ECU Rule Change Poll

[erlrich]

Ok gang, here's your chance to voice your opinion.

[turboICE]

Wonder what that means if no one likes the rule but all the alternatives come out equal!

[Andy Bettencourt]

My thoughts are rediculous on this...I would like either to jam the Genie back in the bottle and seal the lid - or set her free entirely.

I don't think it was the intent of the rulesmakers to allow MoTec-type stuff, I think they wanted to allow chips and flashing...are we too far gone?

Decoded: I would rather we had NO allowances or full lattitude to do what we wanted provided you didn't violate other rules (traction control etc.) I voted to allow only stock.

AB

[MMiskoe]

The only thing that would be nice to change would be some wording that allows piggy back wiring at the ECU for data aquisition. As it stands now, you can't legally jam a wire in the backside of the ECU plug to pick up information, you have to go all the way out to the other end of said wire and get it there. I am guilty of viloating this rule for an air/fuel ratio meter, but I haven't see to many protests getting written so far.

I understand it can be tough to tell what's being done by that little black box that has wiring hooked up to the ECU. The wording that requires the plug at the ECU to be left alone is intended to prevent systems that simply interrupt the wiring if they can't fit the new ECU parts into the existing ECU box.

Matt

[Eagle7]

I'm definitely in favor of aftermarket ECU's, either in the stock box or an unrestricted box. But the ECU should only connect to the stock harness with no changes to sensors. I really think tweaking an aftermarket ECU can be cheaper and easier than trying to sort out the stock ECU. If you want to throw money at it the sky's the limit, but I think the incremental benefits are marginal.

[zracre]

I agree with Marty...

[R2 Racing]

I'd love to throw a complete Hondata S200 piggy back system at my car but I'm ok with the current rule. Honestly though, with the Honda's now there's enough information out there and DIY software that you can pretty much replicate many of the Hondata's advantages with time, knowledge, a computer, and a chip burner. But that being said, I still never gained more than about 1.5whp out of my Integra's computer.

I think just opening it all up would be a bad idea. I think that's something that would create a good sized increase in the money needed to build/run an IT car.

[Bill Miller]

I agree w/ Andy on this. Either stuff the genie back in the bottle, and weld the lid shut, or just open it up. If it's all stock, that's what it is. Tech finds a doctored ECU, you get tossed. Saying that this is unpolicable is really tacit acknowledgement of what people have been saying for years, everybody in IT cheats. Cheaters will find a way to get around the rules, period. Put them back to stock, and go w/ the assumption that people will be honest, and play w/in the rules. Don't make everyone pony up more money, just because you can't catch the cheaters.

On the other end of the spectrum, open it up completely. But with a catch. You want to run an aftermarket EMS system, w/ all the wizz-bang sensors you want, traction control, etc. That's all well and good. But you're going to pay a 10% weight penalty.

I think it's a pretty safe bet that someone has figured out how to use MoTeC traction control, and has used it to gain an advantage. A tenth of a second a lap may not seem like much, but that translates to 1.5 seconds at the end of a 15 lap race.

[Eagle7]

Anybody who wants to throw money at their car is going to make it faster than the guy on a budget. There are hundreds of ways to accomplish this. If somebody wants to put $20K into an ECU to pick up 0.1 seconds per lap, I say go to it. Have a blast. He'll probably put another $20K into his shocks and pick up 0.2 seconds per lap. Maybe another $10K on special aero paint for another 0.05 seconds. That guy's still going home with a 2nd place trophy if a better driver shows up in a well-prepped car.

[dj10]

Originally posted by erlrich@Nov 19 2005, 08:47 PM
Ok gang, here's your chance to voice your opinion.

66022


NICE JOB!
dj

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Eagle7@Nov 20 2005, 12:49 PM
Anybody who wants to throw money at their car is going to make it faster than the guy on a budget. There are hundreds of ways to accomplish this. If somebody wants to put $20K into an ECU to pick up 0.1 seconds per lap, I say go to it. Have a blast. He'll probably put another $20K into his shocks and pick up 0.2 seconds per lap. Maybe another $10K on special aero paint for another 0.05 seconds. That guy's still going home with a 2nd place trophy if a better driver shows up in a well-prepped car.

66056


That's the point Marty, that's not necessarily true. Extra speed will make up for poorer skills. Problem is, it's usually the guys that can really drive AND have the money, that up the ante for everyone else.

[m glassburner]

Ok guys I have a question....What's the main difference between "totally stock" and" mother board only" mods? Go easy on me I really don't know much about computers.....and how will we police it ? :119:

[Eagle7]

Originally posted by m glassburner@Nov 20 2005, 02:09 PM
Ok guys I have a question....What's the main difference between "totally stock" and" mother board only" mods? Go easy on me I really don't know much about computers.....and how will we police it ? :119:

66074

I think the problem is that it's very difficult to allow any modifications while preventing the very clever and very rich from doing just what they can do today. I can rechip the board? OK, I replace not just the data memory (fuel tables, etc) but also the program memory (logic). Lots of money can yield tangible results. Can't rechip but can reflash? Doesn't sound equitable to me. Got a rev limiter or a speed limiter? Is it OK to change it? Might require modifications to the board.

For any restrictions you put inside the box, cheaters will cheat and never get caught. Don't write an unenforcable rule.

[Eagle7]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 20 2005, 01:55 PM
That's the point Marty, that's not necessarily true. Extra speed will make up for poorer skills. Problem is, it's usually the guys that can really drive AND have the money, that up the ante for everyone else.

66072

Maybe you missed my point. There are lots of ways to pour money into our cars. The ECU rule is just one. If someone wants to develop the fastest no-money-spared IT car in the country he can do it, ECU rule or no ECU rule.

[SPiFF]

Dump the "inside the stock box" wording and the rules are fine the way that are.

[erlrich]

Well, I guess that settles that :rolleyes:

Geez, I didn't expect there to be any single strong preference, but I also didn't expect a virtual 5-way tie! I guess this issue is really all over the map. It would be interesting to know if there is any correlation between the way people voted and the type of car they race.

[turboICE]

I am sure their car has a large part to do with many of the votes.

What would be even more interesting is to see how the voting distributes based on years active in club racing.

[vwmann1]

I voted to have the ECU open with the stock harness. The stock harness will help prevent the traction control issue. I have one question for the older guys of the group. When your car still had carbs I know the carb is dictated but were the jets?? The reason I bring this up is as follows: Many people are scared of letting the genie out of the box and that ECU tuning is "black magic" so they squash what they don't understand. I don't see how this is any different than tuning the SU's or recurving the dist. on that old Brit lump.

The argument that someone will out spend me and win all the races..... I don't see that happeneing. There is just not enough glory in this form of racing. The person that wants to spend the big bucks will also want the glory that goes with it and move to a "bigger and better" form of racing. Now I do admit that I have not been at this for 20 years but, these are my views based on watching customers go from DE cars to USTCC cars. As the money goes up they want to return to go up and that little trophy with no check attached to it just doesn't work for them.

My two pennies.......

[zracre]

Originally posted by vwmann1@Nov 22 2005, 03:50 PM
The argument that someone will out spend me and win all the races..... I don't see that happeneing. There is just not enough glory in this form of racing. The person that wants to spend the big bucks will also want the glory that goes with it and move to a "bigger and better" form of racing. Now I do admit that I have not been at this for 20 years but, these are my views based on watching customers go from DE cars to USTCC cars. As the money goes up they want to return to go up and that little trophy with no check attached to it just doesn't work for them.

My two pennies.......

66338


Can you say big fish little pond? there are plenty of wealthy individuals that will spend whatever it takes...and businesses that thrive on winning...there will always be cars built to the limit. I do agree on your choice for the ecu rule...technology is growing fast and that rule would probably open up more cars possibilities to upgrade in a cost effective manner (not having to stuff 10# of s#!t in a 5 # box) for the future...

and another 2 cents added

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by vwmann1@Nov 22 2005, 12:50 PM
I voted to have the ECU open with the stock harness. The stock harness will help prevent the traction control issue. I have one question for the older guys of the group. When your car still had carbs I know the carb is dictated but were the jets?? The reason I bring this up is as follows: Many people are scared of letting the genie out of the box and that ECU tuning is "black magic" so they squash what they don't understand. I don't see how this is any different than tuning the SU's or recurving the dist. on that old Brit lump.

The argument that someone will out spend me and win all the races..... I don't see that happeneing. There is just not enough glory in this form of racing. The person that wants to spend the big bucks will also want the glory that goes with it and move to a "bigger and better" form of racing. Now I do admit that I have not been at this for 20 years but, these are my views based on watching customers go from DE cars to USTCC cars. As the money goes up they want to return to go up and that little trophy with no check attached to it just doesn't work for them.

My two pennies.......

66338


You can bet this is not a lack of understanding deal for most people here. Don't give me the old reject and recurve the dist argument, You know you have to ability to refine the fuel and timing curves well beyond anything a carb can do. Comparing a toilet bowl with jets to fuel injection if not a good argument. Using the factory harness will not limit the use of traction control. I am currently running an AEM unit in my RS car with the stock harness and the control system works just fine.

[turboICE]

Regarding built to the limit. I think classing, weight and cost considerations should all be based on the assumption that all cars will be built to the limit of the rules (even if this counts against my desires).

From a competitive spirit standpoint I think to the extent possible for the participant (i.e. budget for most of us) built to the legal limit is an obligation.

[BMWE46ITS]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 19 2005, 09:56 PM
Decoded: I would rather we had NO allowances or full lattitude to do what we wanted provided you didn't violate other rules (traction control etc.) I voted to allow only stock.
AB

66027


The problem I see is with the newer (OBDII) cars, that are running right now and in the future in IT. 90% of the cars won't be able to be raced unless you keep everything and I mean everthing stock no headers, no intakes, no pullies, no motor work. The cars will set off check engine lights all the time and some will slip into limp home mode ( loss of major power ) with any major IT prep.

Trust me the last thing I want is to spend more money on race cars, but some rules need to keep up with the times.

[Joe Harlan]

OBDII cars will end up being the easiest to crack and recode due to the ability to flash them in car. SEE all the Diesel truck flash kits. YOu can program them to ignore the second o2 sensor for cat heat ect. I have been working on the 350z stuff since 03, It isn't that hard to race a late car.

[BMWE46ITS]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 22 2005, 05:38 PM
OBDII cars will end up being the easiest to crack and recode due to the ability to flash them in car. SEE all the Diesel truck flash kits. YOu can program them to ignore the second o2 sensor for cat heat ect. I have been working on the 350z stuff since 03, It isn't that hard to race a late car.

66360

Joe,
It's not as easy as you might think at least in the BMW, Porsche world. I have no expericance with Asian Import cars (some models might be easy), but I can tell you it's only going to get harder and harder to flash these cars, making a car not see a O2 sensor by using a SIM isn't what I'm talking about, I'm talking about cars going into major limp mode when you do any modifications to them, beside very minor modes ex: cat back, air filter.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by BMWE46ITS@Nov 22 2005, 03:04 PM
Joe,
It's not as easy as you might think at least in the BMW, Porsche world. I have no expericance with Asian Import cars (some models might be easy), but I can tell you it's only going to get harder and harder to flash these cars, making a car not see a O2 sensor by using a SIM isn't what I'm talking about, I'm talking about cars going into major limp mode when you do any modifications to them, beside very minor modes ex: cat back, air filter.

66364


Jeff, I am telling you. when the need comes about it will happen. It really again does not matter cause T1 to T5 is coming. 10 year life span on these cars. Currently they have to remain emissions compliant. The cars you are talking about will be run there for at least 5 to 7 years. There will be more people than you can shake a stick at beaking the code on this stuff. As long as there are hot rodders and computer geeks there will be somebody working on cracking the code on this stuff. Second as more cars go to flyby wire throttles I don't want to see the average hack trying to adapt a freaking 16bit haltech to it. ;)

[turboICE]

One way you could look at it is that CARB knows all too well how easy it is to reflash current ECUs.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/obd02/fro1968-2.pdf


(4.6) Software Calibration Identification: On all vehicles, a software calibration identification number (CAL ID) for the diagnostic or emission critical powertrain control unit(s) shall be made available through the standardized data link connector in accordance with the SAE J1979 specifications. A unique CAL ID shall be used for every emission-related calibration and/or software set having at least one bit of different data from any other emission-related calibration and/or software set. Control units coded with multiple emission or diagnostic calibrations and/or software sets shall indicate a unique CAL ID for each variant in a manner that enables an off-board device to determine which variant is being used by the vehicle. Control units that utilize a strategy that will result in MIL illumination if the incorrect variant is used (e.g., control units that contain variants for manual and automatic transmissions but will illuminate the MIL if the variant selected does not match the type of transmission on the vehicle) are not required to use unique CAL IDs.

I can't find it now but there is also a government requirement regarding making protocols for ECU access available for a reason I can't recall right now, but there were discussions on how it would essentially ease the hacking of ODBII ECUs.

For many models you don't even have to chip them or physically access the ECU at all - reflashing is done through the communications built into the OBDII port. Dealers distribute manufacturer reflashes this way already. With EcuTek my Subaru can be tuned on the fly and once I am happy just reflash the PROM through the port to retain the settings - and all emmissions CELS and responses (including for instance EGT limp home codes in the older WRXs) can be disabled.

Now as these cars begin to filter into IT over the years it will be really interesting to see if those who have proprietary, OBD0, OBDI and older OBDII ECUs no one has hacked (and some never will not enough interest in them) will still be happy not being able to take an aftermarket and plug it into their OEM harness.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by turboICE@Nov 22 2005, 04:06 PM
One way you could look at it is that CARB knows all too well how easy it is to reflash current ECUs.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/obd02/fro1968-2.pdf
I can't find it now but there is also a government requirement regarding making protocols for ECU access available for a reason I can't recall right now, but there were discussions on how it would essentially ease the hacking of ODBII ECUs.

For many models you don't even have to chip them or physically access the ECU at all - reflashing is done through the communications built into the OBDII port. Dealers distribute manufacturer reflashes this way already. With EcuTek my Subaru can be tuned on the fly and once I am happy just reflash the PROM through the port to retain the settings - and all emmissions CELS and responses (including for instance EGT limp home codes in the older WRXs) can be disabled.

Now as these cars begin to filter into IT over the years it will be really interesting to see if those who have proprietary, OBD0, OBDI and older OBDII ECUs no one has hacked (and some never will not enough interest in them) will still be happy not being able to take an aftermarket and plug it into their OEM harness.

66372

Ed the issue will be the cost of the aftermarket to become carb compliant. Last talk with AEM about the 350z was it was going to be too costly to be carb compliant. The cool thing about the OBDII stuff is (my understanding) the ability to have multible programs in the same ECU. This is one fo the reasons that SCCA is looking at open factory ECU rules in SS which we already have in T1/T2.

[turboICE]

Oh, I know that it brings a whole other realm of issues for street applications and compliance of stand alones - I was more using it to point out that it is easy enough for people to reflash OEM ECUs that CARB wants to know if the ECU has been reflashed to even a one bit variation from an OEM scheme. It shouldn't matter to IT whether the stand alone is OBDII compliant. It really will be easy to tune current cars' ECUs whether anyone has done it or not is another matter. I am sure that it is feasible to hack any current ECU to deal with any modifications permitted in IT. At IT prep levels I would rather reflash the current OEM ECUs than use a stand alone anyway because unlike the older OEM ECUs the new ones have pretty good resolution in their maps and you are starting with a setup designed to work with the signals available.

As far as two tunes as an example with the Subaru the space and addressing doesn't exist for two different sets of maps to be flashed - but there is enough that with a 100% TPS signal and hitting the rear defog button I can have an across the board shift in bootst, fuel trim and timing on the fly. And this shift can be set and reset via what I believe would be a permitted data logger.

[turboICE]

I can't think of any current OEM ECUs in the limited realm I am aware of that have the space and addressing for a second set of fuel trim and timing maps at this time. I am pretty sure they use all the space available for increased resolution.

Oops meant to edit.

[dj10]

3000 members and 59 voting?? Well I thought this was a great idea.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by dj10@Nov 24 2005, 08:41 AM
3000 member and 59 voting?? Well I thought this was a great idea.

66570



What? Thats about the normal participation level in this club. B)

[turboICE]

Except for the fact that the sample was not taken in a truly random fashion - the sample size would be considered pretty close to statistically significant enough to arrive at conclusions regarding the distribution of views among the population of forum members (which may or may not reflect the distribution of views of all IT participants).

And as with all statistics could be presented several ways (all +/- some polling error a quant could give you):

One could say that 76% don't like the rule the way it is now and want to see it changed.

On the other hand it could also be said that 66% do not want a rule that would be more open than today's wording (as is or more restrictive).

And 42% want a change eliminating the possible use of anything other than the stock main board.

As I have said eliminate the use of aftermarket ECU for all or make it easier for all to use them. But at the same time I don't want to see stock only engine control logic.

The problem with eliminating the use of aftermarket ECU for all as I see it is how to word it in such a way as to not prevent intended permitted data table changes. Because when I say eliminating the use of aftermarket ECU for all I mean eliminating nonOEM components that affect the speed, storage, logic applied and operating functions that are not OEM. Only permit modifications which alter the data tables from stock.

Hard to police I know - but as time wears on to some extent I can see where this "hard to police" stuff allows rules creep for those willing to spend the money. If someone is going to cheat they are going to cheat. Writing a good rule should not be avoided because it can't be policed. I believe that the vast super, ubber majority of participants will follow the rules even if they know they won't get caught (or maybe I have to believe that or why would I want to run in these classes since my intent is to follow the rules) of course with the exception that there are an awful lot of short shifters out there.

But policing aside I don't see a way to make a good rule for it so allow us all reasonable access to aftermarket ECU's on the stock harness.