY sensors and tune for optimum mixture just like most altered stock computers. This is not a magic bullet, it just allows the average tuner to not need a code expert to do it.

Thank you.


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

Rob May
12-22-2004, 11:27 PM
Nicely put Steve. Amen!

Matt Rowe
12-22-2004, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I guess this is one of those things that if enough people keep saying it, it will become fact.

I'm not going to get into it again, but I have yet to see anyone prove that a fixed advance curve and static jetting is the same as stuff than can change on the fly. I'd buy it, if the ECU was stuck w/ only one map (that you selected, from a wide variety of maps, kinda like picking your jetting), or that ignition timing didn't change. Look at something as simple as the knock sensor on an A2 VW. It will retard the timing if the car starts to detonate. Somebody explain to me how you do that, on the fly, w/ a points distributor or an electronic ignition that doesn't have said knock sensor (or any other inputs that can alter timing).




Bill,

Thats is why I said equivilant, if not equal. I have a carb and I agree we are at a tuning disadvantage to the stock ECUs. A modified ECU isn't that much worse, all things being relative. But forcing the FI people to live without any mods for tuning and durability isn't a fair option either.


------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

Matt Rowe
12-23-2004, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
Hmmm.... You have a bad wire or connector, you cut it out and replace it. What could be simpler?




Nothing, as long as it's one wire. Of course I can't repair connectors because the pins are not available. And if it's multiple bad wires tracing them is difficult at best. Then I get to the tricky part where I no longer have a harness. How do I repair something that isn't there. It's suddenly not that simple.

Allowing wiring harness changes doesn't automatically allow new sensors. Remember if it doesn't say you can then you can't.

As for the MoTec not being a magic bullet, can everyone who has actually tuned with both a modified stock ECU and an aftermarket system raise their hand? It appears there are a number of people who don't know the differences that are claiming there is no difference. Having worked with both I can tell you there is a difference in the consistency of the program. Do you think F1 would have spent billions of dollars on ECU development if a toyota module with new maps can do the same thing. The calculations the module performed are the real difference and not a trivial one.

For example being able to alter when WOT situations occur is not a normally adjustable parameter for a stock ECU but no problem on an aftermarket system. It matters for part throttle modulation and can make the difference between getting to the guys bumper and getting alongside. Which is the point of the whole thing.

I really don't care in the long run if someone wants to spend $500 or $5000 tuning their car. So if the group as a whole feels that allowing this sort of modification is allowed, fine. But then why aren't some other simpler and cheaper mods out of the question. Remember there is an overall class intent and yet it doesn't seem apparent in the use of the rules.

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

seckerich
12-23-2004, 12:16 AM
I dont believe the comp board had a clue, or cared for that matter, what the processor speeds and ability was of a stock ECU when they classed cars. It is reality that many can have very complex maps perfected with aftermarket units and burned back to very stock chips. You think national, let alone a tech inspector can find that? You expect car companies that issue cam blanks with stock part castings will give them up? Welcome to OZ! Allowing adjustment with the sensors the car came with is the most even way to handle a no win situation.
Steve Eckerich
ITS 18 Speedsource RX7

I guess I could go back to altering the ramp angles of my rockers for more lift, or play with my "stock" valve angles to gain more flow, or maybe cam timing since they never check them in the car--- I almost forgot I have a Mazda --BACK TO FUEL AND TIMING ADVANCE WHAT A MAGIC BULLET

[This message has been edited by seckerich (edited December 22, 2004).]

Matt Rowe
12-23-2004, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by seckerich:
I dont believe the comp board had a clue, or cared for that matter, what the processor speeds and ability was of a stock ECU when they classed cars. It is reality that many can have very complex maps perfected with aftermarket units and burned back to very stock chips. You think national, let alone a tech inspector can find that? You expect car companies that issue cam blanks with stock part castings will give them up? Welcome to OZ! Allowing adjustment with the sensors the car came with is the most even way to handle a no win situation.
Steve Eckerich
ITS 18 Speedsource RX7

I guess I could go back to altering the ramp angles of my rockers for more lift, or play with my "stock" valve angles to gain more flow, or maybe cam timing since they never check them in the car--- I almost forgot I have a Mazda --BACK TO FUEL AND TIMING ADVANCE WHAT A MAGIC BULLET

[This message has been edited by seckerich (edited December 22, 2004).]


Steve, through some horrible error, I think we are actually in agreement. You have to allow tuning, and if so then why not make it easy for eveyone. So if that's the case, why the wiring restriction (keeping stock sensors) and why the unmodified ECU case rule. It obviously didn't do what it was intended, so if we aren't going to prevent Motec's then why not make it simple to install them, as well as other aftermarket ECUs.

And as I said before ultimately if someone wants to spend $5000 on ECU tuning that's fine, but then I don't want to hear why a $500 dollar mod in the interest of convenience is not allowed.

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

Geo
12-23-2004, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
Nothing, as long as it's one wire. Of course I can't repair connectors because the pins are not available.

And there are none in bone yards? Sorry, but the NLA angle doesn't play any better for wiring harnesses than it does for cams.


Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
And if it's multiple bad wires tracing them is difficult at best. Then I get to the tricky part where I no longer have a harness. How do I repair something that isn't there. It's suddenly not that simple.

Well, if it's no longer there it is simple. It's illegal.

BTW, I don't think anyone is saying there is no advantage to the MoTeC. But it's not going to make a mid-packer a winner.


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

Matt Rowe
12-23-2004, 01:44 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
And there are none in bone yards? Sorry, but the NLA angle doesn't play any better for wiring harnesses than it does for cams.



No, for some models, for some cars there aren't harnesses out there. And the cam angle doesn't fly because a cam is a performance advantage. There is no such advantage with a harness, it's just a cost/ease of car building issue.



------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

Bill Miller
12-23-2004, 08:22 AM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">But forcing the FI people to live without any mods for tuning and durability isn't a fair option either.</font>

Matt, the FI crowd was already allowed to alter the resistence values being sent to the computer, and ignition timing was, and still is, free. So don't try and make it out like the FI folks had nothing at all before the the open ECU rule.

I think we've gotten what essentially amounts to an official postion. ECU's were opened up, not to give the FI folks the ability to tune, but because they couldn't be policed. See my response to Kirk's earlier comment.

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

Ron Earp
12-23-2004, 08:31 AM
Matt, you are correct but I don't think George gets that - some cars might not have a harness to repair and futhermore, despite what he thinks, they are simply not available. If we were racing more modern cars, sure no problem. But when you are racing one of a few - 200 TR8 coupes in the country, 1200 MKII JHs in the country, it is a little more difficult than getting a harness from a Sentra in a field when there are 100s of 1000s to choose from. I don't ask for the rules to change based on this though, we race what we race, it is our choice. If my posts were read I think outlined my logic which in a nutshell is below:

You allow people to replace a ECU with a $3000 MoTec unit but they cannot replace a wiring harness? Rules creep is cited as one possible reason for not allowing a harness rule change. But replacing a wiring harness is rules creep however using $3000 ECUs isn't? Looks like having to use a MoTec to make your BMW or 2nd Gen RX7 competitive is elevating the class. Be consistent in the rules.

I understand the arguments these guys have (at least the RX7 guys due to what is available) because they certainly need to raise the rev limit and are going to need some adjustability to compensate for the other IT modifications to the engine. But, still, I have a hard time seeing an open ECU rule in improved touring while the wiring harness must remain stock.

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
My electrons don't care if they flow through OEM wires, do yours?

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 23, 2004).]

Geo
12-23-2004, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
No, for some models, for some cars there aren't harnesses out there. And the cam angle doesn't fly because a cam is a performance advantage. There is no such advantage with a harness, it's just a cost/ease of car building issue.


You missed my point Matt, but perhaps you weren't here for the great cam debate. NLA didn't fly as an argument for allowing an alternate cam. Why would it fly for a harness?

I know you're going to say a cam is a performance item, but harnessese can be repaired and (in IT) cams cannot.


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

dickita15
12-23-2004, 10:13 AM
george
the problem with the harness repair option goes back to an earlier thread involving the jenson healy (or was it the tr8)about what a factory repair involved. in that discussion it was said by some that you could not splice a wire alongside a bad connection or bypass a bad connector. if that is true then it would be technically impossible to keep some cars running.
as a practical matter i think that is an overly stearn interpretaion. my personal view of what is right (as opposed to legal in the strictest sence) is to be able to replace wires to keep a car running as long as the new wires do not perform any new functions. in practice on old IT cars that i have wired the rements of the old harness are still there but some new wires are run to make the car run.
there are some on this board that feel i have violated the rules and that is ok for them to think that. of course there are those that think cars like mine should race vintage.
dick

Knestis
12-23-2004, 10:26 AM
This is going to sound a little harsh but should be taken as intended - as pragmatic.

It seems like an effort is under way here to conjoin two entirely different issues, to suit the policy intentions of a minority of people - those building cars with rare wiring harnesses.

Whether the current ECU rule is stupid (or not), or too expensive (or not), or even enforceable (or not) is completely immaterial to the specific question of wiring harnesses.

There was no premeditation on the CRB's part to specifically allow high-dollar programmable EFI systems when the rules to allow FI tuning were put in place. That was an unintended consequence that resulted in what I think we may all agree is rules creep.

That is a prime example of why it is dangerous to open up the rules, even if in the case of wiring, the resulting loopholes might not prove to be as expensive and contentious as the MoTec issue seems to be.

Suggesting that, because we missed the mark with one big rule allowance, we might as well chuck it in with a few others too, is completely unreasonable - unless you have a particular agenda that you want to further.

Now, I'm on record as recognizing that the SCCA club racing rule system is based on exactly what some people are doing - advocating for their own competitive positions - but please don't expect to make the argument stick on the coattails of the ECU mess.

Here's the pragamatic part: As much as I LOVE the idea of variety in the IT grids, when someone chooses to build a particular car, they accept it for better or for worse. Mr. Amy could race something that didn't require him to engineer all his own parts. Geo could have chosen something that didn't cost a bazillion dollars to get horsepower out of...

I could have picked something that didn't require a full chassis dip and strip, and ultra-light cage to meet minimum weight but, on the other hand, I can get an entire wiring harness from a boneyard for $25. That's the hand I'm dealt, bad cards and good, and I have to play it.

I'm sorry but I believe that everyone else should too, rather than injecting additional opportunities for the rules to get even more obtuse, as is SURE to happen every time a change gets made.

K

Ron Earp
12-23-2004, 10:49 AM
Dick and Kirk,

I agree with both of you and what you've written. And, I do accept what I've been dealt with my car since after all I picked it. That said, Dick hit the nail on the head with this most recent post with the harness. I don't want to conjoin the issues as I have no real vested interest in doing so - I really don't care if you close ECUs or leave them open.

My frustration came from the fact that many felt I would be illegal doing just what Dick suggested - running some wires to make the car function, which I have done because it needs doing. But the icing on the cake was that while some considered that illegal, here we are in a situation where entire OEM computers can be replaced with something that performs a similar funciton, but differently. Sort of like a non-OEM wiring harness.

I don't want to continue to post on the harness issue since this is a ECU thread. The only reason I did is cited above, the frustration of one rule that does not jive with the logic that supports another rule. I am sorry if I'm too new to understand how all of this works or if I can't understand it. I'll watch from the sidelines and maybe I'll get "SCCAized" or maybe I'll continue on my merry way and never understand it.


------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
My electrons don't care if they flow through OEM wires, do yours?

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 23, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 23, 2004).]

Matt Rowe
12-23-2004, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
This is going to sound a little harsh but should be taken as intended - as pragmatic.

It seems like an effort is under way here to conjoin two entirely different issues, to suit the policy intentions of a minority of people - those building cars with rare wiring harnesses.


You're right the arguments are becoming conjoined, which is why there is another thread on the wiring harness issue. Which is as much for extensive repair of aging cars as rare vehicles.


Originally posted by Knestis:
Whether the current ECU rule is stupid (or not), or too expensive (or not), or even enforceable (or not) is completely immaterial to the specific question of wiring harnesses.

There was no premeditation on the CRB's part to specifically allow high-dollar programmable EFI systems when the rules to allow FI tuning were put in place. That was an unintended consequence that resulted in what I think we may all agree is rules creep.


But this apparently extreme departure from the class intent, normal limits, etc is why it's used as a argument for everything else. If you allow this, then why not that? I'm not even saying that's a valid argument but it's certainly hard to avoid.


Originally posted by Knestis:
That is a prime example of why it is dangerous to open up the rules, even if in the case of wiring, the resulting loopholes might not prove to be as expensive and contentious as the MoTec issue seems to be.

Suggesting that, because we missed the mark with one big rule allowance, we might as well chuck it in with a few others too, is completely unreasonable - unless you have a particular agenda that you want to further.


Hey, I'll freely admit I have an agenda of wanting rules that allow me to build a reliable, cost effective vehicle that doesn't give me an unfair advantage over someone else.


Originally posted by Knestis:
Now, I'm on record as recognizing that the SCCA club racing rule system is based on exactly what some people are doing - advocating for their own competitive positions - but please don't expect to make the argument stick on the coattails of the ECU mess.


Again, the subject is on a new topic but there are still some fundamental flaws in the ECU rule one of which overlaps into the wiring harness situation.


Originally posted by Knestis:
Here's the pragamatic part: As much as I LOVE the idea of variety in the IT grids, when someone chooses to build a particular car, they accept it for better or for worse. Mr. Amy could race something that didn't require him to engineer all his own parts. Geo could have chosen something that didn't cost a bazillion dollars to get horsepower out of...

I could have picked something that didn't require a full chassis dip and strip, and ultra-light cage to meet minimum weight but, on the other hand, I can get an entire wiring harness from a boneyard for $25. That's the hand I'm dealt, bad cards and good, and I have to play it.

I'm willing to run a car a know is not classed competitively as are a lot of people. The common thread is if we aren't guaranteed to be competive why are we spending more time and money to do something that doesn't make us any faster anyway?


Originally posted by Knestis:
I'm sorry but I believe that everyone else should too, rather than injecting additional opportunities for the rules to get even more obtuse, as is SURE to happen every time a change gets made.

K

The rules might be opened to an unintended interpretation everytime they are changed, but if there is logic behind the rule based on the class intent the rule is less obtuse, not more.

If we are so concerned about halting all rule changes why was the ECU rule allowed? Because it was unenforceable? That sounds obtuse.

Also, would the Motec problem be as big of an issue if the BMWs weren't perceived as the class killers that most think they are? It appears that the biggest problem with the Motec system is it is a glaring modification on an already front running car. If the BMW wasn't the overdog most people think it is I don't think the ECU problem would be that big an issue.

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[This message has been edited by Matt Rowe (edited December 23, 2004).]

apr67
12-23-2004, 11:58 AM
Advantage of replacing wire harness. A theory.

#1 Weight.
#2 I can use better quality wire (maybe gold!) to lower the resistance of the wire. This will mean the alt/battery loses less juice getting to the parts and ergo the alt sucks less power.

Everything has a consequence. I am not saying that either 1 or 2 is going to happen, nor is 1 or 2 exclusive. It's not the problems we think of that end up screwing us. Its the ones we don't think of.

apr67
12-23-2004, 12:04 PM
ECU thoughts.

ECU's should be stock. Period.

I know, Tech can't tell if its modified (chipped) or swapped in some instances. So what? At least the CPU and capability will be restricted far more than a high end after market AFM. That's fine. All tech has to do is look at an ECU and if the board 'looks stock and unmodified' it's legal. If it doesn't (ie a chip that says 'super chip' on it) look stock, its not legal.

What will this accomplish? Most stock ECU's are pretty weak, so the vast majoritee will get little to no advantage to futzing with the CPU. A few may spend billions to get a percent of improvment. But now all of their compatriots racing the same car can figure out how to protest them, or spend money to do the same. Otherwise everyone might get lead added.

Workable? I don't know, but I think it deserves though.

gsbaker
12-23-2004, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by apr67:
ECU's should be stock. Period.

Bingo.

And the Club should use some gizmo that checks the ECU in the event of a protest.

G

Matt Rowe
12-23-2004, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by apr67:
Advantage of replacing wire harness. A theory.

#1 Weight.
#2 I can use better quality wire (maybe gold!) to lower the resistance of the wire. This will mean the alt/battery loses less juice getting to the parts and ergo the alt sucks less power.

Everything has a consequence. I am not saying that either 1 or 2 is going to happen, nor is 1 or 2 exclusive. It's not the problems we think of that end up screwing us. Its the ones we don't think of.

#1 - Weight. Being a lowly carb car owner I have less than 10 #'s of stock harness while the modern FI guys have 30 or more #'s. I can live with being on the short end of that stick.

#2 - Better quality wire. I know this is only half serious but the percent gain from this is lost in the noise. Higher humidty, better worse batch of gas, and about a hundred other things have a bigger impact. Besides, as part of repairs I can already use different wire.

Does anyone have any other reasons why there is a performance advantage?


------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

apr67
12-23-2004, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by gsbaker:
And the Club should use some gizmo that checks the ECU in the event of a protest.



Such a device doesn't exist. It is up to the protesters to determine how to check compliance, and then the stewards have to agree to it.

Even if someone does 'modify the code in a chip' and get away with it, it's not the end of the world. Personally, I would prefer that, rather than allowing everyone to do anything they want.

Geo
12-23-2004, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by dickita15:
george
the problem with the harness repair option goes back to an earlier thread involving the jenson healy (or was it the tr8)about what a factory repair involved. in that discussion it was said by some that you could not splice a wire alongside a bad connection or bypass a bad connector. if that is true then it would be technically impossible to keep some cars running.
as a practical matter i think that is an overly stearn interpretaion. my personal view of what is right (as opposed to legal in the strictest sence) is to be able to replace wires to keep a car running as long as the new wires do not perform any new functions. in practice on old IT cars that i have wired the rements of the old harness are still there but some new wires are run to make the car run.
there are some on this board that feel i have violated the rules and that is ok for them to think that. of course there are those that think cars like mine should race vintage.
dick

Dick, that was me. And to explain again, if we can run parallel wires, I'm making a new harness from scratch. My car is 21 years old and I'd love to make a new harness for it. That would make my life a LOT easier since I don't exactly get along well with electricity. It would be much easier for me to have new wires. And ultimately at some point I may pull my harness and "repair" every wire that is critical to the operation of my car just for reliability sake and yes, performance, since bad grounds and leads can indeed affect performance.

I think running parallel wires is not only counter to the letter of the law, but counter to the spirit of the rule and class. Sorry.


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

Geo
12-23-2004, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
Also, would the Motec problem be as big of an issue if the BMWs weren't perceived as the class killers that most think they are? It appears that the biggest problem with the Motec system is it is a glaring modification on an already front running car. If the BMW wasn't the overdog most people think it is I don't think the ECU problem would be that big an issue.


Personally, I think you just hit the nail squarely on the head Matt.


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

Geo
12-23-2004, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by gsbaker:
Bingo.

And the Club should use some gizmo that checks the ECU in the event of a protest.

G

Sorry Gregg, but what gizmo would that be? They don't exist. How many ECUs would we need gizmos for? And how many people can read the code? On Nissans they are damned few.

I don't mean to be harsh Gregg, but if we're going to look for solutions, they must work in ALL cases.

We could require stock ECUs, but only 1 in 100 might be caught. The rest will look like they are OK.



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

Bill Miller
12-23-2004, 08:14 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">We could require stock ECUs, but only 1 in 100 might be caught. The rest will look like they are OK.</font>

George,

It's essentially that kind of attitude that lead to the current open ECU rule. They can't police them, so they assume every one will cheat. Maybe I'm naive (or just an idealist), but they way I see it, cheaters will still cheat, regardless of what the rules say. I would like to believe that the majority of people that I compete against are honest, and will follow the rules, rather than blatantly cheat. If the rule says to use a stock ECU, that's what they'll do.

I'm really bothered by this "everybody will cheat if they think they can get away with it" attitude. And based on "A protest story", the rules aren't doing much to stop the cheaters anyway. Hell, it's hard to catch them even when they make it easy to do so!

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

apr67
12-23-2004, 08:24 PM
Bill/George, et al.

Do you think everyone will spend the money to custom design a chip for their ECU, get the oem desoldered, the new chip professionally resoldered, and make sure it all looks kosher (stickers, right part # on the Prom/Eprom)?

And even if they do, how much bennie are they going to get over the guy with a resistor on the water temp sender and an adjustable rising rate FP Regulator?

And is the better solution to make the people who aren't cheating spend $2000 + on an after market ECU?

dickita15
12-23-2004, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
I think running parallel wires is not only counter to the letter of the law, but counter to the spirit of the rule and class. Sorry.

George
never be sorry for a sincere opinion (g)
so what does one do. stock connectors are either not available or unreliable. If one takes your literal harness repair opinion. what do we do retire the cars, race vintage?
It would seem reasonable to make some allowance to keep such cars raceable.
so either retire the cars or we look the other way and we lobby for a change so we can still race these old cars and still sleep at night.
dick patullo

JeffYoung
12-23-2004, 09:34 PM
While the above has been enlightening, I am REALLY looking forward to the end of Arguing Season and the beginning of Racing Season.

Vroom vroom.

Geo
12-23-2004, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by dickita15:
George
never be sorry for a sincere opinion (g)
so what does one do. stock connectors are either not available or unreliable. If one takes your literal harness repair opinion. what do we do retire the cars, race vintage?
It would seem reasonable to make some allowance to keep such cars raceable.
so either retire the cars or we look the other way and we lobby for a change so we can still race these old cars and still sleep at night.
dick patullo

I don't know the answer Dick. Wish I did. I may end up with very much the same concerns with my 21 year old car. But while we are looking at one aspect of the rule right now, where is this going to take us? I can't help but think it would take us a big step closer to Production if we open up ECUs and wiring harnesses.

Speaking of Production and what to do with a car with NLA wiring harnesses... I don't know the rules for Production, but isn't that a possible channel for them? One of these days I'm going to read the Production rules for my car just so I'm aware of what my options are.


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

dickita15
12-24-2004, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
I don't know the answer Dick. Wish I did.

careful george, that may be an admission that the current repair allowances are not enough



I can't help but think it would take us a big step closer to Production if we open up ECUs and wiring harnesses.[/B]

I am not advocating the opening up of ecu's if there was a way to enforce it I would go back to stock, but in reality I do not know how to solve this.



Speaking of Production and what to do with a car with NLA wiring harnesses... I don't know the rules for Production, but isn't that a possible channel for them?
[/B]

well yes it is but is that not the equivilant of go away.

George
thank you for participating in conversation like these. by doing so you add value and foster understanding of different sides of the issues.

merry christmas
dick patullo

Geo
12-24-2004, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by dickita15:
well yes it is but is that not the equivilant of go away.

Not quite. It is for IT, but it doesn't render someone's investment worthless. There are alternatives. Sometimes we may not like the choices we are given, but if there is a choice it's not a dead end.

I'm not trying to say I don't understand or care. It's just that these things must be considered. If we allowed a lot of things that we discuss here all at once we'd have Production cars anyway.

In the end, sometimes you do have to say "if that's what you want, you need to go to production." That's never meant to be rude, but some lines must be drawn with respect to what is allowed. I don't have all the answers by any stretch. And opinions will vary. So with 9 of us on the ITAC we stand a fighting chance of getting things right or pretty close to it.


Originally posted by dickita15:
George
thank you for participating in conversation like these. by doing so you add value and foster understanding of different sides of the issues.

merry christmas
dick patullo

It's my pleasure. At least this has been a conversation that, while occasionally passionate, has remained thoughtful and civil. That is what this forum (and most forums) should be all about.

Merry Christmas!


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

Ron Earp
12-24-2004, 09:34 AM
Doesn't really seem to be a good answer here since George doesn't decide this issue by himself and neither do the rest of us. All we can do is interpret the rules and do the best we can. I suppose I'll race my car until successfully protested since in my unique situation the rules don't cover what I face. Moving any car out of IT into production due to a wiring harness, is, IMHO, senseless. A harness change offers no competitive advantage at all for cars that are as old as mine.

I think I'll check around for whom to write on the issue and state my case, it'll probably come back sufficent as written. Nonetheless, I'll learn something about how the process works. Sorry to break my promise and post again on the subject.

Merry Christmas to all you folks, take care,

Ron

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
My electrons don't care if they flow through OEM wires, do yours?

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 24, 2004).]

bldn10
12-24-2004, 03:20 PM
As far as I know, the change in the ECU rule was not benefit anyone or make our cars faster but was to deal w/ the fact that ECU mods could not be effectively prohibited. Now here we are debating what will logically lead to an open ECU rule. If stock now can indeed be enforced, that is where I would like to see us return; if not, is there not some middle ground that can be enforced? If chips were restricted to those available to anyone from 3rd party vendors (i.e. no in-house or one-off custom jobs) would that alleviate Steve's concern? Cannot ECU's be plugged into a diagnostic tool and determined to be stock or not? I don't know much about them (and prefer not to have to learn) and really don't know so please forgive my naivete on this subject.

BTW I am one of the lawyers on this forum and if I was told exactly what the intent was and what the pitfalls were, I could draft a rule.

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

Renaultfool
12-24-2004, 05:16 PM
While I am not for tons of rules creep, there have been major changes in automotive design over the past 35 years, the age range of the IT rules at this point. Most of the discussions on this forum are discussions of keeping it equal between the "old" carb/distributor guys and the newer "electronic/injection guys. Guys, it never will be equal and it never was. Find a 30 year old Volvo and drive it and then drive a 5 year old BMW. They are not in the same world performance and handling wise.

If equal is the goal, then why not rewrite the rules to allow logical modifications for ease of building, safety, and equalization of speeds.

As examples,let everyone run a vented disk on their brakes using the factory diameter and type of caliper. If you can beat someone because their older car overheats their unvented brakes and your vented ones still work did your beat them or their old car design? Let them run the computer and wiring that they choose to do, even the old cars. The Renault throttle body system would work on the older cars and I am sure that there are others. If you get beat by a wiring harness, shame on you. If you cannot police the computer or the older cars don't have them, free it up. Computers are here on all the new cars and no one will ever be able to police them all. Do you really think a computer and throttle body will make an old 8 valve engine equal to your computerized, port injected, 16 valve, dual overhead cam, engine anyway? Try and find a computer tester for my Renault to check that one out.
Get rid of the side marker lights and the glass headlights for safety. And the useless washer bottle for those who still cary them. And on and on. Make it simpler, easy to police, fairer, more competitive. They are race cars.

Every body gets vented disks, everybody gets computers, everybody gets whatever, as long as everybody can have it.

That does not get them even close to Production cars. The suspension mounting points would remain the same as now. The suspension arms would remain the same as now. We would not have alternate windows and body panels. We would not have hand grenade engines. Big differences. Major.

Yes your BMW might still beat my old Volvo, but not by as much, and you may have to work harder to beat me. More competitive cars would be cheaper to build for those to do so. Those who want to spend $50k on their IT car will still do so, you cannot change that. But at least they will beat me with their $50k, if they are equal drivers, not 30 years of technology alone.

Knestis
12-25-2004, 12:46 PM
The question then becomes, "if you are going to allow all of those changes, why stop before alternate body panels and polycarbonate windows?" All of the same logic can be applied - safety, for one - so why not go all the way? Why the artificial limit at relocating suspension pick-ups?

Because that's where your particular construct of what IT should be bumps up against the characteristics of what you see as "a different category."

Where that conceptual line defining "IT-ness" happens is completely arbitrary and regardless of where it gets put, someone will always find attributes that they think should - or should not - be held by IT cars.

K

Renaultfool
12-26-2004, 11:09 AM
Agreed.

But it may be time for some total revision of what IT is suppose to be with the goal of making it safer, cheaper, and more competitive for everyone.

Hey, it's Christmas, we can dream the impossible dream!
Carl

ShelbyRacer
12-26-2004, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Renaultfool:
But it may be time for some total revision of what IT is suppose to be with the goal of making it safer, cheaper, and more competitive for everyone.


Wow, I think I heard that somewhere before! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Nice to know I'm not the only one who sees that as The Right Thing To Do™.


------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

gsbaker
12-26-2004, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
Sorry Gregg, but what gizmo would that be? They don't exist...

Build it and they will come.

It's not rocket surgery. In fact, it sounds like a good semester project for a EE on the SAE formula team.

You heard it here first! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

G

ShelbyRacer
12-26-2004, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by gsbaker:

It's not rocket surgery. In fact, it sounds like a good semester project for a EE on the SAE formula team.


I like your thinking. The concept itself is VERY simple. Download the code from the chip, compare it to known program for that car using hex editor/comparison program.

Potential issues-

Connecting with the box. Before 1996, most companies had their own style connector for diagnostics. Some even changed pin location within the same connector. You could just use probes and skip the whole connector thing, but that can cause miscommunications, and if someone jumps the wrong pins, POOF, magic smoke released.

Interfacing with the box. There are more data stream rates than you can shake a stick at. Many computers (Dodge for one) simply won't even talk to something unless it speaks almost exactly their rate (which is proprietary of course).

Obtaining equipment. Every club (or series or whatever) would need its own laptop (granted, a REALLY cheap laptop would do the job) or other controller box.

Obtaining stock, unmolested .bin files for the factory code. This would be the most difficult thing due to lack of information on many cars. Also, a file for each year/model/engine/etc. would need to be kept.

The only way to be sure of doing it right would be the bin-compare method. I personally could go in and change other parameters to make something *look* like an unmolested map. I can program your ECU so that if you hold down the accelerator pedal while turning on the car (not starting, just turning the key to the ON position), it would have the program query other fuel and spark tables at previously unused locations, but if turned on regularly, it would seem perfectly stock. This would show on a bin-compare, but not on a regular scan-tool. The checksums would be correct, the PROM IDs would match, and no one would be the wiser. Imagine what can be done by my friends who actually WORK FOR a car manufacturer...

Ever wonder why those magazine test cars seem faster than the showroom model you bought? When I dropped the "factory tweaked" (read- magazine road test program) .bin file into my Firebird, I picked up .2 in the quarter with no other changes...

Again, it would show up in a bin-compare, but probably not anywhere else... Neat, huh?




------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

gsbaker
12-26-2004, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
...Download the code from the chip, compare it to known program for that car using hex editor/comparison program....

Again, it would show up in a bin-compare, but probably not anywhere else... Neat, huh?

A "core dump" as today's grey-haired programmers used to call it.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, one could empirically map the chip functions. If they are not OEM, the chip is declared cooked. That gets messy.

G

Tom Donnelly
12-26-2004, 10:03 PM
The binary files are in hex? I would have thought octal. Most "mini" systems use an octal based binary coding. Although it would readily convert to hex. Aren't the ECU systems similar to PC assembler? Or am I way off? I haven't worked with process-control systems for a number of years.

Tom

ShelbyRacer
12-26-2004, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by Tom Donnelly:
The binary files are in hex? I would have thought octal. Most "mini" systems use an octal based binary coding. Although it would readily convert to hex. Aren't the ECU systems similar to PC assembler? Or am I way off? I haven't worked with process-control systems for a number of years.

Tom

Nope, hex code makes sense if you think about it. Two digit hex converts straight to 8-bit binary (one hex digit take the place of 4 binary digits). Raw binary files are assembled for whatever processor is used, which in the case of many of these systems is a Motorola HC11 or variant I believe. It's been a while since I messed with the hardware side of things, so that may not be accurate...

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

ShelbyRacer
12-26-2004, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by gsbaker:
A "core dump" as today's grey-haired programmers used to call it.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, one could empirically map the chip functions. If they are not OEM, the chip is declared cooked. That gets messy.

G

Only problem is that nothing is ever located in a "standard" spot. You can go by table maps and start locations, but again, you have nothing really to compare it to as to see if it is "stock"...



------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

Geo
12-27-2004, 01:37 AM
And what do you propose to do about ECUs where the code has not yet been cracked?


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

Ron Earp
12-27-2004, 09:09 AM
I don't think this comapring loaded progams in ECUs will work. Not only are the previous posts dead on with baud rates etc. but from previous Ford experience working on Mustangs there are too many possible ECU programs for a just a given year. They would be no real way to have all possible programs available and on file for comparison.

I remember that 1995 Mustang GTs would knock quite easily with a timing increase unless you had a certain CPU program that would avoid it. During that model year it was one of three as I recall.

And, while tuning my Lightning this year I've learned that there were four different ECU programs the processor could have been loaded with during the 2004 model year. Model years 1999-2003, while fundamentally the same truck, also had differences during the year. Each one is slightly different, and while not appreciably changing much of anything, they would all appear slightly different when their hexadecimal codes were compared to a "master" on file. Unless you had four masters for 2004.

Maybe Ford is the oddball manufacturer in that they do this but I seriously doubt it. And, as mentioned while you might get programs for Mustangs and Lightnings easily because of all the forums/tuners/rodders I bet getting programs for something like a Olbsmobile Calais would be next to impossible (ECUs, at the core of this discussion I know). This would be a tough enforcement to pull off in this fashion.

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
My electrons don't care if they flow through OEM wires, do yours?

ShelbyRacer
12-27-2004, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
And what do you propose to do about ECUs where the code has not yet been cracked?




Kind of my point above, but the code doesn't have to be "cracked" for you to compare it. Hex is like a language. If I have two paragraphs written in, let's say, Korean, you don't have to know Korean to compare the two to see if they are EXACTLY the same. However, this would not take into account any minute differences, so it would have to be an EXACT match.

This was the whole point of my post. It's not impossible, in fac the premise itself is simple. Implementing it is another thing entirely...



------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

Tom Donnelly
12-27-2004, 11:43 AM
Here's an example of a hex dump:

000046448 0001 0000 2004/11 020722602
4FFFFFFFFF4FFFF4FFFF4FFFF6FF4FFFFFFFFF
00000464480000100000020041110020722602

This is from an IBM mainframe (Jurassic code)
dump just for illustration purposes.

A 40 is a space, an F0 is a 0 etc.
You don't have to know what the representation is to compare the data.

However, a program dump can compare as being
different just based upon assembly date or
compile date, as those dates are usually
loaded into the executable.

What is being proposed here is sort of
reverse-engineering or de-assembly of
the program in the ECU. You can do it,
its just difficult. And you have to have
an idea of the language its written in. I
doubt its COBOL. (Thats a programming joke)

Tom

ShelbyRacer
12-27-2004, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by Tom Donnelly:
And you have to have
an idea of the language its written in. I
doubt its COBOL. (Thats a programming joke)

Tom

Maybe that's why our cars didn't all crash on 01/01/00? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif




------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

Joe Harlan
12-28-2004, 11:49 AM
The point is that all tuning should be done to the stock ECU....( much like tuning a stock carb)because it is not easy to police. As far as an ecu that has not been cracked I would suggest that's part of the development of any car that is an IT candidate. I would also suggest that people need to look outside the normal sources for cracked ECU's. If there is a desire to get it done it can be done for any car out there.

ShelbyRacer
12-28-2004, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
The point is that all tuning should be done to the stock ECU....( much like tuning a stock carb)because it is not easy to police. As far as an ecu that has not been cracked I would suggest that's part of the development of any car that is an IT candidate. I would also suggest that people need to look outside the normal sources for cracked ECU's. If there is a desire to get it done it can be done for any car out there.


Yes!!!

If you add up the $$ it took to put Motecs in a few BMWs (parts and labor costs) along with the development time for the maps, I'm sure someone could've paid someone to getthe stock one to work reasonably well. In fact, they probably could've turned around and made money by selling it to the street guys who didn't want to go the Motec route.

Now, would a Motec ultimately be better for racing? I believe so, but I also believe that the limitations of the stock unit fall within the scope of IT as a class. IT should be about taking the MAJOR stock components (engine, control system, trans, suspension) and making it into a reliable race car by *modifying* them in minor ways. You can hack the stock ECU, the same way that you can balance and blueprint. You can't use aftermarket controllers, the same way that you can't use a different (non stock) crankshaft.

Joe, I agree with you in principle on things (from what I've seen on here). I just equate the wiring issue to more like fasteners (electrical fasteners essentially) while the ECU itself is a major component that should be stock at its core.

And, woo hoo, 200 posts.

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

Knestis
12-28-2004, 12:59 PM
200?

EDIT - dang. Missed it.

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

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited December 28, 2004).]

Tom Donnelly
12-28-2004, 01:16 PM
Matt,
What is available out there to dump the ECU contents to a binary file? And are there any references to what language? The executable portion of the data has to relate to some form of machine code, such as assembler. The bulk of the dump would be the data that forms the multi-dimensional array for the decision processing. Any hacking software / hardware out there for an interface to an ordinary PC?

Tom

ShelbyRacer
12-28-2004, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Tom Donnelly:

What is available out there to dump the ECU contents to a binary file? And are there any references to what language? The executable portion of the data has to relate to some form of machine code, such as assembler. The bulk of the dump would be the data that forms the multi-dimensional array for the decision processing. Any hacking software / hardware out there for an interface to an ordinary PC?

Tom

The EPROM itself only contains the data from which the executables pull the required info for the circumstances. Most that I know of are written in simple 2-bit hex. Pulling the code is as "simple" as desoldering the chip, dropping it into a reader, and querying it for data. Of course, what you get out looks like gibberish unless you know root addresses for things.

The problem is not the code itself (language-wise), but the indexing that the programmers used. Just because the spark tables are located at address X in one program, doesn't mean they'll be anywhere near that in another. The real problem is that very little of this is documented for older cars, like the ones we deal with.

All you have to do is know which data points to change and by how much, and you can edit the raw hex code itself. You can write in executables (not the easiest thing to deal with).

If you use an interface program, altering the values is easy. You simply have to write a definition file for the code you're working with, that tells the interface where to find the data from, and how to translate the hex values to absolute numbers.

For more info, search around for GM EPROM stuff. That's one of the most well known and supported ECU groups, and there's volumes of info out there (it's where I learned how to do it).

For my stuff, I use:
An EPROMer 5 for reading and burning
http://www.ustr.net

TunerCat as an interface (they also have a program that gives you the ability to write definition files for almost ANY ECU).
http://www.tunercat.com

I also use WinHEX or NitroHEX for raw code editing and comparison.

As far as the machine code itself, most of this stuff is based off the Motorola 68HC11, so any assembler that can translate for that processor could work. I prefer to write machine code (raw hex) myself as to avoid translation errors.

Most of the issue here is finding the correct addresses, as none I've seen have any notations, even in the assembly language. What someone originally did for a lot of the GM stuff was to make a "dummy" car, complete with all inputs and outputs. Then they changed the code, and saw how the outputs reacted with various inputs, and deduced the data locations from there. As I'm sure you know, it's not that hard to located a 2D or 3D table in the code, but knowing what exact data that table is can be another story. You might think you're changing a VE table, and instead you're playing with the cold start enrichment data. Both would effect the fuel and could look similar if not monitored VERY carefully.

Then there's also the feedback functions. If you don't translate the data in the output stream correctly, you can chase your tail forever. Sure, you can use a scan tool, but you're limited in many factors, such as datalogging and the ability to discern trends.

All of this is the MAJOR reason to use a Motec. They give you software that says, here's where you change this to do this, and it does it all in real world numbers. Plus, it has the ability to talk directly to a laptop since it translates itself. No fuss, no muss.

Starting to sound like it's worth the $$, huh?

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

chipbond
12-28-2004, 03:39 PM
I went to www.car-part.com (http://www.car-part.com) and looked for Zetec ecus per 98 Ford Countor. Looks like for that single application there were over 40 different iterations. Some were deliniated as manual vs. automatic, but other than that, the differences would need to be determined one by one. I think I'd rather spend the 2K (non Motec alternative)!

Matt, how much do the reader/burner and the rest of the hardware you mentioned cost?

(Not trying to paint you in a corner, just interested...)

Chip Bond
EP Caterham

ShelbyRacer
12-28-2004, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by chipbond:
Matt, how much do the reader/burner and the rest of the hardware you mentioned cost?

(Not trying to paint you in a corner, just interested...)



No problem at all. I actually originally got into this forum because I wanted to share my knowledge (rather than the opinions I've been spewing in other threads... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif )

I got my EPROMer for like $105 (the good one with AC adapter and ZIF socket).

I use EEPROMs at a couple bucks apiece rather than having to buy a UV eraser.

TunerCat software is like $75 plus definition files, plus like another $50 for other programs (I use the disassembler and the TDF editor).

Figure about $200 for a good laptop setup (I have one for sale if anyone is interested).

If you're going to build your own "modem" to connect via the diagnostic connector, figure another $50.

Then figure a scan tool or software for the laptop to communicate with live data for feedback purposes. You can't really tune via a WB O2 for this, because you're trying to work on closed loop maps, which are altered by long term trim numbers. You need to see what the computer is doing to compensate and tune from there.

Figure, if you buy everything and your car is already supported, you're gonna drop $500 or so for EVERYTHING. From there, it's read up and spend some time tuning (which is all baselined off of the stock program). If your car isn't supported by something, figure maybe $100 less, but a TON more time.

The TunerCat stuff is a good starting point, but it is GM based. If you want something else, there are Ford EEC systems, stuff for the DSM guys, and people from the Dodge turbo crowd working on these projects. You're just going to have to do tons of R&D work. And also, if you're 96 and newer, I'm not even sure how to deal with the OBD2 stuff...

How much is your time worth?

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

chipbond
12-28-2004, 05:02 PM
Thanks for the explanations/insights. Some years back, I guess I would have had the time and inclination to just dive in and take on a new hobby...Whew. I did, in fact, start to try and develop a drafting program in one of the BASIC languages in the late 70's on a then, state of the art, TRS-80. But then I bought into Autocad at version 1.2 or so when you could get the 8087 chip in an IBM PC. I'd still sit and watch individual pixels turn on and off as the program regenerated the drawing, but, I think, I made the correct decision.

I salute you for your knowledge, your ability to articulate it and the freedom with which you share. But, given that ours is the OBD2 EEC-V Ford stuff, the house needs paint and the avalability of other, less daunting alternatives, I'll just hope some amiable resolution to these questions regarding IT ECUs and their application in club racing is possible.

I'm going way out here and commending the IT community for a really great proactive approach. As demonstrated by this board. It seems your ad hoc guys are willing to ask the questions and give very reasonable consideration to the wide range of opinion and thought posted here. Contrast this to the prod site. It's a different universe.

Cheers

Chip Bond
EP Caterham

Tom Donnelly
12-31-2004, 12:00 PM
Matt,

Thanks, that's exactly what I was asking for. You're right, sounds like the motec is worth it. If one has the money.

Tom

lateapex911
12-31-2004, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by chipbond:
T

I'm going way out here and commending the IT community for a really great proactive approach. As demonstrated by this board. It seems your ad hoc guys are willing to ask the questions and give very reasonable consideration to the wide range of opinion and thought posted here. Contrast this to the prod site. It's a different universe.

Cheers

Chip Bond
EP Caterham



Indeed...it's one of my issues when it's suggested that I move to prod.


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