An ECU rule proposal

[ShelbyRacer]

I'm posting in a new subject for a couple reasons, but most importantly, I would like to know thoughts on this. If I submitted the rule as proposed below, who would support it, who wouldn't, and why. Please do not turn this into a "it doesn't matter because it won't get changed" thread. I'm looking for thoughtful, intelligent feedback.

Also, I'd really be interested in knowing what you guys can find wrong with this one. (that's an honest question- I really would like to know for my own improvement).

The proposed rule change wording is in bold below.

---------------------------

The stock ECU must be used (including board, housing, and connector). Up to two chips may be desoldered for the purposes of programming, and may be socketed (regular or ZIF sockets). Any replacement chips must have the same number of pins as stock. The ECU must be able to be read by any commercially available scan tool using the stock ECU configuration and ID.
---------------------------

This allows reprogramming, without making the rule overly cumbersome to read and enforce. Hook up any scan tool, set the stock ID for that car, and check. If it don't respond, it's out. If there's a reason to look further (as in it's identified in the protest), pull the unit and check (probably a $50-75 bond).

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



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

[tderonne]

Can I buy a scan tool for my 1990 Festiva? No. How about a Volvo 142?

Drop the scan tool language.

And what about add-on chips like later model Fords? All the stock chips stay in, you add another one on the J3 service connector.

But I'm with you. Allow programming. Tough to write...

[Geo]

What do you expect to get by using a scan tool?



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

[pfcs]

on the face of it, a fairly safe sensible plan. Scanning is simple if you limit it to OBDII cars (96^) which can all be scanned w/generic OBDII tools. most Jap apps can be scanned with professional scanners but will require appropriate cartrideges and adapter cables. Euro apps are more difficult-the cheapest tool I know that will communicate with Saab, BMW, MB and VW costs $5000. (yeah-I know you can do just VW/Audi much cheaper)And many early euro apps can't be scanned at all. Limiting tuning to the editing of files in the stock ECUs would seem to me to be the most sensible and cost effective way to handle the problem of getting A/F ratios (and igniton timing) right for our somewhat modified engines, and is what I did with the EFI of my A2 VW. It wasn't easy, but no one had the wherewithal or willingness to do it for me (Digifant A2 EFI is certainly a very "niche" market). But now I have a small advantage over anyone else in that niche, as far as I can tell. The situation is probably the same with other EFI systems. Many people in the same situation might (reasonably) decide that a much simpler solution is to adapt a stand-alone ECU to their stock enclosure. So here we are-right back where we started. Phil
PS: I can't see that a stand-alone sytem has any competetive advantage over a properly tuned stock box. I know there are people who want to argue this, but I'm not on that game board.

------------------
phil hunt

[This message has been edited by pfcs (edited February 20, 2005).]

[ShelbyRacer]

1990 Festiva? yes. Volvo, no. You guys bring up good points about the scan tool thing, since I didn't account for the Euro cars... I know of a few cheaper readers that will "ping" the Jap stuff, but nothing outside the OEM tools or the Snap On unit that will do Euro (and I think Phil is pretty close on the price there).

And damn, I meant to account for the add-on units. Try this one:
------------------------------
The stock ECU must be used (including board, housing, and connector). Up to two chips may be desoldered for the purposes of programming, and may be socketed (regular or ZIF sockets). Any replacement chips must have the same number of pins as stock. No add-on units (internal or external) shall be used. Sensors must be stock or OEM replacement, but a single value of fixed resistance may be added between a stock sensor and the stock connector to that sensor.
---------------------------------

Damn, longer than the first one, but covers all the ECM/sensor bases I think.

BTW- Thank you all for the thoughtful feedback. Does this sound like something you'd write in and support if I proposed the change?

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

[Bill Miller]

Stock, that's it. Change the resistence values, but the box must be stock. Any evidence that the stock unit has been opened means it's no good.

A decent scan tool should be part of a Region's tool box. Although, having several Regions share one is ok, as long as there is no conflict in the race schedule. If the scanner shows the ECU to not be stock (or updated as per the mfg.), it's no good.

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

[Geo]

The scanner can't tell you for all cars if the ECU is stock or not. I know it cannot for Nissans. So what good is it?


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

[pfcs]

Bill-you MUST allow that the ECU not be original-that fueling tables can be changed-otherwise we all would have to run carburetors.

[Joe Harlan]

The Touring class ECU rule seams to work, They did use a Scanner on our car in impound to be sure it didn't have fault codes.

[bldn10]

Simpler, you just delete the words "or replace" from the current rule.

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

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
The Touring class ECU rule seams to work, They did use a Scanner on our car in impound to be sure it didn't have fault codes.

Problem with that is that the T cars all are 96 or newer, so you can use the universal OBD2 scanner. I think other guys are right about not including the scanner language, as it could be cost prohibitive for the Regions to comply and provide such.

Oh, and Bill-
I can make a pretty wild program that shows up as stock on a scanner. Not everyone might be able to do that though... Hell, I can now do the stuff they used to do in SS and the pro series- make it read stock, but if you hold down the gas pedal while you turn the key on, it reverts to a different set of tables...

I actually would go further with Phil's point, that not allowing modifications to fuel tables is WORSE than carbs. The mods allowed in IT can generate air flows that do NOT match the stock profiles, so therefore fueling will not match air intake as well. While the ECUs can adapt, the WOT tables will not adapt well, and I'd think that's where many spend the majority of their time... Not to mention that if you pull power to the unit, it takes a while to relearn the adaptations (like an entire race weekend or more).

IM(not so)HO- we need to allow modification to fuel and spark tables but require it be done within the confines of the stock ECU's electronic architecture. This parallels the carb rules VERY well.

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

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by bldn10:
Simpler, you just delete the words "or replace" from the current rule.



Problem is, then we'd have people spending MORE money to put MOTEC chips on the stock board. I think we need to establish exactly what can be done, not try to limit what can't.

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

[Greg Amy]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">No add-on units (internal or external) shall be used.</font>

You just eliminated all currently-available aftermarket-modified ECUs for later-model Nissans (B13 and B14 Sentra, NX2000, 240SX, probably more). They all use alternate PROMS mounted on daughterboards inside the stock housing.

I think we're all beginning to see why it's so hard to allow alternate ECUs without opening up Pandora's Box (and why it will be impossible to close it)... - GA

[pfcs]

I agree with you Greg. In spite of how the current rule looks, and how sexy Motec, etc may look to some people (i.e: thinking that it is somehow "better" than a properly tuned stock ECU-I don't believe it is), I feel that the current rule is the best compromise available.
Don't forget that while there are chip tuners that are able to edit some manufacturer's files, there are many that can't or won't provide for our unique needs-that being slightly modified/soon to be archaic vehicles. In those instances, adapting a stand alone ECU in one's own housing starts to look very attractive once you get over the $$.
------------------
phil hunt

[This message has been edited by pfcs (edited February 21, 2005).]

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by GregAmy:
You just eliminated all currently-available aftermarket-modified ECUs for later-model Nissans (B13 and B14 Sentra, NX2000, 240SX, probably more). They all use alternate PROMS mounted on daughterboards inside the stock housing.

I think we're all beginning to see why it's so hard to allow alternate ECUs without opening up Pandora's Box (and why it will be impossible to close it)... - GA

Yeah, I see your point. I appreciate the feedback, as this is exactly the type of info I'm looking for. I admit that I am not aware of all the specific application items, so that's why I figured I'd post the idea for feedback.

Just a thought- what if add-on boards were allowed inside the housing (simply by striking the "internal or" from the rule wording above)? I realize that this opens the possibility for some to put a whole new controller inside, but is there a way to address that w/o screwing the Nissan guys (and probably others)? If I am thinking correctly, the Nissan solution is probably a unit that substitutes the PROM and limp-home chips, and adds no active computing power to the unit...

Greg- can you give a link to some place that provides technical info on the Nissan piece?



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

[Banzai240]

The Nissan units from Wolf use an add-on daughtercard that were designed to be installed in the stock ECU case... In other words, the stock units were DESIGNED to have the option of having the addition cards... the stock mainboard has the solder pads, and the case has the mounting bosses already installed... Additionally, the complany that makes the main board also supplies the daugtercard... I think they are standard issue on certain Turbo cars, as well as are factory pieces on Subarus...

Now, on the topic of ECU rules... How about taking a novel approach to this subject and just LEAVE THE CURRENT RULE ALONE and concentrate on making cars COMPETITIVE under the EXISTING RULES??? If you change the rule, all you do is change the problems with it...

I'd rather concentrate on making cars competitive under the existing structure rather than keep trying to change the rules and making everyone chase a moving target all the time...

We can correct nearly any issue that has to do with ECU rules with the tools we currently have in place...

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

[oanglade]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Now, on the topic of ECU rules... How about taking a novel approach to this subject and just LEAVE THE CURRENT RULE ALONE and concentrate on making cars COMPETITIVE under the EXISTING RULES??? If you change the rule, all you do is change the problems with it...

I'd rather concentrate on making cars competitive under the existing structure rather than keep trying to change the rules and making everyone chase a moving target all the time...



That's what we were all doing BEFORE the current ECU rule came in...


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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by oanglade:
That's what we were all doing BEFORE the current ECU rule came in...




Yah, except that the CARB guys had the advantage there of being able to keep their engines alive under racing conditions...

Again, any inequities caused by the current ECU rules can be negated pretty simply by making some adjustments...

Just my opinion...



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

[lateapex911]

Darins point is good, although it is filled with slope and slipperiness as well.

Going back to stock just can't happen..it was a screw job in the first place because it upset the competitive (designed at least) balance, but reverting now would be another screw job. Totally unfair. (And I would benefit from it, so...I'm clearly not acting in self interest)

And really, ANY re-writing of the existing rules really goes against the philosophy of IT, which has, as one of it's cornerstones, the concept of "reasonable" racing. Changing rules and causing guys to reinvent an expensive wheel flies in the face of "reasonable, in my eyes.

But the onus lands on the ITAC and the CRB to be proactive in the "adjustment" process...but not too "proactive".

But that's another story..

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

[jlucas]

Besides some of the items that are posted above, this rule does nothing to allow currently IT eligible OBD2 Honda & Acuras to modify their ECUs. They still won't be able to do anything with your suggest rules.

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

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by jlucas:
Besides some of the items that are posted above, this rule does nothing to allow currently IT eligible OBD2 Honda & Acuras to modify their ECUs. They still won't be able to do anything with your suggest rules.



Come again? OBD II compliant cars are the ultimate for ease, once that code itself is disassmbled. All OBDII machines should be flashable, thereby negating the need for even desoldering. With the increasing number of these cars coming into these classes, the investment in code disassembly work is FAR less $$ per competitor than each one buying a MOTEC at $3000+. Also, whoever did the initial investment could then resell services to others, so everyone wins...

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

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by lateapex911:

And really, ANY re-writing of the existing rules really goes against the philosophy of IT, which has, as one of it's cornerstones, the concept of "reasonable" racing. Changing rules and causing guys to reinvent an expensive wheel flies in the face of "reasonable, in my eyes.


I would agree, however there is a precedent- RR shocks. This is another matter where, IMHO, the technology is NOT in line with the purported class philosophy, so we need to consider a well thought-out alternative.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that my proposed rule is the end-all-be-all of this idea. If I thought that were true, I wouldn't have bothered asking for input. I have just seen enough people (some of whom I would consider "reasonable") talk about how this rule is less in line with IT stuff than most, so I figured I'd offer. I have no personal investment in this, as I have not begun building an IT car at this time. However, If I do start to throw an ITA Neon together, I'd like to know if I need to budget $1000 for ECU "cracking", or $3000 for a MOTEC.



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

[Knestis]

It's deja vu all over again.

Here (http://forum.improvedtouring.com/it/Forum2/HTML/000752.html),

here (http://forum.improvedtouring.com/it/Forum2/HTML/000744.html),

and even

here (http://forum.improvedtouring.com/it/Forum12/HTML/000645.html).

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited February 21, 2005).]

[ShelbyRacer]

Right, except for the fact that I'm actually trying to propose an alternate rule, and not just complain about the current one.

Let's get back to the question-

What are the inherent issues with the rule as proposed as follows- (changed slightly from the last time)

----------------------------------
The stock ECU must be used (including board, housing, and connector). Up to two chips may be desoldered for the purposes of programming, and may be socketed (regular or ZIF sockets). Any replacement chips must have the same number of pins as stock. No external add-on units shall be used. Internal "piggyback" modules are allowed for the purposes of providing an alternate ROM program. Sensors must be stock or OEM replacement, but a single value of fixed resistance may be added between a stock sensor and the stock connector to that sensor.

-------------------------------
Could this allow for aftermarket controllers, considering that it is stated that the stock ECU must control the engine? I hope not.

And yes, I know it's getting longer everytime I rewrite it. Man I wish that aspect were transferable to other things in life... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

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

[This message has been edited by ShelbyRacer (edited February 21, 2005).]

[Andy Bettencourt]

If I was to propose a new rule (sans ITAC hat) it would be one of two things:

1. Admit that the wording of the current rule produced some unintended, hugly expensive concenquences. Put the Genie back in the bottle. As of 2007, the ECU and ECU housing must be stock and unmodified. This allows sufficent time to phase current systems out, makes it clear that nobody should be developing new stuff, and gives builders enough time to plan.

2. Open it up completely. Full-on stand alone stuff is legal. BUT: go back and analyze the class structure. Give the carburated cars a weight break that they now deserve seeing as how the competitive balance is thrown.

Can either work? I don't know. I am actually a fan of the first. I am from the school that taught you to admit you made a mistake and fix it - all in the name of teh greater good.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[jlucas]

Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
Come again? OBD II compliant cars are the ultimate for ease, once that code itself is disassmbled. All OBDII machines should be flashable, thereby negating the need for even desoldering.

Well guess what..... OBD2 Honda/Acuras weren't flashable till you get the RSX generation of ECU's. That means is you want a programmable ECU for a 1997 Integra IT car that meets the current rule wording you are SOL!
If it was allowed to use an OBD1 ecu in place of an OBD2 ecu there would not be problem programming it.


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

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by jlucas:
Well guess what..... OBD2 Honda/Acuras weren't flashable till you get the RSX generation of ECU's. That means is you want a programmable ECU for a 1997 Integra IT car that meets the current rule wording you are SOL!
If it was allowed to use an OBD1 ecu in place of an OBD2 ecu there would not be problem programming it.




Hmmm, I always thought that one of the "specifications" of the OBD II architecture was for flashable ROM image to allow for factory updates. I have been known to be wrong before, so I apologize.

Even so, your ROM image is stored on one, mabye two, EEPROMs, so the desoldering allowance should make it possible for you to rework the lookup tables to suit. If I am in error on this, please explain the architecture structure of the ECM, as it's one I'm not aware of.


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

[jlucas]

Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
Even so, your ROM image is stored on one, mabye two, EEPROMs, so the desoldering allowance should make it possible for you to rework the lookup tables to suit. If I am in error on this, please explain the architecture structure of the ECM, as it's one I'm not aware of.

Hondata, the best editors of Honda/Acura OE ECU's, can explain it in more detail if you need but, in short, the data is masked onto the OKI ECU processor. Flashable processors are not for sale (Hondata has tried) from OKI.

The main point to take from this is that any ECU rule that tries to limit what is possible is going to be skewed by those writing it and their knowledge. For example, I have no idea what would be a fair ECU rule for any other manufacturer. At this point I think it should just be any ECU is allowed that connects to the stock wiring harness, how would that not level the playing field with reguard to ECUs?

BTW, this is the same boat for Touring. Some have ECUs, some don't.
------------------
Jeremy Lucas
Team Honda Research
Kumho - Cobalt - Comptech

[This message has been edited by jlucas (edited February 21, 2005).]

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by jlucas:
Hondata, the best editors of Honda/Acura OE ECU's, can explain it in more detail if you need but, in short, the data is masked onto the OKI ECU processor. Flashable processors are not for sale (Hondata has tried) from OKI.

The main point to take from this is that any ECU rule that tries to limit what is possible is going to be skewed by those writing it and their knowledge. For example, I have no idea what would be a fair ECU rule for any other manufacturer. At this point I think it should just be any ECU is allowed that connects to the stock wiring harness, how would that not level the playing field with reguard to ECUs?

BTW, this is the same boat for Touring. Some have ECUs, some don't.

Well, this is why I posted this here, as it was a situation that I was not aware of. Learn something new every day.

To answer your question, the current rule allows anything that plugs into the stock harness, and yes, it levels the field, but at what level? Allowing everyone to run sequential gearboxes would level the field too, and eliminate some of the issue of certain cars not having the best setup for certain tracks, but is that a direction that we want ot go? Yes, I realize that's a stretch, but like many, I'm trying to illustrate a point...

If this situation could be addressed by allowing an older ECU as you said, could this be something that's addressed on the spec line?

Yes, I freely admit this is much harder than I first suspected, and I have a new respect for the rule as currently written. But as I've said many time already, that was one of the points of me asking the question.

Thanks again to those who've responded with pertinent information, as this was what I wanted to know. Feel free to add more, as I know I have more to learn...



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

[jlucas]

Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
To answer your question, the current rule allows anything that plugs into the stock harness, and yes, it levels the field, but at what level? Allowing everyone to run sequential gearboxes ......

You're going to have to be a little more detail oriented if your going to start writing rules. Current rule also requires it to fit in the stock case, which is hardly "anything".
Seq Gearboxes? That makes as much sense in this discussion as boat anchors because none of us have those either.

Anybody have any idea what the problem would be with actually allowing "any" ECU that connects to stock wiring? Other than the people that want no further change (sorry guys, cat is already out of the bag) for the sake of no change.

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

[pfcs]

congratulations to all for a senible, balanced discussion of the issue. I'm heartened by it

------------------
phil hunt

[Knestis]

Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
Right, except for the fact that I'm actually trying to propose an alternate rule, and not just complain about the current one. ...


My point, poorly made but still valid, is that the issues and options have been pretty widely discussed and there's no consensus on them. I am not an expert in the technology but I'm supposed to understand policy and applying a wordsmithing exercise to a complex issue on which there is little agreement among multiple interests is going to be problematic.

Try getting people to agree to first principles (necessary if you are banking on buy-in) or explicate the assumptions and values being applied before you move forward (if you are in a position to be directive), but I'll bet a cookie that the same ideas and suggestions will come out here, as did in those past discussions.

** Leave it all stock
** Open it up completely
** Leave it the way it is
** Change it so I benefit http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

K

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis:
My point, poorly made but still valid, is that the issues and options have been pretty widely discussed and there's no consensus on them. I am not an expert in the technology but I'm supposed to understand policy and applying a wordsmithing exercise to a complex issue on which there is little agreement among multiple interests is going to be problematic.

Wow Kirk, that was a mouthful, but IMHO spot-on.



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

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Yah, except that the CARB guys had the advantage there of being able to keep their engines alive under racing conditions...

Again, any inequities caused by the current ECU rules can be negated pretty simply by making some adjustments...

Just my opinion...



Come on Darin, don't even try and sell that one. How many cases can you document where engines failed because of the stock ECU?

Up until about a year or so ago, cars were classified w/o taking an open ECU into account. The current rule has obviously resulted in unintended consequences.

I agree w/ Andy, put the genie back in the bottle, for the greater good. Or, if you don't want to negate people's investments, make them pay a price. You want to run a tweaked ECU? 5% weight penalty. Or, give all the non-EFI cars a 5% weight break.



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

[Joe Harlan]

Again the touring rule would be a fair backing up to place. The issue with saying you can adjust cars to the current rule is BS at best. You then force all competitors to have the full meal MOTEC deal or be ruled not fully developed. I have been on the dyno for 2 days now with a 350Z and the factory ECU and it is not gonna get any where close to a Motec in the same application. Making the rules open will only raise the bar for everyone and then the ADHOC and the CRB will be forced to make huge adjustments that time and the talent pool won't allow.

[jlucas]

Kirk, you definately have more patience than I.

Tired of beating my head on the wall, good luck to all.

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

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
The issue with saying you can adjust cars to the current rule is BS at best. You then force all competitors to have the full meal MOTEC deal or be ruled not fully developed.


Well Joe, that's pretty much where we are today. Granted, the concept of 'fully developed' in IT doesn't have the same conotation that it does in Prod (no comp. adj. and such), but I agree, it's raised the bar for everyone. I also agree that it will be something that will have to be looked at if a PCA for a given car is considered, but those shouldn't happen w/ the frequency of Prod. comp. adjustments.


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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
You then force all competitors to have the full meal MOTEC deal or be ruled not fully developed.

AND... it's already been fairly successfully argued that the current Touring rules (which say "modify", but not "or replace"...) would not prevent someone from "modifying" a stock ECU to the point where it contained a MOTEC unit...

I'm not arguing that the current rule doesn't allows more than it should... I think it does... what I'm arguing is that we already have this rule in place and everyone knows the deal... WHY keep moving the target and introducing NEW problems, rather than just STOP changing the rules and work with what we have???

I've argued from the start, by the way, that we should just set our rule to read EXACTLY like Touring ECU rule and be done with it... I'm in the "take out the 'or replace'" camp...

I'm not at all in favor of going back to stock... This is IMPROVED Touring, not SS... There should be some room here for modifications that make a sensible racecar...


------------------
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 February 22, 2005).]

[Geo]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
I have been on the dyno for 2 days now with a 350Z and the factory ECU and it is not gonna get any where close to a Motec in the same application.

Have you cracked the code and can you rewrite it? Last I knew even JWT hadn't cracked the code for late model ECUs.



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

[Joe Harlan]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">AND... it's already been fairly successfully argued that the current Touring rules (which say "modify", but not "or replace"...) would not prevent someone from "modifying" a stock ECU to the point where it contained a MOTEC unit...</font>

Show me where. The fact that National has to be able to check for codes kills the motec idea. I am not saying that we need to make every region purchase scan tools, I am saying that the way the Touring rule is written and enforced sets a standard on how it is read.

Darin. I am not trying to argue this either. My point is that the current target was a screw-up and it needs fixed. The touring rule would be a proper target. I can't believe that in the wioldest dreams of IT that it was ever thought we would see 5 to 10K managment systems for FI cars.

Geo: I am not going to get into what we are doing with the 350 on a website. We are doing development work.

[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited February 22, 2005).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
My point is that the current target was a screw-up and it needs fixed. The touring rule would be a proper target.

HOW do you KNOW it was a "screw-up"??? The language appears to me to be very SPECIFICALLY different than the Touring rules... HOW do you guys know this isn't what the board/committee at the time intended?? I think, rather, that because you guys don't LIKE the current rule, you think it's wrong, but that doesn't make it a "screw-up"... How do we know that it wasn't intended to be exactly like it is? The phrase "or replace" leaves little abiguity as to what it means... Hard for me to buy that those that put it there didn't know exactly what it would allow...

But again, I'm all for taking this rule back to the Touring rule... It's not going to make ANY difference as far as the competition goes on the track (those that have will still have and those that don't will bitch about it...), but if it makes everyone feel better, I suppose it's a simple enough thing to change...



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

[Joe Harlan]

Just because it may have been done with intent does not mean it can't be a screwup.. My thinking is somebody wanted this mod for an advantage (big leap eh) and it got through with out enough thought. I don't remember the exact timing but I think the IT rule was done before the touring rule.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">(those that have will still have and those that don't will bitch about it...)</font>

Explain? People will bitch all the time that's just part of the game. Nobody asks for stuff unless it will benefit them. Most times it is a case of you can't buy talent so you sk for parts. When the rules divide the competition then its wrong and must be fixed. Again no argument here.

[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited February 22, 2005).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
When the rules divide the competition then its wrong and must be fixed. Again no argument here.

It's a see-saw dude... The carb guys were happy and the ECU guys bitched... Now the ECU guys are happy and the carb guys are bitching...

Guess it's time for the ECU guys to share in the bitching again...

Point??? Competition is ALWAYS going to be divided in a class like this... When you try to make 30+ year-old cars competetive with 5+ year-old cars, it'll never be the utopia that many here believe is possible... the compromises are always going to make someone unhappy and give someone else an "unfair advantage..."

All of this can be balanced out with weight, however... if the cars are classified/reclassified properely...

By the way... it would stand to reason that "IMPROVED Touring" would have a step up in prep from "Touring"... I don't see why this wouldn't include more allowances for computer mods...

Again, all just my opinion...

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited February 22, 2005).]

[ShelbyRacer]

OK, guys, stay on track here please (no pun intended)...

Jeremy- Believe me, I can be "detail oriented" (you should see some of the rules I *have* written), but I was trying to come up with a rule that was clear and concise, something that obviously can't be done with this issue. I thank you for your time in sharing the info with me, because as I said, yours was a situation I had not considered.

Kirk- My point here was not to belabor an often rehashed issue, but to attempt to put something out there for direct commentary. Concensus was not my goal, as SCCA is not a democracy (let's face it, it's barely a republic sometimes). I simply wanted to know why it was that my idea wouldn't work, and I believe I've found the answer to that. I had examined other posts, but to that end I had not found a major issue that would make my proposed rule become the nail in someone's coffin. Jeremy has shown me something I did not know and did not take into account.

I will say that I'm not sorry I offered this thread, as I think that at least I have received some education from it. While I may not agree with the current rule, I don't have a better one than what I've shown with my ideas here. I hope that this discussion can continue as a positive experience, and we can continue to share thought on the issue.

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

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
[B] I agree w/ Andy, put the genie back in the bottle, for the greater good.

Bill, I would personally be all for this (and it is where my heart is), but I truly believe we would only be paying lip service.

It is just flat impossible to police. And if you cannot police it, you cannot keep the genie in the bottle no matter how hard you wish.

Philosophically I'm with you, but the reality is harshly different.


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

[pfcs]

once again, I'm really heartened by this particular thread. I'm taking SCCA nerd out of my lexicon, at least for now! We may really be OK after all!

------------------
phil hunt

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Up until about a year or so ago, cars were classified w/o taking an open ECU into account. The current rule has obviously resulted in unintended consequences.

I agree w/ Andy, put the genie back in the bottle, for the greater good. Or, if you don't want to negate people's investments, make them pay a price. You want to run a tweaked ECU? 5% weight penalty. Or, give all the non-EFI cars a 5% weight break.



First, I hope your estimate of a year is off, as the ECU rule dates back much further, and I would assume that anyone classing a car would take it into account.

Second, while I wish it was handled differently...(and I know that the words "electronics" and the "future" equal "unforseen change") I just can not in good conscience advocate a return to ground zero. (stock ECUs) Regardless of the ability to police effectively.

If IT is to be a place to attract first time road racers, it needs stable rules, and changing the ECU rule from 'on', to 'off', is messing with disaster. And wight penalties are another confusion that just isn't needed. I can hear the cries of protest from those that heve done the dyno hours....if you think the E36 guys bitched...they were church mice compared to the outcry we'd hear if we went back to stock, and I wouldn't blame them.



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

[Geo]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Show me where. The fact that National has to be able to check for codes kills the motec idea.

Yep. But, as it was pointed out to me, T must remain emissions compliant. Since IT cars can remove emissions, it eliminates this as a solution. Too bad.


Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
[B]Geo: I am not going to get into what we are doing with the 350 on a website. We are doing development work.

Oh, yeah, I can understand that. Sorry.

One of these days I need to get up to the PNW. I'll buy you a beer or two and you can tell me about it (what you care to divulge).


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

[Geo]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Explain? People will bitch all the time that's just part of the game.

True enough.


Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Nobody asks for stuff unless it will benefit them.

Wait, wait....

Hold on. I pushed hard for the wheel rule change and it doesn't even affect me. 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

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
I just can not in good conscience advocate a return to ground zero. (stock ECUs) Regardless of the ability to police effectively.

If IT is to be a place to attract first time road racers, it needs stable rules, and changing the ECU rule from 'on', to 'off', is messing with disaster.


Oh absolutely, I can't agree more, which is why I decided to put some thought and effort into crafting a rule suggestion to allow some modifications that would benefit all, rather than relegating the best solution to those with the deepest pockets. I personally would fight like hell to leave the rule the way it is rather than going back to stock.

If only there was a better way... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif



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

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by pfcs:
I'm taking SCCA nerd out of my lexicon, at least for now!

Damn, and I've started using that in conversations... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif (seriously, I have...)




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

[seckerich]

Every time the Motec or other engine management gets mentioned it goes up in price. I see $3000.00+ and even a mention of up to $10,000.00 in some earlier posts. I would rather be able to buy the Motec ($1950.00 retail and $2400.00 for a Pro) and not be held hostage to the one guy who "cracked" the code. I will never have to buy the latest, greatest chip every 3 races to get faster and I can do it myself. In the end I may have to skip a race or two to afford it, but it is a one time expense. If I change cars or classes I can just drop a new program in and go. You will spend the same money on dyno time and other costs with the other options and it is only for that make and model. Wasted money after that. And don't expect the guy who crackes your ECU to share everything with you, they have worked too hard to get where they are to just give it to everybody. Just my useless opinion.
Steve Eckerich
ITS Speedsource RX7

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:

By the way... it would stand to reason that "IMPROVED Touring" would have a step up in prep from "Touring"... I don't see why this wouldn't include more allowances for computer mods...

Again, all just my opinion...



Again Darin, nice try. IT has been around waaaaayyyyyy longer than Touring. And let's not even get into the fact that none of the current Touring cars would fit into the current IT classes (w/ the very slim possibility of some of the new T3 cars).

The lengths you go to to justify your position are down right hilarious!!!!

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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
The lengths you go to to justify your position are down right hilarious!!!!




Originally posted by Banzai240:
Again, all just my opinion...

It's nice to see that you still have a complete inability to contribute to a conversation without attacking me for giving MY OPINION! It's an OPINION Bill... NOT a "positition"... last time I checked, justifying an opinion was not required...



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

[Knestis]

Darin's point is a good one, particularly if we remember that we have new members coming in all the time. There should be some logic to the descriptive names of the classes.

Now THAT would make a good topic for a strategic position paper - like we still don't seem to have.

K

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Knestis:


Now THAT would make a good topic for a strategic position paper - like we still don't seem to have.

K

Yea....whatever happened to that??? Hey ITAC guys...have you seen it???



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

[Geo]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Yea....whatever happened to that??? Hey ITAC guys...have you seen it???



My dog ate it. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Yea....whatever happened to that??? Hey ITAC guys...have you seen it???


I will be meeting with the CRB on a con-call in March (first time I've been invited to do so...) to discuss the direction and future of IT, as well as to discuss PCAs and their application...

I'm assuming after that, perhaps I'll have a better idea of what the plan is for IT...



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