PARITY IN IT CLASSES

[dj10]

Lets have a vote!
How many of you want very expensive engine management systems (like Motec) to be allowed in the IT class? How about in ITS Class? :023:
It's time the members stand up and be counted. Time for a revolution! Lets take back our club! :bash_1_:
Didn't they ban shocks and struts with reservoirs??? Damn right they did! Now it's time to get parity with all the cars! Who wants 50K to 60k IT cars?
Let the ITAC know where you stand. Remember the Alamo!!!!!!

VOTE NOW!!!!

hehe
dj

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by dj10@Nov 16 2005, 01:40 PM
Lets have a vote!
How many of you want very expensive engine mangement systems (like Motec) to be allowed in the IT class? How about in ITS Class? :023:
It's time the members stand up and be counted. Time for a revolution! Lets take back our club! :bash_1_:
Didn't they ban shocks and struts with reservoirs??? Damn right they did! Now it's time to get parity with all the cars! Who wants 50K to 60k IT cars?
Let the ITAC know where you stand. Remember the Alamo!!!!!!

VOTE NOW!!!!

hehe
dj

65583


I say keep it. Sometimes it's the only way arround tamper proof chip programs that are changed several times during a model year, or throttle by wire systems.

James

[RSTPerformance]

I say keep it, I don't care about ITS, and most ITB cars can't benifit from it, and if they can they need it ;) (That was all a joke so smile now :bash_1_: )

But for real, if you don't want a 50,000-60,000 IT car, run ITB or ITC :023: ITS cars are what they are and cost what they cost, changing that rule wont change that... if you want to win in ITS you need to spend the $$$, and people spending the $$$ will continue to cause they can, and I see nothing wrong with that, not to mention we need higher counts so we get our own race group at 2006 ARRC :happy204:

Raymond "sounding harsh (not meaning to), but you do have options, ITS doesn't have to be the "coolest class" does it?" Blethen

PS: Besides the cost factor what would the benefit be? how much would it effect the parity that already is starting to exist in the class, I think that would be a better argument to look at. JMO.

[Knestis]

I'm totally fine with the allowance.

There's no way to legislate spending. I could easily spend Motec money getting chips burned, installing them, and dyno testing. Besides, I honestly believe that we are still just talking about maximizing AF mixture here, and a $10K system is STILL only going to make as much HP as the engine's volumetric efficiency will allow. Anyone who thinks that Motec or some other megabuck system is gaining huge power over carefully optimized lesser systems is confused - or buying into the hype.

Besides, there's just no way to allow SOME opportunity for tuning for SOME models, without leaving the rule open enough to allow big bux to be spent on fancy solutions.

Doing the "set it free" dance,

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by RSTPerformance@Nov 16 2005, 07:36 PM
I say keep it, I don't care about ITS, and most ITB cars can't benifit from it, and if they can they need it ;) (That was all a joke so smile now :bash_1_: )

But for real, if you don't want a 50,000-60,000 IT car, run ITB or ITC :023: ITS cars are what they are and cost what they cost, changing that rule wont change that... if you want to win in ITS you need to spend the $$$, and people spending the $$$ will continue to cause they can, and I see nothing wrong with that, not to mention we need higher counts so we get our own race group at 2006 ARRC :happy204:

Raymond "sounding harsh (not meaning to), but you do have options, ITS doesn't have to be the "coolest class" does it?" Blethen

PS: Besides the cost factor what would the benefit be? how much would it effect the parity that already is starting to exist in the class, I think that would be a better argument to look at. JMO.

65623


I don't think that it has anything to do with ITS. You could spend $40K on ANY IT car. These kind of numbers are for cars that get resto-style builds. They don't neccessarily go any faster but are much more reliable - and better looking than cars that are just 'built'. Replacing every suspension component, every bushing, every bearing, etc. All the little things add up FAST. You can build a SM for under $10K if you THINK you have a PERFECT donor. Mine cost over $20K WITHOUT a pro motor. I don't think many people add up (or care to) EVERY bit and piece they use to build a car. Think of the costs of a serious team just in creating a proper spares package. I bought a new trannt and torsen when mine were perfectly usable...because if one broke, I needed a spare.

Regardless, you would see $20K+ ITB cars out there easily if somebody wanted to go hog-wild. Maybe the guys who can spend the money gravitate to different cars.

How fast do you think you could be going if you found a $10K bill to spend on your car? New tires every weekend, ultra-pro motor, crazy shocks....

It's time to build a 5-cyl...:)

AB

[Joe Harlan]

Anyone who thinks that Motec or some other megabuck system is gaining huge power over carefully optimized lesser systems is confused - or buying into the hype.

Keep thinking that way Kirk...... ;)

I have spent plenty of time on the Dyno with the Motec and now the AEM system. Major benefits besides HP to be found there. No koolaide here baby..... B)

[robits325is]

I say keep it - any 96+ car with OBD II can't be made competitive without some type of aftermarket engine management system.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by robits325is@Nov 16 2005, 08:17 PM
I say keep it - any 96+ car with OBD II can't be made competitive without some type of aftermarket engine management system.

65643



I say BS cause I have done it. you just have to do the work to crack the code. I don't have an issue with management systems as long as everyone knows the facts. My 98 240sx obdII is programable. We just had to break the code. I also know the E36 is flashable.
The 350z has also been hacked and I have spent hours on the Dyno doing the Current T2 map.

[its66]

The current ECU rule reminds me of the old no threaded body shock rule. It doesn't make any sense. Why disallow threaded body shocks, but allow threaded sleeves??? Why allow aftermarket ECU's, but require them to be hidden in the factory ECU case? I can spend $3-4000+ in engine management hardware and tuning, but I can't leave it in the box it came with?? I can't replace a few wires and sensors so the new computer (which IS legal) can function easily?

My vote is a non answer, since I see two choices which make sense to me.

a) Return to factory only ECU's. Allow programming changes to the factory board(s) Allow E-prom style chip replacement to the factory board and include an allowance for the adapter which some ECU's require to make the chip replacable. This would take care of RPM and top speed limits which some vehicles are burdened with (i.e. S13 240SX ~108 mph??) Tuning would be allowed if possible within these means.

b ) IF the consensus votes in favor of continuing to allow Aftermarket ECU&#39;s, then they should be ALLOWED as they are intended. Not hidden in the factory box. Not straddled with a 20+ year old wiring harness. Not stuck with nissan, mazda, or bmw sensors trying to communicate with a BrandX computer. If ITAC (through the comp board and CRB) would change the ECU rule wording, then aftermarket ECU&#39;s and tuning just got 50-75% less expensive. Price a Haltec or Microtech system. They are substantially less expensive <$1000. There are countless tuners out there who can work with these units since there are 1,000&#39;s of them on the street.

If the aftermarket ECU&#39;s are legal, then leave them in the open. If the system converts from Mass Air to Speed Density, then require the MAF to be in place with all the screens, doors, plungers in place just as if they were still being read by the computer.

Personally, I prefer the first choice. I obviously don&#39;t care for the wording of the current rule.


<flame suit on>

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by its66@Nov 16 2005, 08:43 PM
The current ECU rule reminds me of the old no threaded body shock rule. It doesn&#39;t make any sense. Why disallow threaded body shocks, but allow threaded sleeves??? Why allow aftermarket ECU&#39;s, but require them to be hidden in the factory ECU case? I can spend $3-4000+ in engine management hardware and tuning, but I can&#39;t leave it in the box it came with?? I can&#39;t replace a few wires and sensors so the new computer (which IS legal) can function easily?

My vote is a non answer, since I see two choices which make sense to me.

a) Return to factory only ECU&#39;s. Allow programming changes to the factory board(s) Allow E-prom style chip replacement to the factory board and include an alowance for the adapter which some ECU&#39;s require to make the chip replacable. This would take care of RPM and top speed limits which some vehicles are burdened with (i.e. S13 240SX ~108 mph??) Tuning would be allowed if possible within these means.

b ) IF the consensus votes in favor of continuing to allow Aftermarket ECU&#39;s, then they should be ALLOWED as they are intended. Not hidden in the factory box. Not straddled with a 20+ year old wiring harness. Not stuck with nissan, mazda, or bmw sensors trying to communicate with a BrandX computer. If ITAC (through the comp board and CRB) would change the ECU rule wording, then aftermarket ECU&#39;s and tuning just got 50-75% less expensive. Price a Haltec or Microtech system. They are substantially less expensive <$1000. There are countless tuners out there who can work with these units since there are 1,000&#39;s of them on the street.

If the aftermarket ECU&#39;s are legal, then leave them in the open. If the system converts from Mass Air to Speed Density, then require the MAF to be in place with all the screens, doors, plungers in place just as if they were still being read by the computer.

Personally, I like choice the second choice. I obviously don&#39;t care for the wording of the current rule.
<flame suit on>

65647


How do you deal with traction control?

[its66]

"How do you deal with traction control?"

I just breathe the throttle a little...J/K :)

Honestly Joe, I hadn&#39;t considered that? Are you asking "how would I prevent a competitor from adding a couple of wheelspeed sensors and creating traction control"? Or, how would I eliminate the T/C from cars originally equipped with it?

Interesting question either way.

Does my opinion on forcing the Motec (etc) into the factory case make sense though, or am I alone on this one?

[Joe Harlan]

See Jim that&#39;s the question because its all rules creep. It is really a matter of how far to let them creep. I started playing with the AEM system that does not require wheel speed sensors. The is clearly a benefit. I have not had enough time on it to give you full results. So I guess my answer is gonna be a none answer. I could see allowing an aftermarket unit but at the same time we need to spec single inlet restrictors on EFI cars so a balance can be found right away without have to make them 4000 lbs to do so. In the long run chipping factory ECU&#39;s is probably the answer and for those that can&#39;t reprogram compensate them in another way.

[its66]

Perhaps SIR&#39;s on cars with stand-alone ecu&#39;s? (almost sounds like a Prod rule, doesn&#39;t it?)

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by its66@Nov 16 2005, 09:28 PM
Perhaps SIR&#39;s on cars with stand-alone ecu&#39;s? (almost sounds like a Prod rule, doesn&#39;t it?)

65657

actually GT is where SIR&#39;s will be run first. I think the whole E36 deal could be fixed tomorrow with an engineered SIR and the car could likely be lighted way up to help tires survive. I think it would more fun to run those cars closer to equal at a lighter weight.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by robits325is@Nov 16 2005, 11:17 PM
I say keep it - any 96+ car with OBD II can&#39;t be made competitive without some type of aftermarket engine management system.

65643



Geez, talk about a biased opinion. Not to mention one that&#39;s just flat out wrong. There&#39;s a defined performance envelope for a given class, it gets spec&#39;d based on its potential. If you&#39;ve got to run a stock ECU, the car has a lower potential than one w/ a cooked brain. Oh, and just to remind you, this is IT, where there is no guarantee that your car will be competitive. ;)

Kirk,

It&#39;s not about massive increases in peak HP, but more about what it does to the power band, and the area under the curve.

[joeg]

I could care less. I run ITC with a carb.

If you want to run some $75,000 Panzerwagen, more power to you.

Speed cost money; how fast do you want to go?

[stevel]

Originally posted by robits325is@Nov 17 2005, 03:17 AM
I say keep it - any 96+ car with OBD II can&#39;t be made competitive without some type of aftermarket engine management system.

65643


only in the BMW world maybe. Plenty of obdII cars that can be fully programmed with a stock ecu board with a chip.

s

[bldn10]

I fundamentally disagree w/ the notion that if it takes $50,000 or whatever to run up front in IT then that defines what the class is. IMO the "class philosophy" has been ignored over the years and we have creeped further and further from it. At some point, at which many of you already seem to be, we have to say that we are either going to junk that philosophy, keep it and turn back the clock, or keep it and maintain the status quo. In case you haven&#39;t read it in awhile here is what IT is supposed to be:

"Improved Touring classes are intended to provide the membership with the opportunity to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications . . .
This class is intended to allow a variety of popular, inexpensive cars to be eligilble; however, those determined by the Club to be outside those parameters will not be classified." GCR 17.1.4.A. & B. (emphasis added)

Thus, I felt from the get-go that classification of the BMW was improper not because it might be an overdog but because most available tubs were not inexpensive vis the vast majority of other cars already classified. Chet&#39;s for-sale info on his car indicates his tub was $10,000; the last nice, straight &#39;89 RX-7 I bought was $900 and I&#39;ve paid less. I suspect there may be similar examples in other IT classes.

The restriction of ECU mods to inside the box may seem illogical but it is an attempt to give at least a nod to the class philosophy. It seems ridiculous because it is indeed inconsistent w/ other allowances that have been made that never should have been. I.e. rules creep has not been consistent across the board.

It is part of the racer psyche to always want to go faster and we will always want more. We are like little kids and candy or junkies and smack. It is up to the sanctioning body to say NO when we start to go overboard. IMO SCCA has too often failed to do that and now we rebel when they do. Perhaps the ITR (I prefer ITX) concept is the place to allow costs to run wild.

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 17 2005, 01:10 AM
Kirk,

It&#39;s not about massive increases in peak HP, but more about what it does to the power band, and the area under the curve.

65667


Yes, but a MoTeC does not recreate the laws of physics. And given it is fed the same information as the stock ECU the only thing left is greater resolution of finer increments of rpm. That is not going to make huge gains. I know Joe will tell me I&#39;m nuts. However, I had a long discussion with Jon Milledge a few months back and one of the things discussed was the potential of the MoTeC over a well developed stock ECU. He said maybe 4 hp tops. And he is a MoTeC dealer so there is no bias on his part (he also remaps otherwise stock 944 ECUs). He has done both.

That said, I realize some people would kill for 4 hp, but I think Kirk&#39;s point is that the MoTeC is not a magical box that will allow you to do that much more than a well developed stock ECU remap. However, it will certainly be easier to make changes to (generally).

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Geo@Nov 17 2005, 09:54 AM
Yes, but a MoTeC does not recreate the laws of physics. And given it is fed the same information as the stock ECU the only thing left is greater resolution of finer increments of rpm. That is not going to make huge gains. I know Joe will tell me I&#39;m nuts. However, I had a long discussion with Jon Milledge a few months back and one of the things discussed was the potential of the MoTeC over a well developed stock ECU. He said maybe 4 hp tops. And he is a MoTeC dealer so there is no bias on his part (he also remaps otherwise stock 944 ECUs). He has done both.
That said, I realize some people would kill for 4 hp, but I think Kirk&#39;s point is that the MoTeC is not a magical box that will allow you to do that much more than a well developed stock ECU remap. However, it will certainly be easier to make changes to (generally).

65690


Geo, I don&#39;t think your nuts, I think you are biased in your oppinions and you would stand outside in a speedo in a snow storm saying the sun is shining to be right. I don&#39;t have a problem with that at least your consistent. You often ignore the other questions brought up on this subject. How do you handle the traction control issue.( I have used it real world) How do you equalize the ability to create an optimum map with traction control for every track in your division? I again am up for discussion but I have to agree with Bill D. here and I said it when the BMW got classed. We pushed the class intent right out the window when we started classing and adjusting things well beyond improved. Open ECUs are not improving anything they are replacing. Thats the problem with the current rule. It should limit to improvement. Other wise we may as well change the name to Replacment touring and get on with it. :023:

[its66]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 17 2005, 05:16 PM
<DELETE>Other wise we may as well change the name to Replacment touring and get on with it. :023:

65692


:023: :happy204: :lol:

Love it. very good.

Joe hit on some of the points I was trying to make. He did a much better job putting them into words. I think that modifying the factory ecu would make sense in Improved touring.

[erlrich]

Going back to the original premise of the thread - don&#39;t we already have a tool at our disposal to help achieve parity? Wasn&#39;t that the whole point of approving PCAs? Something tells me that once we get to the point where well-prepared RX-7s, 240Zs, 944s, etc, can compete with the Bimmers (we&#39;re still working on that, right ITAC?) the whole issue of aftermarket engine management systems will become mute. After all, what would I care if the guy I just beat spent 3X as much on his car?

JMHO.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by erlrich@Nov 17 2005, 12:04 PM
Going back to the original premise of the thread - don&#39;t we already have a tool at our disposal to help achieve parity? Wasn&#39;t that the whole point of approving PCAs? Something tells me that once we get to the point where well-prepared RX-7s, 240Zs, 944s, etc, can compete with the Bimmers (we&#39;re still working on that, right ITAC?) the whole issue of aftermarket engine management systems will become mute. After all, what would I care if the guy I just beat spent 3X as much on his car?

JMHO.

65712

OK Earl I&#39;ll buy into that...,Then why slow the E-36 down why not give the 240 a little compression and a little camshaft. Allow the RX7 a little street port(something new to police)....Again once you change the outlook of the class it has to change a bunch to get to parity. I am all for one or the other but lets not be half pregnant here. If Motecs or AEM&#39;s can be stuffed into the stock box then lets just get it on and allow the whole deal cause if even one person takes advantage of the full rule then the bar is raised to that level for everyone.

[erlrich]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan+Nov 17 2005, 03:15 PM-->
OK Earl I&#39;ll buy into that...,Then why slow the E-36 down why not give the 240 a little compression and a little camshaft. Allow the RX7 a little street port(something new to police)....Again once you change the outlook of the class it has to change a bunch to get to parity.
65716
[/b]

I guess it all boils down to where you want the class benchmark to be - if it&#39;s the BMW, then you will have to adjust a few dozen cars to bring them up to the standard. If it&#39;s the RX7 or 240, then you only have to adjust one car to bring it back to the group. I think that horse has been beaten about as much as we can though, hasn&#39;t it :bash_1_: ?

<!--QuoteBegin-Joe Harlan@Nov 17 2005, 03:15 PM
I am all for one or the other but lets not be half pregnant here. If Motecs or AEM&#39;s can be stuffed into the stock box then lets just get it on and allow the whole deal cause if even one person takes advantage of the full rule then the bar is raised to that level for everyone.

65716


Agree 100%. I never did understand the whole "stuff-a-motec-in-a-box" train of thought. Either just allow aftermarket systems and restrict the inputs to stock, or keep the factory ECU and allow mods to it. If we were taking a vote I would say keep the factory ECU. As you and Jim have argued I feel like that&#39;s more in line with the IT philosophy.

[Geo]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 17 2005, 10:16 AM
Geo, I don&#39;t think your nuts, I think you are biased in your oppinions and you would stand outside in a speedo in a snow storm saying the sun is shining to be right. I don&#39;t have a problem with that at least your consistent. You often ignore the other questions brought up on this subject. How do you handle the traction control issue.( I have used it real world) How do you equalize the ability to create an optimum map with traction control for every track in your division? I again am up for discussion but I have to agree with Bill D. here and I said it when the BMW got classed. We pushed the class intent right out the window when we started classing and adjusting things well beyond improved. Open ECUs are not improving anything they are replacing. Thats the problem with the current rule. It should limit to improvement. Other wise we may as well change the name to Replacment touring and get on with it. :023:

65692


Just a few things in response. Since you have said (paraphrasing) that it&#39;s your opinion I&#39;m biased, I can accept it&#39;s your opinion. However, I don&#39;t see how I&#39;m biased (sincerely).

I personally don&#39;t like MoTeCs in IT. However, the issue with ECUs as I see it is that a ) they are impossible to police, and b ) a royal PITA. :) On the PITA part, if we assume that we are going to allow modications (because we cannot police them anyway), then if we are going to be fair to others with ECUs (carb guys are getting a bum deal, no question), then the current rule seems to be the lowest common denominator (considering ALL of the ECU equipped cars in IT and not this brand of that). I HATE where we are at with ECUs, but honestly don&#39;t see another workable solution.

As for traction control, doesn&#39;t the MoTeC use some sort of algorithm to limit how quickly the revs may ramp up? If not I don&#39;t see how it could be done legall unless somehow some car has the wheel sensors wired to the factory ECU. I don&#39;t know the answer to my question here, but just guessing. I know you are intimately familiar with the MoTeC so I&#39;m sincerely seeking your knowledge on the matter.

In the end, I&#39;m all for requiring stock ECUs if we could police them. We just cannot.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Geo@Nov 17 2005, 01:26 PM
Just a few things in response. Since you have said (paraphrasing) that it&#39;s your opinion I&#39;m biased, I can accept it&#39;s your opinion. However, I don&#39;t see how I&#39;m biased (sincerely).

I personally don&#39;t like MoTeCs in IT. However, the issue with ECUs as I see it is that a) they are impossible to police, and B) a royal PITA. :) On the PITA part, if we assume that we are going to allow modications (because we cannot police them anyway), then if we are going to be fair to others with ECUs (carb guys are getting a bum deal, no question), then the current rule seems to be the lowest common denominator (considering ALL of the ECU equipped cars in IT and not this brand of that). I HATE where we are at with ECUs, but honestly don&#39;t see another workable solution.

As for traction control, doesn&#39;t the MoTeC use some sort of algorithm to limit how quickly the revs may ramp up? If not I don&#39;t see how it could be done legall unless somehow some car has the wheel sensors wired to the factory ECU. I don&#39;t know the answer to my question here, but just guessing. I know you are intimately familiar with the MoTeC so I&#39;m sincerely seeking your knowledge on the matter.

In the end, I&#39;m all for requiring stock ECUs if we could police them. We just cannot.

65724

Well the AEM system does not require a wheelspeed sensor to use the traction control and I am sure the Motec is the same way(I have not tried traction control on a motec application.) but since both systems also data log the wheel speed sensor becomes legal because data aquisition is considered a gauge.


I know we have beat this to death so as I said I don&#39;t care as much as just sharing information here.

[Geo]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 17 2005, 01:35 PM
Well the AEM system does not require a wheelspeed sensor to use the traction control and I am sure the Motec is the same way(I have not tried traction control on a motec application.) but since both systems also data log the wheel speed sensor becomes legal because data aquisition is considered a gauge.
I know we have beat this to death so as I said I don&#39;t care as much as just sharing information here.

65730


That&#39;s my interest as well Joe. Here is what I have a problem with above: You may data log the wheel speed sensor, but how do you get that info to the ECU? If the factory wiring harness does not feed that info to the ECU, how are you going to get it there? I have no problem with that info going to an instrumentation package. I just don&#39;t see how it can get to the ECU legally.

Back to my last question about how the two systems do traction control, it seems to me the only real way they can do it w/o wheel sensors is to limit how quickly the revs may climb. I could see this being more of a hinderance in road racing.

I&#39;m not trying to argue with you, but trying to explore this some more.

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by erlrich@Nov 17 2005, 02:08 PM
If we were taking a vote I would say keep the factory ECU.
65722

As would I. - GA

[Geo]

My only question for those would would vote for the factory ECU is:

How would you propose it be policed?

Again, I&#39;m not looking to argue, but that is a valid question that absolutely MUST be addressed if anyone wants this to be seriously considered.

Again, I&#39;m all for it, but I just don&#39;t know how to make it work.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Geo@Nov 17 2005, 01:45 PM
That&#39;s my interest as well Joe. Here is what I have a problem with above: You may data log the wheel speed sensor, but how do you get that info to the ECU? If the factory wiring harness does not feed that info to the ECU, how are you going to get it there? I have no problem with that info going to an instrumentation package. I just don&#39;t see how it can get to the ECU legally.

Back to my last question about how the two systems do traction control, it seems to me the only real way they can do it w/o wheel sensors is to limit how quickly the revs may climb. I could see this being more of a hinderance in road racing.

I&#39;m not trying to argue with you, but trying to explore this some more.

65732

If we are going to this much trouble to stuff the box you think I can&#39;t wire the factory data port to serial feed my lap top? Geo there are 16 year old rice rocket kids that can do this stuff these days. I believe that&#39;s why it is so hard to get our arms around. We learned on a toilet system with jets. B)

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Geo@Nov 17 2005, 02:46 PM
My only question for those would would vote for the factory ECU is:

How would you propose it be policed?

Again, I&#39;m not looking to argue, but that is a valid question that absolutely MUST be addressed if anyone wants this to be seriously considered.

Again, I&#39;m all for it, but I just don&#39;t know how to make it work.

65743
I would vote for Modifying the factory ECU.

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Geo@Nov 17 2005, 03:46 PM
How would you propose it be policed?
65743


No physical modifications allowed. If a tech inspector opens up the box and it&#39;s been modified, buh-bye.

Sure, there&#39;ll be some cars that can program without physical mods; there will be others, like me, that cannot. C&#39;est la vie. You can&#39;t account for cheaters that may modify their boxes on the sly, but what it will absolutely do is limit any mods to those that can be done via the OBD port and such. The ITAC and CRB can keep this in mind as later cars are classified. - GA

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Nov 17 2005, 03:02 PM
No physical modifications allowed. If a tech inspector opens up the box and it&#39;s been modified, buh-bye.

Sure, there&#39;ll be some cars that can program without physical mods; there will be others, like me, that cannot. C&#39;est la vie. You can&#39;t account for cheaters that may modify their boxes on the sly, but what it will absolutely do is limit any mods to those that can be done via the OBD port and such. The ITAC and CRB can keep this in mind as later cars are classified. - GA

65748

Greg I would almost agree here except the CRB has finally come to the acceptance that they can&#39;t police any of the classes. I think that&#39;s the trend toward touring from SS.

[erlrich]

Originally posted by Geo@Nov 17 2005, 04:26 PM
However, the issue with ECUs as I see it is that a ) they are impossible to police...

In the end, I&#39;m all for requiring stock ECUs if we could police them. We just cannot.

65724


I don&#39;t know enough about all the ECUs out there to know if this is 100% accurate, but I find myself debating if this is a legitimate argument against implementing this rule (any rule for that matter). How many other rules do we have already that are so difficult to police as to make it virtually impossible? How about the engine coatings rule? Or the rule about lightening cranks & flywheels only to the point of balancing? I&#39;m sure there are many examples, the point is we rely so much on the honesty of the competitors already why would this be any different. I tend to believe that the guys out there who play by the rules will do so, whether they believe the rule is enforceable or not; and the guys who skirt the rules will do so regardless. JMHO.

I tend to go along with Greg&#39;s approach to the policing question, with one exception - you have to find a way to allow the elimination of the speed limiter in cars so equipped. I don&#39;t know if you can accomplish that on every car out there without some physical modification to the ECU, but that&#39;s the only problem I have with the "totally stock" ECU rule.

[Rick_htm]

I just can&#39;t take it anymore. How in the hell does scca justify $3k ecu&#39;s in a class were I can&#39;t remove my windshield fluid bottle because "that is rules creep". It&#39;s just silly. You have ITS cars (ok Chet) running within 2 seconds of E prod national times. Some where we lost the handle on what IT is supposed to be. If we feel that we have to allow motec and similar systems, then they should come with a wieght penalty. Say 200lb for alt. ecu, 100lb for traction control, or 50lb for ABS. That is the only way to let the rich have ther toys without making the non-rich uncompetative. Scan the other chat rooms; prod, gt, sm. There are a lot of ticked of people in this club. We have some real venom circulating. I hope whoever steers the ship next looks into the real issues driving members away from the club.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Rick_htm@Nov 17 2005, 03:56 PM
I just can&#39;t take it anymore. How in the hell does scca justify $3k ecu&#39;s in a class were I can&#39;t remove my windshield fluid bottle because "that is rules creep". It&#39;s just silly. You have ITS cars (ok Chet) running within 2 seconds of E prod national times. Some where we lost the handle on what IT is supposed to be. If we feel that we have to allow motec and similar systems, then they should come with a wieght penalty. Say 200lb for alt. ecu, 100lb for traction control, or 50lb for ABS. That is the only way to let the rich have ther toys without making the non-rich uncompetative. Scan the other chat rooms; prod, gt, sm. There are a lot of ticked of people in this club. We have some real venom circulating. I hope whoever steers the ship next looks into the real issues driving members away from the club.

65758


Step back from the ledge..... :happy204:

Rick I have to tell you that right now at this moment in time you have the best group of AD-Hoc guys probably ever. I believe they are working hard and have worked hard to fix a few of the deep rooted issues in IT I believe for the most part they have theor eye on the ball as far as possible corrections to thing that were wrong the past.
I also feel that at this moment in time we have guys on the CRB that are listening to the plan and executing the best they possibly can. I don&#39;t know what the future is but there are a few people in place that I have big respect for. So remember we didn&#39;t get here over night and it won&#39;t be corrected over night but it looks like the tide is turning a little.

[Geo]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 17 2005, 02:53 PM
If we are going to this much trouble to stuff the box you think I can&#39;t wire the factory data port to serial feed my lap top? Geo there are 16 year old rice rocket kids that can do this stuff these days. I believe that&#39;s why it is so hard to get our arms around. We learned on a toilet system with jets. B)

65745


:lol: That&#39;s a good one Joe.

I understand what you&#39;re saying. Don&#39;t forget that while I&#39;m building a 944 I&#39;m a pretty serious Nissan guy too.

However.... we still have not addressed how to get wheel sensor info to the ECU legally. Unless the wheel sensor was originally feeding the ECU, I don&#39;t see a legal solution.

We also haven&#39;t addressed how the AEM and MoTeC actually control traction w/o a wheel sensor. The only way I have been able to dream up is an algorithm that limits the climb rate of the rpms. I also am doubtful of the use of that in road racing.

Again, not trying to argue, but these issues have been put out there so I&#39;m exploring them. If there is any information that you have that relates to this that you don&#39;t wish to share publicly, I understand that as well. You have a business to run and you have invested considerable time into these areas.

[Geo]

Originally posted by erlrich@Nov 17 2005, 03:32 PM

I tend to go along with Greg&#39;s approach to the policing question, with one exception - you have to find a way to allow the elimination of the speed limiter in cars so equipped. I don&#39;t know if you can accomplish that on every car out there without some physical modification to the ECU, but that&#39;s the only problem I have with the "totally stock" ECU rule.

65754


So, your vote is for half pregnant?

[Rick_htm]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 17 2005, 11:11 PM
Step back from the ledge..... :happy204:

Rick I have to tell you that right now at this moment in time you have the best group of AD-Hoc guys probably ever. I believe they are working hard and have worked hard to fix a few of the deep rooted issues in IT I believe for the most part they have theor eye on the ball as far as possible corrections to thing that were wrong the past.
I also feel that at this moment in time we have guys on the CRB that are listening to the plan and executing the best they possibly can. I don&#39;t know what the future is but there are a few people in place that I have big respect for. So remember we didn&#39;t get here over night and it won&#39;t be corrected over night but it looks like the tide is turning a little.

65760

You know, I&#39;ve been running IT for 12 years now. So I&#39;ve had this discussion with more than one person. But the hardest thing to explain to non scca or new scca people is what our rules are, and why we have soooo many classes. After a while we become numb to it. But you can always spot the new guy at annual tech, or registration, or impound. He&#39;s the ticked of guy who just keeps saying "you&#39;ve got to be ^$&*%#$ kidding me." At some point we need to become more user friendly. I&#39;m not a fan of nasa&#39;s every car gets it&#39;s own class, or nascar&#39;s our way or the highway, but somewhere there must be a happy medium where the rules a straightfoward and the emphasis is on doing your prep work and driving the car. Don&#39;t say spec miat because that is a joke in it&#39;s self. I don&#39;t have the answers, but with today&#39;s "take my ball and go home mentality" we need to have stability and simplicity enter the equation somewhere.

[erlrich]

Originally posted by Geo@Nov 17 2005, 07:38 PM
So, your vote is for half pregnant?

65765


Um, so your vote would be to require race cars to have speed limiters, as long as we could police it?

[Bill Miller]

George,

How do the speed limiters work? Do they work off the actual speedo reading, or are they taking a reading off a wheel speed sensor? If it&#39;s the latter, you&#39;ve just answered your question about to legally get that data to the ECU. And what actually drives the speedo reading? Is it a signal that comes from a wheel sensor, to the ECU, and then to the speedo? I seriously doubt that any of today&#39;s modern cars w/ drive by wire, etc. are still using mechanical speedos.

[Geo]

Originally posted by erlrich@Nov 17 2005, 04:51 PM
Um, so your vote would be to require race cars to have speed limiters, as long as we could police it?

65768


Ah yes.... Policing it. That brings up back to the issue at hand. How do you propose to police it?

We can wish all we want for certain things, but we have to have solutions that work, and they must work for the bulk of the cars on the 300+ lines of the ITCS. Any and all of these issues work OK when considering one car or one spec line. But when you lump them all together it gets messy.

(I realize the number of cars in the ITCS with ECUs is probably a fair bit less than half, but that&#39;s growing)

[gran racing]

I realize there are several issues that would need to be overcome with this approach but could the ECU boxes be sealed? Kinda going along with the sealed engine idea used in some other classes.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Geo@Nov 17 2005, 05:09 PM
The only way I have been able to dream up is an algorithm that limits the climb rate of the rpms. I also am doubtful of the use of that in road racing.

65771


If you don&#39;t think so I will explain why nextel cup cars have their ignition boxes in plain sight.

Geo sorry dude but you spend so much time wearing people out that they give up on the conversation which I am doing now. I have provided multible examples of how it is done if you need more info my shop rate is 125 dollars and hour you can come and sit and I will share until your satisfied or out of money. :bash_1_:

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 17 2005, 05:03 PM
George,

How do the speed limiters work? Do they work off the actual speedo reading, or are they taking a reading off a wheel speed sensor? If it&#39;s the latter, you&#39;ve just answered your question about to legally get that data to the ECU. And what actually drives the speedo reading? Is it a signal that comes from a wheel sensor, to the ECU, and then to the speedo? I seriously doubt that any of today&#39;s modern cars w/ drive by wire, etc. are still using mechanical speedos.

65770


I agree Bill. But do ALL of the wheel sensors feed the ECU? Or actually do ANY of them? I know the Nissans get their speed info from the gearbox. They a little pinion gear that spins a little electrical gizmo that sends the signal to the speedo. So, in that case, no wheel sensor connected to the ECU.

[Geo]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 17 2005, 05:16 PM
If you don&#39;t think so I will explain why nextel cup cars have their ignition boxes in plain sight.

Geo sorry dude but you spend so much time wearing people out that they give up on the conversation which I am doing now. I have provided multible examples of how it is done if you need more info my shop rate is 125 dollars and hour you can come and sit and I will share until your satisfied or out of money. :bash_1_:

65774


Joe, I am NOT trying to wear you down. Don&#39;t put this on me. You didn&#39;t address either of those points. If you&#39;ve addressed them in other threads I just haven&#39;t seen them. Otherwise, I just don&#39;t accept "trust me."

[lateapex911]

This is a great thread....

It&#39;s interesting to see the contrasts...

One guy wants things kept easy, simple and straightforward. Another wants each car line to have a variety of weights that the car will run at, dependent on it&#39;s equipment level.

Some ideas are great, but only suit one make of car.

The ECU box is truly the Pandoras box of IT....

I agree that the excuse that got us here, the inabilty to police, is really not valid. The rulebook has many examples of things we can&#39;t police, yet we still have rules about them. (Engine coatings is a great example. When was the last time you heard an "Engine coating" protest?? Heck the last time we submited a simple compression/throttle body/ and head protest, tech gagged like turkeys in the rain, and gave a suspicious throttle body back to the protestee! And couldn&#39;t actually measure for compression, and passed a set of domed pistons as "appearing stock") Even so, I hate making rules that allow lawlessness, just because we can&#39;t police it.

So, I have issues with writing too many rules because we, as a club (techs AND competitors) are bad at policing.

That said, IF we allow full on ECUs, we need to be ready that:

-The cost WILL go up...all that time writing and dynoing to get a version of workable traction control, better hp numbers in the low range, as well as other benefits, which further increases the gap between the haves, and the have nots.

-Disallowing the control of certain parameters will be a tough line to draw, and puts us right back in the &#39;can&#39;t have a rule you can&#39;t police camp&#39;, LOL, and it is very difficult to write a rule that affects all makes equally.

(Recently, I was told about a car that is making more HP than any other example of it&#39;s kind has before. I saw it run. Very impressive. I&#39;ve seen the best, and it was faster. An observer pointed to an air line that is eliminated as an emission control device on other builds, but in this car, it was present. The concept is that it connects the intake plenum to the airstream above the trottle body, therefor allowing more air into the engine. In stock form a valve controls it in a certain manner, but the concept here is that the valve has been controlled by a full on control system to open at different times, and the fuel management has been tweaked accordingly..whether this is the actual case or not, it is an example of how a very flexible and powerful system could alter the competitive balance in ways that are unknown to the rulesmakers)

I see the argument that certain cars can&#39;t be flashed, or chipped, while others can, resulting in an unfair balance as an invalid point. Some cars have crappy brakes, some are aerodynamic bricks...others have bad gear spacing and so on. THe classing of the cars takes into account the cars variables, so the car should be classed based on it&#39;s potential. You have to accept your car, warts and all when you make your initial choice. it&#39;s up to you to do due diligence.

I see going back to stock ECUs as problematic....it&#39;s not easy to shove the genie back in the bottle....a lot of people have spent buckets of time and money and it&#39;s not fair to them. And it would be a shame to eliminate cars with top speed goverened programs be eliminated. Can any, or all cars with top speed limiters be "tricked" into a mode without reprograming?

Modified ECUs would put us back at square one, but we&#39;d also have the same issues that got us here..

Ther is no good answer, but as of now, I need to see:
A - A rule that allows open ECus, but can effectively control their use, or
B - The return to a more stock based system, agian with effective conrols of it&#39;s function.

Either one should have a long lead announcement window.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 17 2005, 01:16 PM
Geo, I don&#39;t think your nuts, I think you are biased in your oppinions and you would stand outside in a speedo in a snow storm saying the sun is shining to be right.
65692


ROTFLMAO

Have you ever met George??

Fun as that may sound, I am not sure thats a sight I EVER want to see!

Sorry George...

;)

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 17 2005, 06:24 PM
ROTFLMAO

Have you ever met George??

Fun as that may sound, I am not sure thats a sight I EVER want to see!

Sorry George...

;)

65783


LOL, no i have never met him a my example may have been a bit extreme.....lol

[Geo]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 17 2005, 06:24 PM
ROTFLMAO

Have you ever met George??

Fun as that may sound, I am not sure thats a sight I EVER want to see!

Sorry George...

;)

65783


Hey, no need to apologize. I don&#39;t want to ever see that.

I threatened to get a driving suit made that was white with big black splotches. MOO.

[Bill Miller]

An observer pointed to an air line that is eliminated as an emission control device on other builds, but in this car, it was present. The concept is that it connects the intake plenum to the airstream above the trottle body, therefor allowing more air into the engine.

Jake,

That&#39;s in direct violation of 17.1.4.D.1.a.4 which says

All air entering the intake tract shall pass through the carb or fuel injection air inlet.

I don&#39;t care if it was part of the original emission control system or not, it&#39;s explictly disallowed, is illegal, and should have been protested.

[gran racing]

I see the argument that certain cars can&#39;t be flashed, or chipped, while others can, resulting in an unfair balance as an invalid point. Some cars have crappy brakes, some are aerodynamic bricks...others have bad gear spacing and so on. THe classing of the cars takes into account the cars variables, so the car should be classed based on it&#39;s potential. You have to accept your car, warts and all when you make your initial choice. it&#39;s up to you to do due diligence.

Brakes, aero, gear pacing, etc. are all a part of car classification. Just curious, do you guys really take into consideration if cars can or can not legally have the ECU modified? That seems like a really, really tough thing to research properly.

If ECU modifications, what negative results are there with allowing piggy back units?

[zracre]

does anyone have any records of ECU protests? If you are using the stock ECU case and harness UNMODIFIED...some of the discussed things would be impossible to do...simply removing the main connector and looking at the pins to see if they perform the stock function...any manipulation of this would render them illegal. Just curious if we have any history on that stuff...may shed some light or make an easier way to police it...

[C. Ludwig]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 17 2005, 09:20 PM



That said, IF we allow full on ECUs, we need to be ready that:

-The cost WILL go up...all that time writing and dynoing to get a version of workable traction control, better hp numbers in the low range, as well as other benefits, which further increases the gap between the haves, and the have nots.


65782



What?!?!?!?!?! I was going to be quiet until I read this. For the record I&#39;ve said all along I didn&#39;t like the ECU rule and wanted it to remain as it had been. You want to cheat? Have at it. I&#39;ve also made posts that said if we have to allow aftermarket EMS then why not open it up to make it CHEAPER. How can it be cheaper to buy a $3000 Motec system from Speedsource for $5000 just because they broke it down and stuffed it in a different case for you? How?!?!?! I&#39;ve said it before and I&#39;ll say it again...I can buy a used Haltech (just one example) off ebay for about $600-800, do the install myself, and get the same power figures anyone is getting with a Motec stuffed in a stock case. How is the $800 I spend on hardware and the $600 I&#39;d spend for a day of chassis dyno time more expensive than buying the stuffed box from Speedsource? How? How? How?

Currently I&#39;m working on stuffing a Haltech E8 into a stock RX-7 box. As another example of why this approach is not cheaper, the entry level Haltech is the E6X. The E6X can be had with all needed sensors and harness for about <$1200. Now since we have to use stock sensors and the stock harness I&#39;ll have to step up to the Haltech E8 since it&#39;s the first level of EMS that&#39;s sensor programmable to work with any sensor. Price starts at $1400. Already in the hole because of the rule. Then there is the time to break it down and stuff it. In the end, if it works and it can be marketed, it will be a >$2000 product. I can buy the E6X, have it installed (I charge $300 for an install on a rotary), and buy dyno time to tune it for less than the currently legal package.

There is no way in hell the current rule is CHEAPER than the alternative of opening it up.

[Renaultfool]

When the IT rules were written, what, about 35 years ago, most all cars considered at that time had carbs, or mechanical fuel injection. Time has moved on and now you cannot buy a car with a carb. The rules have to keep up with technology or the class will either die or become the next BrandX class.

I agree with Knestis for once. The engine is an air pump. Regulate the compression, cam, valves, ports, throttle body/restrictor, and short block, the mechanical stuff and make the rest free.
Free wiring harness, free computer, free sensors, whatever you want to do in front of the throttle body. It is all tune up stuff, not hop up stuff. Restricting how we do it (put it in the stock box, do not modify the harness) just increases the cost, the result is the same.

Yes, I have read the posts about traction control and special ECU programs for each track. Really? We have IT drivers out there whose driving skills could even sense the difference? If they could, they would be driving F1 instead of IT!

If I want a different computer I could build a MegaSquirt (look it up on the internet) to fit in my box for about $200, program it any way I want and still not be any better off than the guy with a carb.

If we all wanted to keep them stock we would be overcome with Showroom Stock cars. Where did they go? Boring. We are car guys and we like to tinker with our cars. Just restrict the mechanical stuff and let everyone tinker with the tune up, it won&#39;t make that much difference anyway and it will be cheaper and simpler to explain and maintain.

My vote would be to free up the tune up (ECU) rules.

That being said, does anyone know the programing for the Renix computer in my Renault? Come on rules nerds, someone out there will have to be able to find it if you are ever going to check mine out. I have been looking for a source for about 15 years. The point is, you will never ever be able to police it anyway, only make it more expensive. Making it more expensive is not part of the philosophy of the class now is it? Free is free, which can mean cheap or expensive, but free to chose.
Carl "The Renaultfool" Holbrook

[turboICE]

I vote open it up to anything that attaches to the OEM harness (and only has inputs from the OEM harness - no additional) because 1) I don&#39;t see a feasible way to go back and 2) as the rule stands now it makes it more expensive because you have to fit the aftermarket into the OEM housing.

I would love to be able to use AEM in my car even though my race budget couldn&#39;t afford it for at least another 18 months - but I will never be willing to spend what it would take to get it into the OEM box but I bet at some point we are racing against someone who did.

I admittedly have a heavy bias in my vote (does that make it less valid or valued?) because though I started as a teenager supercharing and bracket racing 60&#39;s muscle cars in the 80&#39;s, I am now completely hooked on electronic tuning turbo charged sports rockets. It ticks me off to no end that JWT won&#39;t license their reflash for my ECU so I can dyno tune it rather than sending the ECU for their bench tune - I would love to tell them where to go since they won&#39;t license it like most other hacked reflashes and put in a stand alone AEM. Yeah I might only squeeze out another HP on the dyno, but more importantly I am likely go find a couple more foot pounds of torque all through the range tuning it myself. And finally and most importantly to me in my bias - like everything else to do with my car not only will I know what is happening I will know how it was done by having done it myself.

I am not at all young, but I can tell the group right now there are people who expect that anytime they do anything with performance they expect to at a minimum to be able to tune their car themselves. There is a segment of enthuisiasts who enjoy tuning themselves sufficiently to just do without any class that doesn&#39;t allow them that part of their enjoyment - unfortunately the would just as soon stay on the street or strip where they can do what they want to their car. And in the minds of most car enthusiasts under the age of 30 - if the ECU has not been tweeked to the last rpm then it isn&#39;t performance of any type.

I mean just about the entire Honda Challenge H5 class in NASA Mid Atlantic is going to have adapters built for ODB0 dizzys so they can switch to a tunable ECU and these are people that are on real tight racing budgets as it is that have no business spending $400 on a dizzy adapter before the rewiring work on what are what they would consider truely improved ITB cars. To them being able to do that is part of the enjoyment - if they couldn&#39;t do it then racing would be less enjoyable to them.

There is a lot of attraction to racing for people and not all of it is neccessarily on the track. Heck I am just an accountant who wishes he had been an engineer instead - if I am able to have more of my own work in the car then it is more enjoyable for me and yes I also hope it gives me a better car to compete with.

I will always compete legally because I am an anal accountant - but you can count on me having a deep desire to have the car performing at the absolute maximum that it can legally and within my budget. And if someone wants to fault me for wanting the maximum legal performance (which some have) that isn&#39;t my problem, I am tolerant of what they want from club racing.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by turboICE@Nov 19 2005, 02:03 AM
I vote open it up to anything that attaches to the OEM harness (and only has inputs from the OEM harness - no additional) because 1) I don&#39;t see a feasible way to go back and 2) as the rule stands now it makes it more expensive because you have to fit the aftermarket into the OEM housing.



65945



Ahh, this is an excellent point, and one that was missing Chris, from my comment about things getting more expensive.

I really DO appreciate the point, and in most cases agree...BUT, as I said in the last couple lines of my post, "Open ECUs" have to come with effective limitations.

My "more expensive" comment was based on the assumption that the entire ECU and wiring would be opened up, and that would invite a whole new level of control, one that would, in some cases, become more expensive.

I would be all for a cost effective solution in the "open ECU" option, if the functionality can be controlled.

I like Eds comment on the OEM harness. Would that provide effective limits in the functions that could be controlled?

[turboICE]

I wouldn&#39;t want to open up so far as to get into fabricating entirely new sensors and such (i.e. switching a MAF system over to a MAP based speed density) or anything that complicated. Maintain the current wiring and sensor rules and make the ECU itself more open by dropping the OEM case restriction, but with no inputs to the ECU beyond those available originally through the OEM.

[C. Ludwig]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 19 2005, 03:22 AM
Ahh, this is an excellent point, and one that was missing Chris, from my comment about things getting more expensive.

I really DO appreciate the point, and in most cases agree...BUT, as I said in the last couple lines of my post, "Open ECUs" have to come with effective limitations.

My "more expensive" comment was based on the assumption that the entire ECU and wiring would be opened up, and that would invite a whole new level of control, one that would, in some cases, become more expensive.

I would be all for a cost effective solution in the "open ECU" option, if the functionality can be controlled.

I like Eds comment on the OEM harness. Would that provide effective limits in the functions that could be controlled?

65948



OK. I agree to a point.

FWIW I did some searching on Motec traction control and what not. Google turned up the NMRA (Ford Drag Racing Series) rules. They specifically mention AEM and Motec systems and their traction control capabilities. They are working with Motec and AEM to develop firmware updates for their ECU&#39;s that eliminate the traction control function of those ECUs and that firmware will be required use for 2006.

Sounds good, but what does that mean for the SCCA? It hits at the crux of the matter. NMRA has a professional staff of tech people at each event that are paid to check this stuff. Further there aren&#39;t ump-teen billion classes that need to be policed at an event. Even if the SCCA got on board with what the NMRA (and probably other sanctioning bodies) have already done we&#39;d still, in the end, be policing ourselves. Rules for this and rules for that. There are still going to be a handfull of people who have the box of legal parts stashed in the corner of the shop for the runoffs and/or the ARRC. When I first started building my car about 5 years ago I talked to some engine builders. One guy told me how he was going to port my engine and we&#39;d blow everyone&#39;s doors off. "That&#39;s not legal", I said. "No one will catch you. There&#39;s no tech in the SCCA", I was told.

If anyone really is listening to my voice I&#39;ll say it again. I&#39;d like stock ECUs. The cheaters are going to cheat regardless. Saying we&#39;re opening it up because we can&#39;t police it is not an excuse. NOTHING gets policed at an average regional. If we can&#39;t have it like it was my vote is to blow the barn doors off. Open ECU and open harness. That will be the cheapest solution is the end if cost is really the determining factor.

[turboICE]

Most of my views on parity regarding engine potentials go back to my generally held view that throttle body (or MAF housing as I have recently been schooled by JH regarding my and other cars) is the easiest way to determine performance potential and it is easy to police. VE comes into play as well but isn&#39;t necessarily a known quantity that can be readily worked with. To start off with VE&#39;s of fully prepped engines can be assumed to be in the same approximate range (I know not even close to a fair assumption - but it is easier) and then experience with results can be used for future adjustments to weight. This turns potential closer to a matter of math instead of the classing body needing to know if there is more or less potential because of a car&#39;s relative ability to modfiy OEM tuning if after market stand alones were available to everyone.

[dj10]

Originally posted by C. Ludwig@Nov 19 2005, 06:17 AM
When I first started building my car about 5 years ago I talked to some engine builders. One guy told me how he was going to port my engine and we&#39;d blow everyone&#39;s doors off. "That&#39;s not legal", I said. "No one will catch you. There&#39;s no tech in the SCCA", I was told.

If anyone really is listening to my voice I&#39;ll say it again. I&#39;d like stock ECUs. The cheaters are going to cheat regardless. Saying we&#39;re opening it up because we can&#39;t police it is not an excuse. NOTHING gets policed at an average regional. If we can&#39;t have it like it was my vote is to blow the barn doors off. Open ECU and open harness. That will be the cheapest solution is the end if cost is really the determining factor.

65950


Damn right Chris, I like stock ECU&#39;s also and I also agree that if you do allow engine management systems to open them up to keep costs down. Trying to stuff 10# of S*** in a 5# bag on makes thing harder and more costly.
From what I saw this year, no one police&#39;s anything, and I&#39;m not sure they know what to look for anyway. :)
dj

[Banzai240]

Guys... Simply put, "PARITY" in IT means making sure that allowances are general in nature and everyone has the opportunity to take advantage of them, based on the rules.

"Parity" does NOT equate to everyone being able to run equal lap times... That would involve handicapping drivers and programs...

That is NOT what we are trying to do here. The point of all of this is to get the CARS equated within a class the best we can, afterwhich point, the "competitiveness" of the car is up to YOU... We can&#39;t factor in how well it&#39;s driven, how good the tires are, etc... All we can do is try to get them as evenly classified from a mechanical standpoint...

So, concerning the ECUs... EVERYONE has the same opportunity here to develop an ECU under the current rules... It may not be easy... it isn&#39;t going to be cheap for some, but EVERYONE has the opportunity. The rule is "equitable"... It offers parity...

If you open up the ECU rules... to allow anything... you are still going to have those who can and those who can&#39;t... no real difference... It will be cheaper for some, not so for others... JUST like it is today... IN the end, it&#39;s NOT going to change the balance of the racing, and it IS likely to open doors to allowances that ought not be opened...

Going back to "stock" may seem like a good option, but this is IMPROVED TOURING... Even Touring allows ECU mods... the key to those rules working is that the car must still be Emissions legal... so if you change the ECU too much, you&#39;d fail this part and be bumped...

Now, we could go into changing the ECU wording to allow only "modifications" to the stock main board, etc... but then people will start stretching what a "modification" is, etc... NO different than we have today...

I guess what I am saying is that no matter what we do, there are problems associated with it and in reality, what is in place now isn&#39;t that bad of a situation... It still boils down to effort in development and the weopon you choose to do battle with...

In my humble opinion, of course...

[dj10]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 19 2005, 01:05 PM

It may not be easy... it isn&#39;t going to be cheap for some, but EVERYONE has the opportunity. The rule is "equitable"... It offers parity...

In my humble opinion, of course...

65980


Yea it isn&#39;t not going to be cheap! For a piece of wood? I thought this is suppose to be Grassroots Racing? Club not PRO. To hell with it lets have carbon fiber body panels and sequential gear boxes. Instead of 50k IT cars let just making them euro tourings 250k.
The rule is equitable if you have lots of money to p*** away to win a hunk of wood. I think your missing the point. ;)
dj

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 19 2005, 02:05 PM


So, concerning the ECUs... EVERYONE has the same opportunity here to develop an ECU under the current rules... It may not be easy...
65980



The carb guys are STILL looking for where the ECU fits..is it in the float bowl?? the accelerator pump?? And the harness is a HUGE problem, LOL.........

I know, I know, initial classing creates the parity between the carbed car and the ECU cars...but..............the ECU rule came AFTER many ECU cars had been classed.

So, thats a leg up to them.

Lets hope the CRB and the BoDs see the need to relevel the field, and then, in the big picture, this converstion will make more sense.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by dj10@Nov 19 2005, 03:00 PM
Yea it isn&#39;t not going to be cheap! For a piece of wood? I thought this is suppose to be Grassroots Racing? Club not PRO. To hell with it lets have carbon fiber body panels and sequential gear boxes. Instead of 50k IT cars let just making them euro tourings 250k.
The rule is equitable if you have lots of money to p*** away to win a hunk of wood. I think your missing the point. ;)
dj

65983


Ok...........

What I have liked about earlier posts it the concrete examples of what can be done, how much it costs, and so on.

IF you think it&#39;s smart to go one way, or dumb to go another, provide the backing facts to make the case.

Lets keep this as constructive. Guys like Harlan bring a wealth of real world experience and knowledge to the table, and the information is very important.

So, DJ, fill us in on what you suggest to remedy it the issue you have identified..

(I&#39;m sorry if you have already covered it, the threads getting long)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by dj10@Nov 19 2005, 02:00 PM
Yea it isn&#39;t not going to be cheap! For a piece of wood? I thought this is suppose to be Grassroots Racing? Club not PRO. To hell with it lets have carbon fiber body panels and sequential gear boxes. Instead of 50k IT cars let just making them euro tourings 250k.
The rule is equitable if you have lots of money to p*** away to win a hunk of wood. I think your missing the point. ;)
dj

65983


I am going to take this one out of the context of the thread.

It may be labeled Club Racing but there are a lot of people who have financial interests in winning. Not for prize money but for business reasons. Look at Speedsource, Bimmerworld, ISC, Rebello, Sunbelt, MSN, FOM, the list goes on and on.

IT rules are very limited compared to many other classes in SCCA and outside of SCCA. There will always be people who have the best equipment - so the only thing to do if you don&#39;t like the &#39;limits&#39; of a certain class is to find one with more restrictions. Showrrom Stock anyone? Not me.

On edit: There is one more thing we can all do. POLICE OUR CLASSES. I, for one, will be entering a class in 2006 in NER that has been clouded with rumors, distrust and accusations. I for on ewill be ready to put my money where my mouth is.

AB

[zracre]

As technology grows so will electronic systems. Us honda guys have an advantage in the ecu department because of its cult following...BMW guys have an advantage because of $$$ and development of a genuinely good car...it doesnt matter what you drive, one car is always going to benefit from the aftermarket more than another. I just dont want to see cars penalized because there are more developed systems for it...not everyone can afford it. I feel bad for the carb guys but time marches on and they seem to still be winning races (a carb car won ITC followed by another). just think about where technology will be in 5 years for the new cars coming to IT.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by zracre@Nov 19 2005, 03:35 PM
I feel bad for the carb guys but time marches on and they seem to still be winning races (a carb car won ITC followed by another). just think about where technology will be in 5 years for the new cars coming to IT.

65991



But the carb guys can be fine..........as long as the rulemakers, and class managers handle things properly. We are looking better in that department I think, with the new flexibility afforded the ITAC. That same flexibility will be important in the future as new technology comes into play.

[dj10]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 19 2005, 02:16 PM
Ok...........

What I have liked about earlier posts it the concrete examples of what can be done, how much it costs, and so on.

IF you think it&#39;s smart to go one way, or dumb to go another, provide the backing facts to make the case.

Lets keep this as constructive. Guys like Harlan bring a wealth of real world experience and knowledge to the table, and the information is very important.

So, DJ, fill us in on what you suggest to remedy it the issue you have identified..

(I&#39;m sorry if you have already covered it, the threads getting long)

65987


Read post 61, Chris Ludwig idea. He&#39;s a rx7 engine builder.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by dj10@Nov 19 2005, 07:00 PM
[b] The rule is equitable if you have lots of money to p*** away to win a hunk of wood. I think your missing the point. ;)
dj

65983


I&#39;m missing the point???

And then you have people here saying to just open the rules up to allow ANY ECU...

So, there are those on your end of the spectrum, and those on the extreme opposite... The current rule is in the middle... You think you&#39;re right... they think they&#39;re right... I happen to think that the current rule is a compromise of the two...

In reality... one of the biggest problems with the current rule is the phrase "or replace".... THAT is what allows a MOTEC to be installed inside the factory case... If modifications were restricted to having to be done on the main board, or in some way could be worded to get this intent, then I think we&#39;d have what we need...

Stock ECUs were designed for going to get groceries... There needs to be some allowance to make them suitible for race engines... THAT is what the intent of IT states we need to do...

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by dj10@Nov 19 2005, 01:19 PM
Read post 61, Chris Ludwig idea. He&#39;s a rx7 engine builder.

65994

And so the sniping begins.......Lets look at this the right way again.

Improved touring

Key word improved. Not stock but also not replaced.

ITS carbs, I rejet them and I optimize them ect. But that is improved not replaced.

SS is factory everything.
Prod allows for full replacement of parts up to a certain spec and then GT is pretty wide open....there is a flavor for every taste, may just not be named IT.

[dj10]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 19 2005, 04:11 PM
Improved touring

Key word improved. Not stock but also not replaced.
ITS carbs, I rejet them and I optimize them ect. But that is improved not replaced.

65996


Why did they disallow shocks & struts with resoviours? They are only $6k? These pricy upgrades are for pro racing not grassroots motorsports. Top of the line computer ems are about 5k to buy maybe another 2 to 3k to install and stuff in a factory ecu box, another 2k for dyno time.
When I started this thread all I wanted was a simple yea or nay. :D
Myself, I refuse to use them so I&#39;ll just have to drive harder.
dj

[turboICE]

Sure you could buy a $5k ECU but you couldn&#39;t legally use what makes it any different from the multitude of $1.5k ECU. Eliminate the need to fit it into the OEM ECU case and you have a bunch of $1.5k ECUs available throughout IT without the reengineering costs currently necessary to utilize the existing rule.

A good deal of currently permitted spring/dampener setups cost significantly more than that without resevoirs.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by dj10@Nov 19 2005, 04:28 PM
Why did they disallow shocks & struts with resoviours? They are only $6k? These pricy upgrades are for pro racing not grassroots motorsports. Top of the line computer ems are about 5k to buy maybe another 2 to 3k to install and stuff in a factory ecu box, another 2k for dyno time.
When I started this thread all I wanted was a simple yea or nay. :D
Myself, I refuse to use them so I&#39;ll just have to drive harder.
dj

66004



DJ your a little hard to discuss with cause your tone is like you have made up your mind and there is no chance of you changing it.

Back when remote shocks were originally disallowed I think it was about 2500 bucks a corner for the best stuff. Now everybody offers coilovers and remotes pretty cheap. IMHO again it can not always be about how much it costs or in some cases saves. It have to also be about a prep level. At some point IT will be production if things are allowed the normal progression that kills classes. Same deal I made reasonable argument for improving the the original part. Contrary to popular belief you are not going to just bolt an AEM into the harness and go racing. You gonna blow some stuff up first if you try that. My way of thinking is if you allow only the stock box to be modified the difference between a modified box and a stock box will be alot closer than an aftermarket part that has way more resolution and function. So the haves and the have nots a re way closer together at the point. To me allowing even a motec into a stock box is the equivalent of giving cams or compression to a car. It is just outside the Improved part of Improved touring. If folks want Prod or Gt level prep that may be where they should be racing.

[C. Ludwig]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 19 2005, 05:11 PM
And so the sniping begins.......Lets look at this the right way again.

Improved touring

Key word improved. Not stock but also not replaced.

ITS carbs, I rejet them and I optimize them ect. But that is improved not replaced.

SS is factory everything.
Prod allows for full replacement of parts up to a certain spec and then GT is pretty wide open....there is a flavor for every taste, may just not be named IT.

65996



And in that same vein then we shouldn&#39;t be allowed to replace the exhaust manifold with a header but only be allowed to improve the stock casting? We shouldn&#39;t be allowed to replace the shock absorber but allowed to improve the stock piece? We certainly shouldn&#39;t be allowed to replace the air intake forward of the throttle body but be allowed to improve the stock piece? We shouldn&#39;t be allowed to replace the fuel pump but allowed to stuff the guts of a better piece inside the stock case? Shouldn&#39;t be allowed to use an aftermarket fuel pressure regulator but allowed to open up the stock piece and swap springs and shims until we find a pressure that works?

The ship in the bottle rule for the ECU, to me, is akin to saying you can&#39;t buy something off the shelf that is developed for the purpose; and, oh by the way, CHEAPER! "Can&#39;t buy a Koni that fits your car off the shelf. You have to buy all the guts and stuff them in the stock shock body and, oh by the way, you have to use the stock piston and shaft. And just because you&#39;re not capable of doing it doesn&#39;t mean that someone else isn&#39;t or that someone isn&#39;t ready to sell it to you and profit." Sounds rediculous right? That&#39;s what we have with this convoluted ECU rule.

And saying that it&#39;s equitable because everyone has the opportunity to do it is a cop out, pure and simple. Everyone doesn&#39;t have the opportunity. There are BMW and Mazda tuners that have taken the leap and will gladly take your cash. What about the guy that wants to campaign a Ford Contour is ITS? This guy doesn&#39;t have the resources to break down an EMS and stuff it in his garage by himself. No one else is developing Contour parts. So he wants to keep up with the Jones (yeah Dan you&#39;re pretty fast :) ). Where does he go? The parts aren&#39;t available. This is custom, one-off stuff like IT has never seen before. It&#39;s not a custom pinion gear that 10 places that happen to advertise in the back of Sportscar can produce. No one does this work because it&#39;s rediculous to even contemplate it. And there shouldn&#39;t even be a market for it.

Opening up the rule at least gives our Contour builder a fighting chance. He can call one of a dozen EMS manufacturers, get a box with instructions shipped to his door, rely on true factory supports, and oh yeah, he hasn&#39;t voided the warranty on his brand new $3000 Motec system just because he cracked the case of it. And have I said that $3000 Motec system is only (only being a relative term) costing him $3000 and not $5000 just because it&#39;s stuffed? You guys just don&#39;t get it.

This rule benefits no one except the professional shops that have the resources to develop the ECUs. Just as Speedsource and Bimmerworld (?) are reaping the financial benefits of their development. Don&#39;t even think for a second I have some kind of ulterior motive here.

[turboICE]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 19 2005, 07:47 PM
IMHO again it can not always be about how much it costs or in some cases saves. It have to also be about a prep level.Absolutely.


My way of thinking is if you allow only the stock box to be modified the difference between a modified box and a stock box will be alot closer than an aftermarket part that has way more resolution and function. So the haves and the have nots a re way closer together at the point. To me allowing even a motec into a stock box is the equivalent of giving cams or compression to a car.I guess in my way of viewing this is as long as the rules allow the Motec to be squeezed in then the stand alone is already part of the IT prep level, it is just made difficult. If this state of things is going to continue then just allow the Motec or the AEM or other name to be attached to the OEM harness and be done with it. Otherwise completely negate the use of non OEM boards. I don&#39;t think the current rule is correct level of parity for the the class.

I strongly suspect that as originally conceived that the OEM case rule was going to sufficiently restrict aftermarket boards to provide wording to make OEM modification open but not more. But the wording left open what we have today, either reel it back to where it was wanted to be (modified OEM) or get rid of the case restriction. To me the case restriction seems arbitrary, petty, silly and ineffective at this point - it is a lousy middle ground between modified OEM and just permitting any ECU that utilizes the OEM harness.

[C. Ludwig]

Originally posted by turboICE@Nov 19 2005, 07:57 PM
Absolutely.

I guess in my way of viewing this is as long as the rules allow the Motec to be squeezed in then the stand alone is already part of the IT prep level, it is just made difficult. If this state of things is going to continue then just allow the Motec or the AEM or other name to be attached to the OEM harness and be done with it. Otherwise completely negate the use of non OEM boards. I don&#39;t think the current rule is correct level of parity for the the class.

I strongly suspect that as originally conceived that the OEM case rule was going to sufficiently restrict aftermarket boards to provide wording to make OEM modification open but not more. But the wording left open what we have today, either reel it back to where it was wanted to be (modified OEM) or get rid of the case restriction. To me the case restriction seems arbitrary, petty, silly and ineffective at this point - it is a lousy middle ground between modified OEM and just permitting any ECU that utilizes the OEM harness.

66009



Well said. :happy204:

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by turboICE@Nov 19 2005, 04:57 PM
Absolutely.

Otherwise completely negate the use of non OEM boards. I don&#39;t think the current rule is correct level of parity for the the class.

I strongly suspect that as originally conceived that the OEM case rule was going to sufficiently restrict aftermarket boards to provide wording to make OEM modification open but not more.
66009


Edit: I can agree with this. And this makes the most since. I do agree the current rule is wrong.

[turboICE]

Originally posted by C. Ludwig@Nov 19 2005, 07:55 PM
This is custom, one-off stuff like IT has never seen before.
66008
This so focuses the light on the real issue with this particular rule - the requirement for a one off custom creation of a complexity that isn&#39;t necessary in higher prep levels. We don&#39;t want this to be a higher prep level class - but this rule results in a higher prep level when you consider the complexity of it.

I believe that any rule in IT that requires a level of prep that results in customized one off creastions is worse than any perceived rules creep to use off the shelf components.

The eliminating of the ECU case requirement is not like saying that we should be able to ask for 1.0 over stock compression or .1" increases in cam lift and it would be a real stretch to say this step leads to that step or any other this is micro detail that would be difficult to extend to making IT an almost prod class - it is asking that the ability to utilize the existing rule not require one off creations more expensive than off the shelf equivalents.

[C. Ludwig]

Originally posted by turboICE@Nov 19 2005, 08:05 PM
This so focuses the light on the real issue with this particular rule - the requirement for a one off custom creation of a complexity that isn&#39;t necessary in higher prep levels. We don&#39;t want this to be a higher prep level class - but this rule results in a higher prep level when you consider the complexity of it.

I believe that any rule in IT that requires a level of prep that results in customized one off creastions is worse than any perceived rules creep to use off the shelf components.

The eliminating of the ECU case requirement is not like saying that we should be able to ask for 1.0 over stock compression or .1" increases in cam lift and it would be a real stretch to say this step leads to that step or any other this is micro detail that would be difficult to extend to making IT an almost prod class - it is asking that the ability to utilize the existing rule not require one off creations more expensive than off the shelf equivalents.

66012



You&#39;re my new best friend. :D At least now I feel like what I&#39;ve been saying since this rule was implemented wasn&#39;t crazy, black helicopter talk.

[turboICE]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 19 2005, 08:05 PM
Well I guess it&#39;s a stand off and since I doubt there will be any effort to change the current rule either way we should all just get over it then. To many times it is a case of only looking at what&#39;s ouot there for our own cars and not what covers every thing and every one. IT needs to be a place that guys who can&#39;t program a haltech still have a reasonable chance of staying on the same lap. Again I believe that our club offers this level of prep some where in it&#39;s different catagories.

66011
I can appreciate most of that (especially except the ability for a member to do it themselves) and as I said before I am expressing my admittedly biased vote/view/opinion and honestly don&#39;t know enough about a lot of models in IT to know or appreciate the effect on them.

There are members who can&#39;t tune their suspension on their own and still have a reasonable chance of staying in the same lap, they have to have someone else tune their suspension to stay on the same lap (and have someone else do it for their multiple track setups). If the requirement for the rule is whether or not members can do it themselves then the licensing requirements need not only mechanical knowledge but car preparation ability requirements added. The fact that some members would have to find someone to tune their haltech is not unreasonable (since some have to find someone else to do all their other car prep anyway) and it is a whole heck of a lot more reasonable than what exists now to squeeze it into the OEM case - there are far fewer members that can do that themselves or learn to do it themselves than learning the techniques and interfaces of standalone tuning. Your haltech example makes the existing rule all the more egregious, since right now very few would have the electrical acumen to utilize the existing rule.

If cars are classed based on the optimum level of preparation - then that assumption would include that it is classed assuming that an aftermarket ecu has been squeezed into the OEM box, correct? (or not?) That is a high expectation to arrive at the fully prepped car assumed in the classing of them.

(edit: I see your edit - I don&#39;t really care which way it goes a little more or a little less than what it is now. But at least we have a place to talk about it all openly!)

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by turboICE@Nov 19 2005, 05:17 PM
I can appreciate most of that (especially except the ability for a member to do it themselves) and as I said before I am expressing my admittedly biased vote/view/opinion and honestly don&#39;t know enough about a lot of models in IT to know or appreciate the effect on them.

There are members who can&#39;t tune their suspension on their own and still have a reasonable chance of staying in the same lap. If the requirement for the rule is whether or not members can do it themselves then the licensing requirements need not only mechanical knowledge but car preparation ability requirements added. The fact that some members would have to find someone to tune their haltech is not unreasonable (since some have to find someone else to do all their other car prep anyway) and it is a whole heck of a lot more reasonable than what exists now to squeeze it into the OEM case - there are far fewer members that can do that themselves or learn to do it themselves than learning the techniques and interfaces of standalone tuning. Your haltech example makes the existing rule all the more egregious, since right now very few would have the electrical acumen to utilize the existing rule.

If cars are classed based on the optimum level of preparation - then that assumption would include that it is classed assuming that an aftermarket ecu has been squeezed into the OEM box, correct? (or not?)

66014
Ed unfortunately I had not got my edit done before you quoted me. I had miss one key line in your post and I am sorry for that . I completely agree with modifying the OEM board and nothing more. I make a living tuning Motec,AEm,Haltech ect. I am shooting myself in the foot saying all I have said. I say it because I believe that IT needs to be a certain prep level and stop before we can&#39;t have entry level people joining us. The prep level in Prod has been the biggest hurt on them to attract the newbie.

[turboICE]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 19 2005, 08:23 PM
I say it because I believe that IT needs to be a certain prep level and stop before we can&#39;t have entry level people joining us. The prep level in Prod has been the biggest hurt on them to attract the newbie.

66015

I can say confidently that we can find areement in that idea above and yes I missed your edit when I posted but saw it after.

My view is to make the use of aftermarket ECU more available or eliminate it for all. The first more preferred than the later for my personal taste! ;)

Though there are a lot of newbies who would have no problem with a stand alone ECU mod and some that would expect it.

And I am sure you have more than enough business from those wanting tunes for their street rides! I see no shortage on sports car boards of people willing to have all sorts and levels of tuning done on their dailys!

[dickita15]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 19 2005, 03:21 PM
.. I, for one, will be entering a class in 2006 in NER that has been clouded with rumors, distrust and accusations.
65989


funny Andy, I thought you were leaving one.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by dickita15@Nov 19 2005, 07:30 PM
funny Andy, I thought you were leaving one.

66017


Hey, you never tell anyone where you came from! :)

It will truly be a case of "out of the frying pan and into the fire"!

AB

[erlrich]

Hey gang, just for kicks I&#39;ve started a poll in the rules & regs section to let people vote on changes to the ECU rule. No ulterior motives, not trying to start anything, just curious as to whether there is a strong preference among this group.

Have fun.

[Eagle7]

The big argument against aftermarket ECUs seems to be the high cost. My view is just the opposite. I dynoed my car this fall and found a very screwed up AFR curve. Very lean, then very rich, then lean again. Set it for reasonable power in the sweet spot (by adjusting fuel pressure) and it&#39;s way too lean up top. Make it safe on top and I&#39;m blowing black smoke most of the time. So I since my stock ECU is not chippable (at least not that I&#39;ve heard), my choices to fix this are:

1) Lots of expensive dyno time playing with resistors to try to outsmart a brain-dead ECU, with little expectation of significant improvement, or

2) Build myself a <$200 ECU that has a great free tuning tool, even tunes itself while you drive with a wideband O2 sensor. Once I get the AFR curve flat, a minimal amount of dyno time should be able to optimize it. In my mind, this just puts me on a level playing field with the guys that have programmable stock ECUs.

It&#39;s still a work in progress, so who knows whether it will pan out like I expect, but if I was forced to use the stock ECU I think it would cost me a lot more in time and money.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Eagle7@Nov 19 2005, 09:50 PM
The big argument against aftermarket ECUs seems to be the high cost. My view is just the opposite. I dynoed my car this fall and found a very screwed up AFR curve. Very lean, then very rich, then lean again. Set it for reasonable power in the sweet spot (by adjusting fuel pressure) and it&#39;s way too lean up top. Make it safe on top and I&#39;m blowing black smoke most of the time. So I since my stock ECU is not chippable (at least not that I&#39;ve heard), my choices to fix this are:

1) Lots of expensive dyno time playing with resistors to try to outsmart a brain-dead ECU, with little expectation of significant improvement, or

2) Build myself a <$200 ECU that has a great free tuning tool, even tunes itself while you drive with a wideband O2 sensor. Once I get the AFR curve flat, a minimal amount of dyno time should be able to optimize it. In my mind, this just puts me on a level playing field with the guys that have programmable stock ECUs.

It&#39;s still a work in progress, so who knows whether it will pan out like I expect, but if I was forced to use the stock ECU I think it would cost me a lot more in time and money.

66037
Ck this place out first Eagle7... http://www.racingchips.com I believe they can modify your stock board. If not I am sure I can find a source. The Mazda board if I remember is very close to the OBD0 or OBD1 Nissan box as far as layout.

[Eagle7]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 20 2005, 02:50 AM
Ck this place out first Eagle7... http://www.racingchips.com I believe they can modify your stock board. If not I am sure I can find a source. The Mazda board if I remember is very close to the OBD0 or OBD1 Nissan box as far as layout.

66042

I haven&#39;t called them, but they only list RX-7 chips for turbos. I&#39;m happy with the aftermarket approach for now.

Thanks,

[Joe Harlan]

So I since my stock ECU is not chippable (at least not that I&#39;ve heard), my choices to fix this are:

My response was directly to this.....Too many times I see it said it can&#39;t be done only to find that people aren&#39;t looking. If they can map and chip a turbo I will bet they can do any ecu for that style of car.

[Eagle7]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 20 2005, 01:00 PM
My response was directly to this.....Too many times I see it said it can&#39;t be done only to find that people aren&#39;t looking. If they can map and chip a turbo I will bet they can do any ecu for that style of car.

66058

Yes, that&#39;s how I took it, and I appreciate the info. If we put the genie back in the bottle, I&#39;ll be calling them.

Thanks,

[dj10]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 19 2005, 06:47 PM
DJ your a little hard to discuss with cause your tone is like you have made up your mind and there is no chance of you changing it.

66006


Joe, I want to apologize, I didn&#39;t mean to come off as narrow minded. You could change it if you bought me a motec system and put in in for me. :D Or if it was readily available so most everyone could afford it, I&#39;d be all for it.
This is my 1st year back racing after about a 5 year layoff. I&#39;ve tried to come back build my car within the rules and listen to many people from Mid O to Walkins Glen, Summit Point, Beaver Run, Nelson Ledges and to ARRC. I&#39;ve met many very good people with many valid points of view and this is why I believe that it is in everyone&#39;s interest to keep the costs down in IT. You want High Tech go pro, you want to need to stuff a ems in a thimble, do it in pro. Spending sooo much money for a 1 sec to a 1 1/2 sec just doesn&#39;t seem logical and even if I had they money would I do it? I&#39;ve thought of this. I guess I would if I had a sponsor that wanted exposure that bad and they paid for it. But on the same hand if I had a sponsor that wanted exposure they&#39;d probably go Pro.
I guess I want the little guys to be as competitve as possible also.
dj

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by dj10@Nov 20 2005, 10:23 AM
Joe, I want to apologize, I didn&#39;t mean to come off as narrow minded. You could change it if you bought me a motec system and put in in for me. :D Or if it was readily available so most everyone could afford it, I&#39;d be all for it.
This is my 1st year back racing after about a 5 year layoff. I&#39;ve tried to come back build my car within the rules and listen to many people from Mid O to Walkins Glen, Summit Point, Beaver Run, Nelson Ledges and to ARRC. I&#39;ve met many very good people with many valid points of view and this is why I believe that it is in everyone&#39;s interest to keep the costs down in IT. You want High Tech go pro, you want to need to stuff a ems in a thimble, do it in pro. Spending sooo much money for a 1 sec to a 1 1/2 sec just doesn&#39;t seem logical and even if I had they money would I do it? I&#39;ve thought of this. I guess I would if I had a sponsor that wanted exposure that bad and they paid for it. But on the same hand if I had a sponsor that wanted exposure they&#39;d probably go Pro.
I guess I want the little guys to be as competitve as possible also.
dj

66064

DJ, Dude you need to go read everthing I have posted on this subject. I am all for going back to a modified ECU....No motec stuffin no ECU replacement. I have done it and seen it done and we don&#39;t need it. Clear enough for you?

[dj10]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 20 2005, 12:27 PM
DJ, Dude you need to go read everthing I have posted on this subject. I am all for going back to a modified ECU....No motec stuffin no ECU replacement. I have done it and seen it done and we don&#39;t need it. Clear enough for you?

66065


Yep I understood :D , I wanted you to know where I was coming from and why. :)
dj