wireing proposal

[dickita15]

this is what I sent the CRB this morning



To: SCCA Road Racing Board

From: Richard Patullo, member 96265, NER SCCA

Re: Improved Touring wiring harnesses

Gentlemen,

As some IT car age it is getting increasing to maintain cars wiring to the letter of the GCR. In order to be absolutely legal our electrical system must now be maintained to factory specifications as described in 17.1.4.D.8.h. “All chassis/structural/electrical repair, if performed shall be in concurrence with the factory procedures, specifications, and dimensions.”

In discussions with other IT racers there seems to be a worry that opening up wiring harness rules could have a unintended effect on ECU controlled fuel injected IT cars giving them an additional advantage. Given that I would request that the following be considered.

For carbureted cars removal of wiring associated with a component which may be removed by these rules is permitted. All non-essential wiring may be removed. Existing wiring may be substituted.

The rules allowing modifications to ECUs have given a performance advantage to fuel injected cars. This wording change, taken form the A Sedan rules, would at least make it make it simpler to keep carbureted car reliable.

Thank you for your consideration.
Dick Patullo

[RacerBill]

Dick: AWESOME!!! :happy204: :happy204: :happy204:

Thanks!

[RSTPerformance]

Dick-

How does this help me??? Our Audi's (Along with most of the early VW's) have an "ECU" that can not be modified (We have sent it out to multiple vendors to have them look at them, and no gains can be found)...

Dick, while I applaud your efforts, I do think that the rule should include all cars where it can be proven that no performance gain has been made by making any wiring changes/modifications.

Just my worthless .02 cents...

Raymond "At least it is the first step in the right direction on this issue" Blethen

PS: The color thing is fun!!! :bash_1_:

[pfcs49]

Raymond-a savvy/motivated electronics guy could modify the CIS-E ECM that you have. You have rpm, wot, and airflow load inputs at the 25 pin connector on the end of your harness, plenty of info to either hack/edit the 6451S eProm in the ECM, or install a piggyback setup in the relatively spacious volume of the box. Phil

[RSTPerformance]

Raymond-a savvy/motivated electronics guy could modify the CIS-E ECM that you have. You have rpm, wot, and airflow load inputs at the 25 pin connector on the end of your harness, plenty of info to either hack/edit the 6451S eProm in the ECM, or install a piggyback setup in the relatively spacious volume of the box. Phil
[/b]

This could turn into a hijack, wich I don't want it to... but maybe I need to hire you... as everyone I have taken it to has said that you can not do anything to achieve any gains... Why havn't all the VW done this???

At anyrate, thier are plenty of nonesential wires that could be removed in a VW and Audi (and I am sure many other cars), and it would not give a performance gain. Just my opinion... "Nonessential wires may be removed as long as it is not giving a "performance advantage."

Thanks again Dick for taking the first step!!! I think that your request is "wellfounded"!!!

Raymond

[Knestis]

I sure understand the rationale but I'm going to weigh the Golf harness while it's out of the car this weekend, and dream about how much of it is non-essential.

K

EDIT - I also feel the need to go on record as suggesting that the ECU issue smacks to me as a bit of a red herring argument against wiring harness mods, so to not include FI cars in a requested allowance proposal might move forward from an unfounded proposition. If it's good for the goose, etc.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Dick,



I guess my main question is what is it about the 'factory repair process' that isn't good enough to keep you reliable?


AB

[dickita15]

I sure understand the rationale but I'm going to weigh the Golf harness while it's out of the car this weekend, and dream about how much of it is non-essential.

K

EDIT - I also feel the need to go on record as suggesting that the ECU issue smacks to me as a bit of a red herring argument against wiring harness mods, so to not include FI cars in a requested allowance proposal might move forward from an unfounded proposition. If it's good for the goose, etc.
[/b]

Well Kirk I was prompted to finally send this as I have a complete harness sitting in my shop now that I just took out of a shell I am prepping. I will gladly weigh it tommorow and let you know, but with all the crumbleing factory connectors I am frustrated by the idea of making this piece usable.

I am serious about the ECU's in that in the past when I have brought this topic up for discussion there was a great fear that opening up the harness could cause a pandora's box with FI cars. Not knowing much about those fancy high tech cars I can not argue against that point.

It is a little frustrating that the allowance of open ECU's which benifits me not at all is used as a reason not to make it easier to maintain my car.



Dick,
I guess my main question is what is it about the 'factory repair process' that isn't good enough to keep you reliable?
AB
[/b]

Andy,
as I look over the harness out of this 26 year old car there is a lot of deteriation to the connectors and to some of the wires. I know this is self serving but i am looking at a huge number of hours of work and hunting down connectors for a car that really only need about 8 wires and half of them i am allowed to change now.

[Bill Miller]

Dick-

How does this help me??? Our Audi's (Along with most of the early VW's) have an "ECU" that can not be modified (We have sent it out to multiple vendors to have them look at them, and no gains can be found)...

Dick, while I applaud your efforts, I do think that the rule should include all cars where it can be proven that no performance gain has been made by making any wiring changes/modifications.

Just my worthless .02 cents...

Raymond "At least it is the first step in the right direction on this issue" Blethen

PS: The color thing is fun!!! :bash_1_:
[/b]


Raymond,

As was pointed out, those boxes are pretty decent size. I'm sure you could get somebody to build you a nice ECU that would fit in the box, and hook up to the stock plug. Not sure how much it will cost, but it for sure could be done. Now, let's talk about a CIS (not CIS-E) lambda system. Can't do anything there, because there's nothing to control. The WOT switch pretty much takes it out of the loop.

[lateapex911]

Dick, I think we need to polish it up a bit.

First, the ECU rule came about as a post classification change, which is to say, as I know you understand, that certain cars were classified under the assumptions that only certain gains could be realized from the mods to the cars elecrtonics. Then of course, the ECU rule opened things up, certain cars benefited, others did to varying degrees, but the older cars did not. They performed as they were originally classified. All of this is of cource policy and procedural stuff.

But.....

The recent realignment was performed with the ECU rule as part of the process. Cars that have ECUs are classified with the knowledge of probable gains.

Essentially, from a procedural point, the category has had a big "reboot", so to speak.

So.......

IF we are going to go down this path, I think we need to do it in such a way as to affect all cars equally.
After all, as the Audi camp points out there are some electronic cars going back pretty far...they are, or will soon be, in the same boat as you with flaky connectors and cracked wiring.

It is easy of course, to eliminate certain circuits that aren't needed, electrically, which should ease any reliability concerns.

How can the rule be written that would ease the maintenance of harnesses, but not eliminate certain populations of the category?

-Alternate connectors providing the same function?
-Piggy backed wires?


I see your point, but I think the inclusion of the ECU cars exemption will be a stumblling block.

[dickita15]

Proposed wording lifted from A Sedan rules:

For carbureted cars removal of wiring associated with a component which may be removed by these rules is permitted. All non-essential wiring may be removed. Existing wiring may be substituted.





Essentially, from a procedural point, the category has had a big "reboot", so to speak.

[/b]
I can see that argument




It is easy of course, to eliminate certain circuits that aren't needed, electrically, which should ease any reliability concerns.
[/b]

It may be easy to eliminate circuits that are not needed but it is not legal under the present rules.



How can the rule be written that would ease the maintenance of harnesses, but not eliminate certain populations of the category?

-Alternate connectors providing the same function?
-Piggy backed wires?
[/b]

I don’t know the answer and am open to any possibilities. Just allow all non-essential wiring to be removed. I chose to use the A Sedan wording because I felt the CRB would know the effect that wording has on building and maintaining cars, at least with carbureted cars.



I see your point, but I think the inclusion of the ECU cars exemption will be a stumblling block.
[/b]
I understand, but those are the cars that I am told are the cause for concern of unintended consequences.

I understand your concern for equity but I can build a safe reliable harness for my old car that will provide all the necessary functions in about an hour with no performance advantage other than maybe 15 pounds of weight. (I will get a hard number for my harness later today) I hesitate to estimate how long it would take to restore the harness to factory quality. There is however a concern that allowing this would create a huge opportunity for modern technology cars. I am trying to find one small step to make it easier to compete in low cost cars without upsetting the balance of competition. I do not see this a modification that everyone will have to do to be competitive. Just a step to make life easier.

[Knestis]

If nothing else, it's going to be a VERY interesting academic study to see the difference that 20 years of market demand and technology evolution make in the weight of wiring harnesses. I'd guess that the Golf wires weigh in excess of 30 pounds. I'll be able to check this weekend.

How about this question? Can we anticipate what will have to happen in 20 more years when FI cars are in the same pickle that Dick is facing? I'm going to have the same problem with a 30-year-old Golf, only multiplied many times over, simply because it has way more wiring.

The "non-essential wiring may be removed" clause certainly doesn't pose any risk on the ECU-trick front, but it is certainly creepish. Creepy? Whatever.

I do feel your pain, Dick. I felt like I was restoring a vintage car, dealing with my rust issues this winter...

K

[dickita15]

I weighed the harness recently remove from the 79 Rx7 I am prepping. It is 14 pounds and that includes a number of relay boxes and dropping resistors that are still attached to it. I would guess that with the things I can legally remove from it under the current rules it would be down around 10 pounds.

Given that and the fact that the ten pounds is distributed about he car and down low there does not seem to be much of a performance advantage from the proposed rule change.

I will be interested in how much heavier Kirk’s newer harness is.

[Knestis]

Like in so many things about me, I was a little short.

The Golf harness - including the fuse block, which I would NEVER disconnect from the mess - weighed 25 pounds. That also included a couple of rubber boots that go through the door openings, and a little bracket or two but that's a pretty accurate picture of the entire wiring mess.

I was reminded by looking closely at the tangle that, while there are more linear feet of wire in this unit than an older one, VW did a good job of "right-sizing" the wires. The low-amp stuff is really surprisingly small guage stuff, which is a good thing.

I'm not entirely clear what I can do to lighten it within the current rules, since this did NOT include the accessory radio harnesses, which are separate and already long gone...

K

[Geo]

I'm not entirely clear what I can do to lighten it within the current rules, since this did NOT include the accessory radio harnesses, which are separate and already long gone...


[/b]

Did the Golf ever come equipped w/o the radio harness?

[Knestis]

Here we go again...

1. Kirk foolishly assumes that he understands a rule, going back freakin' decades, and is thankful that the radio has its own little wiring harness for the speakers - they aren't wound up in the main loom.

2. Geo asks a question.

3. Having been burned on the piston thing, Kirk checks the rules to see what the actual wording is, and finds out that the ITCS doesn't say "radios may be removed" - which would be the sensible thing, allowing removal of the entire audio system. No. Instead, the rule says...

Radio receivers may be removed or replaced.

...which doesn't even allow removal of the speakers. We're all illegal.

:wacko:

K

[Geo]

Here we go again...

1. Kirk foolishly assumes that he understands a rule, going back freakin' decades, and is thankful that the radio has its own little wiring harness for the speakers - they aren't wound up in the main loom.

2. Geo asks a question.

3. Having been burned on the piston thing, Kirk checks the rules to see what the actual wording is, and finds out that the ITCS doesn't say "radios may be removed" - which would be the sensible thing, allowing removal of the entire audio system. No. Instead, the rule says...

Radio receivers may be removed or replaced.

...which doesn't even allow removal of the speakers. We're all illegal.

:wacko:

K
[/b]

Scofflaw. :)

The SE-R and NX2000 are legal w/o the speakers (as are a number of cars) since speakers were not standard equipment on those cars. I don't even know about the 944. :)

[zracre]

Raymond
[/b]


I think you have an illegal hood scoop on the VW in that pic!!!!! :happy204:
edit your competition has an illegal hoodscoop! :bash_1_:

[Knestis]

Scofflaw. :)

The SE-R and NX2000 are legal w/o the speakers (as are a number of cars) since speakers were not standard equipment on those cars. I don't even know about the 944. :)
[/b]

You're telling me that you had to check a box and pay more for speakers, on a base-model Nissan? 1966 Galaxie, I can believe that but Japanese-branded cars of that era??

K

[zracre]

I worked for Naples Nissan from 1992 to 1997 and did pre delivery inspections on hundreds of Sentra's NX's and others...needless to say I did plenty of dealer installed radios on those cars...many came w/o radios and speakers. Greg, Did you buy your car new?? if you did were you able to get the NX2000 w/o radio? I dont remember doing many on the SER or NX2000 but most of them were purchased by the dealer with lots of junk on them...

[Doc Bro]

Just to stir the pot.......

I'd love to know how many in the rules creep, purist category still have their speakers. I do- on the passenger side. Not on the drivers side because of cage clearance......

Interesting

R

[Greg Amy]

Greg, Did you buy your car new??[/b]
Yup.

...were you able to get the NX2000 w/o radio?[/b]
Yup. Ordered from the factory with no A/C, no radio, no t-tops, no nuthin'.

'Course, since removal of the interior panels is legal, and speakers attach to the interior panels, it's a moot point on most vehicles. - GA

[Matt Rowe]

I don't know Greg, the function of a speaker is obviously different than that of a door panel. And remember, just because a car faces a limitation like this (speaker mounted to door panel) doesn't mean you can force a legal mod (door panel removal) to facilitate an illegal one. I would say that if the speaker must remain and they are attached to the door panels then the panel, or a portion of it, must remain. :018:

Does this earn me my rules nerd membership? :D

Oh, and that was a joke, but it does raise an interesting question.

[zracre]

If the car was available without it as an option, you can take it out and leave what would be there if you bought it with radio delete package...nothing. I guess it is a good debate for a car you couldn't get w/o radio delete.

[charrbq]

This is the same argument made several years ago about cars like mine having rear window wipers. Some models did, some models didn't. Some people removed them, some didn't. The question of legality was never completely solved, just dropped. I suppose the consensus was that if you were beaten by a car that had no windshield wiper, was that the reason or only the tip of the iceberg.

[Knestis]

Seems like there's a difference between a car that comes "standard" without a rear wiper, and ordering a delete option that leaves something off that is "standard." Or maybe not. What do I know. :wacko:

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Matt,

So you are telling me that when I replace my door panel with the allowable aluminum sheet, I have to find a way to re-install my speaker, window crank, arm rest, interior door handle, etc?

AB

[Matt Rowe]

Andy,

As for the idea of the window crank, arm rest, handle etc, those are all specfically called out. So they are obviously legal to remove. But I can't find a place in the ITCS where it says it is allowable to remove speakers. If you can't remove them they have to remain in the car and in some cases the door panels also serve as a speaker mount. Removal of the panels in that case would be a situation of an allowed modification performing an illegal function.

In reality though, the rule should just be changed to allow radio and speakers to be removed. Even the language in the TCS and SSCS does that. But it just goes to show how everyone seems to take some rules for granted.

[dickita15]

So what would it take to make this one small section of the rules simple.

my original proposal
Proposed wording lifted from A Sedan rules:

For carbureted cars removal of wiring associated with a component which may be removed by these rules is permitted. All non-essential wiring may be removed. Existing wiring may be substituted.

should all car be allowed to remove wiring associated with a component which may be removed by these rules. would this create a problem.

how about all non-essential wiring may be removed.

How about Existing wiring may be substituted as long as that substitution does perform any other function.

[Geo]

You're telling me that you had to check a box and pay more for speakers, on a base-model Nissan? 1966 Galaxie, I can believe that but Japanese-branded cars of that era??

K
[/b]

Dealer option.

I bought my 1991 Sentra SE-R new off the showroom floor with no radio or speakers.




I don't know Greg, the function of a speaker is obviously different than that of a door panel. And remember, just because a car faces a limitation like this (speaker mounted to door panel) doesn't mean you can force a legal mod (door panel removal) to facilitate an illegal one. I would say that if the speaker must remain and they are attached to the door panels then the panel, or a portion of it, must remain. :018:

Does this earn me my rules nerd membership? :D

Oh, and that was a joke, but it does raise an interesting question.
[/b]

Well, Greg doesn't have that worry since his car came w/o radio.

However, if I had a car with speakers attached to the panels, I would certainly leave them attached to the panels......

In the garage. :)





In reality though, the rule should just be changed to allow radio and speakers to be removed.
[/b]

I heartily agree.



But it just goes to show how everyone seems to take some rules for granted.
[/b]

Yep.

[turboICE]

You're telling me that you had to check a box and pay more for speakers, on a base-model Nissan? 1966 Galaxie, I can believe that but Japanese-branded cars of that era??

K
[/b]
I bought a 2004 Subaru Impreza STi that came with no radio or speakers from the factory except as an option - and very few came with that option almost all were delivered without the radio unless the dealer installed it.

Also had an 86 Nissan with no radio or speakers new of the factory floor.

[Bildon]

I think you have an illegal hood scoop on the VW in that pic!!!!! :happy204:
edit your competition has an illegal hoodscoop! :bash_1_:
[/b]

Finally somebody notices why I was being passed. :happy204:

[rsportvolvo]

Did anything come of this proposed rules change? It seems that wiring is the only major area omitted from the ITCS.

The reason I ask is that I have to relocated my fuse panel as it is right where the required driver's side front down tube mounts. While I'm relocating the fuse panel I would like to replace my GBC type fuses with more modern ATC type.

[dickita15]

Did anything come of this proposed rules change? It seems that wiring is the only major area omitted from the ITCS.

The reason I ask is that I have to relocated my fuse panel as it is right where the required driver's side front down tube mounts. While I'm relocating the fuse panel I would like to replace my GBC type fuses with more modern ATC type.

No this request was rejected.

[lateapex911]

That sounds so cold!!!

[dickita15]

well

[lateapex911]

yea, I saw that coming a mile away. ;)