ECUs....is it time?

[lateapex911]

So, with the advent of ITR, I am seeing a lot of interest and the collection of cars to build for the new class, and thats great news.

But, I also see a lot of issues that people will be having with ECUs. Nearly every car on the list will need ECU work.

As it stands, the rule limits us to what can fit in the stock box. This is rather arbitrary, and while I understand the intent, I don't think it's the best way to get there.

Aso, it jacks the cost up staggeringly, and is really counterproductive in regards to acheiving the prep levels that the process predicts these cars will acheive.

What I mean by that it that the process the ITAC uses basically assumes that most cars will acheive a certain % increase in the IT build, and the ECU mods are considered to be part of that increase. (there are exceptions to that of course, but for the sake of argument, lets not get too specific) But some cars just can't fit someting in the box...even at any price.

Now, I know the response to that will be, "Too bad, thats the way it is, you choose your horse and run your course."

But does it HAVE to be that way?

I think it's time we took a serious look at the ECU rule wording and it's intent.

I submit that the intent is NOT to force people to spend 2 or 3 thou on a unit, then another 2 thou on the tuning, or to exclude certain cars because of build and fitment issues. And honestly, is the current rule REALLY effective in thwarting cheating?? (and that was the reasoning, IIRC)

Perhaps it's time to allow aftermarket units, (Megasquirt, et al), and forget the "inside the box " requirement.

Keep the stock harness rule, the no additional sensors rule and so on, but allow people to acheive prep equity across the board, and to do so in a more reasonable manner.

Thoughts?

[tnord]

if this is akin to the SS based engine rule in SM (and i think it is) then i'm all for opening it up.

in SM, you spend 7k on a stock motor because B&B isn't explicitly allowed in the rules. allow it and you suddenly have $3500 pro motors.

i'm GUESSING that by allowing the stand-alone units using the factory harness and all that will actually lower the cost to achieve the same results people are getting now.

if my gross oversimplification of the situation is inaccurate, please correct me.

playing devils advocate now....

if we make the ECU rule cheaper and easier to achieve, it's likely more people will have stand-alone units. this now becomes part of the "normal build process" and increases cost of entry.

[Greg Amy]

Funny you should bring this up: I'm reviewing different ECU options (Megasquirt being one) this very day and finding the "ECU housing" part of the rule to be excessively restrictive, with no good reason.

I understand the genesis for the rule: we were trying to avoid the "Motec in a box" syndrome. It was an (ultimately ineffectual) way to try and limit ECU modifications to the original board; unfortunately, it failed (kinda like how Prohibition was supposed to eliminate alcohol consumption; all it did was put it on the black market, increase its price, and decrease its quality.)

I suggest the rule be amended to allow open ECUs, as long as the original unmodified wiring harness is used. I may even suggest - given further thought - that we allow the OE ECU plug to be cut off and wires molded to an aftermarket plug (however, it is a far simpler matter to adapt to an unmodified harness plug then it is to cram it into an unmodified ECU housing). I do not believe we should allow additional sensors/inputs, wires, or outputs.

We've been down this road before; there are many, many threads on this forum arguing over this very contentious issue. I expect this thread will be no different. What I am suggesting is that the original apparent intent of the rule failed, so let's let bygones be bygones and accept the new paradigm openly.

Rules creep? In the letter-of-the-law sense of the words, yes. But, within the "new" spirit-of-the-rules sense, no. - GA

[dickita15]

such a rule change makes sence to me. it will result in more modified ECU's but only because it will now be cheaper to buy one.

[lateapex911]

Rules creep? In the letter-of-the-law sense of the words, yes. But, within the "new" spirit-of-the-rules sense, no. - GA
[/b]

Agreed. Actually, in terms of the category as a whole, it will not increase the max prep level. But it should create a method that more subscribers can acheive that prep level, as well as acheiving the designed in parity of the classification process, at a lower cost, both in terms of time and money.

[gran racing]

I've been giving this though for quite a while now. For this thread, let's not get into the carb-ed guys can't do it, or make it stock again arguments. We've done that too many times.

For the past few years many people have been looking into ECU options. In my case, I've looked into all the known Honda stuff but unfortunately it just won't work with my ECU. Early in the process I learned about piggy back units. The total to get the unit installed AND fully dyno tuned totaled $1,000. The only way I've been able to find that I can do it in today's rules is MOTEC. The few quotes I received to accomplish that were absolutely crazy! My initial thought is that alloing the piggy back systems would make ECU work the norm. For the front running cars, it is slowly becoming the norm anyway but just costs a ton more money to do it.

Are there any valid reasons (again, read the first paragraph) not to allow piggy back units? Like others have suggested, keep the stock harness rule, and the no additional sensors rule.

[lateapex911]

I've been giving this though for quite a while now. For this thread, let's not get into the carb-ed guys can't do it, or make it stock again arguments. We've done that too many times.


[/b]


We don't have to Dave, that situation was essentially reset when the PCA adjustments came in....the ECU rule implementation ran counter to the classification process when the rule was first made, and the PCA adjustment pretty much fixed that.

This is a case of all ECU cars not being able to hit the process target with equal ease, if you will.

Carb guys should have NO issues with it, as I don't see the max performance capability increasing a wit.

[Z3_GoCar]

I say YES, YES!!

Here's my situation, I've got a TECII system. It was state of the art in the Late '90s now it's functional but doesn't have the fine control that newer systems have. It's limited by what kind of sensors can be plugged in, it uses a custom crank sensor, and a heated narrow band Ox sensor with FORD stamped on it. The car also doesn't have any form of a stock engine harness on it, it was wired in by Tri-Point. Now it is compatible with an AFM if I'm using the Ox-sensor. It also has one General Purpose Output (GPO) which I use to actuate the intake VANOS. All the engine mangement does is feed it fuel and spark and is tunable unlike the stock OBDII system, which is what the carb and point guys can do in their own fashion. It's also mounted to the bottom of the coil pack, so there's no way to package it into a stock housing or use the stock wiring connector on it. I mounted it on an aluminum plate in the same general area that the stock engine computer resided (I've not touched the chassis computer as it still resided in the passenger foot well). So why does my antiquated system have to be illegal? I say make standalone systems legal replacements for OBDII computers, and get them outside the stock box and even away from the stock connectors.

James

[dj10]

Funny you should bring this up: I'm reviewing different ECU options (Megasquirt being one) this very day and finding the "ECU housing" part of the rule to be excessively restrictive, with no good reason.

I understand the genesis for the rule: we were trying to avoid the "Motec in a box" syndrome. It was an (ultimately ineffectual) way to try and limit ECU modifications to the original board; unfortunately, it failed (kinda like how Prohibition was supposed to eliminate alcohol consumption; all it did was put it on the black market, increase its price, and decrease its quality.)

I suggest the rule be amended to allow open ECUs, as long as the original unmodified wiring harness is used. I may even suggest - given further thought - that we allow the OE ECU plug to be cut off and wires molded to an aftermarket plug (however, it is a far simpler matter to adapt to an unmodified harness plug then it is to cram it into an unmodified ECU housing). I do not believe we should allow additional sensors/inputs, wires, or outputs.

We've been down this road before; there are many, many threads on this forum arguing over this very contentious issue. I expect this thread will be no different. What I am suggesting is that the original apparent intent of the rule failed, so let's let bygones be bygones and accept the new paradigm openly.

Rules creep? In the letter-of-the-law sense of the words, yes. But, within the "new" spirit-of-the-rules sense, no. - GA [/b]



"Funny thing you should bring this up" I agree with GA with the exception, why must we use the oem harness? This is where the expense comes in. Trying to rewire the EMS to fit the oem harness. Allow it to be open also and do not allow extra sensors and allow only the inputs/ outputs set by the ITAC & CRB. I've been a proponent of this since I've found out people were paying huge sums of money to stuff a Motec into the oem ECU and rewire the entire wiring harness to make it work. Does this old ECU rule seem like it is in the good interests of the "New Improved Touring"? In the long run I beleive that this will cut the costs of racing due mostly to the efficency of the engines. Not only will they make more power I believe they will be more environmentaly friendly and actually cut the consumption of fuel. I formally submit these recommendations to the ITAC for study and to take action upon.

dj

[gran racing]

I formally submit these recommendations to the ITAC for study and to take action upon.[/b]

All you need to do to formally submit this is send your recommendation to the ITAC group e-mail. Right now it's just talk (for all of us).

[tnord]

i've never looked into ECU work and was wondering if people can toss out some numbers.

what's it cost for ECU upgrades under the current rule for high and low end?

what would it cost under the new rule for standalone units high and low end?

[Greg Amy]

what's it cost for ECU upgrades under the current rule for high and low end?[/b]

Purely supposition, but they run the gamut. Obviously, the cheapest solution is a marginal cost of zero: don't make changes from stock (maybe bump up your base timing or use resistors to fool the ECU). On the high end, there are rumors of "Motec in a box" costing $3000-5000 or more.

For my NX2000, unless you're wanting to go it alone, your choice is a $450 JWT ECU or nothing (which has been reported to add just about 2 horsepower on a dyno). Another guy offers modified Nissan ECUs and "tune-it-yourself" software (not particularly user-friendly) for ~$300 with all required equipment (mods, upload/download hardware, tuning software).


what would it cost under the new rule for standalone units high and low end?[/b]

Again, it varies. You can get into a Megaquirt system for a few hundred dollars, a Unichip "piggyback" system for $800-1000, an AEM Power standalone ECU for ~$2000, a full-boat Motec system for $3000 or more. The value of each depends on your individual skillsets and motivation, plus what they can offer for your particular car... - GA

[dj10]

Again, it varies. You can get into a Megaquirt system for a few hundred dollars, a Unichip "piggyback" system for $800-1000, an AEM Power standalone ECU for ~$2000, a full-boat Motec system for $3000 or more. The value of each depends on your individual skillsets and motivation, plus what they can offer for your particular car... - GA [/b]



Also everyone, you might want to ask what these systems will do. With a well tuned EMS and engine you will save mucho costs in costly engine repairs & diagnostics, days of the too lean engine gone, assuming you set these EMS correctly, gained fuel economy, very help full in enduros, just to name a few. Don't forget that a well tuned engine will polute less. There are a thousand reasons to do away with the current rule and I can't think of one to keep it.

I can see it now the headlines read "SCCA takes steps into the future of racing for others to follow!!", "SCCA, environmentaly friendly racing" and the Democrats go WILD!!! :D



"Improved Touring, racing it's way into the future" What's new about Improved Touring, you ask.

dj

[Eagle7]

I agree with allowing an aftermarket box with the stock harness. Now to push the envelope a little more, should we allow: Connect the ECU to a computer (or PDA) to log ECU data? (I guess with an open ECU rule this one's already a given)
Allow connection of additional signals/sensors for logging purposes?
These would make my life a lot more convenient, but I'm a little troubled by the second one, as it runs counter to the stock harness rule. No way to police that the additional signal is just used for logging, rather than as an additional ECU control input.

[Knestis]

I use a wideband O2 sensor, run through the required controller, to send a signal to my DL1. If that DL1 - or a different DA unit, or the O2 controller itself - were connected to talk TO the wiring harness (and therefore, the ECU), we'd be most of the way there conceptually already.

How about this question (for you rules NERDS): Are you allowed to tap into the stock wiring harness for an allowed gauge, say to pull a tach singal or water temperature?

K

[eprodrx7]

This reminds me of the shock discussion. :dead_horse: Today the costs involved in creating a stand alone system have come down so much (like the fancy shocks) that it is no longer prohibitive to do.

Policing the sensors will never be effective as I believe that today it is legal to install a data system and if I put a throttle position sensor on my car how would you prove that it is part of the data system only and not the EM if the two are integrated?

Open it up, along with modded or completely removed stock harness. Cheap and easy way to simplify a car. BTW I did a Mega Squirt (Spit) on my RX7 EP car and it was pretty simple including home made harness.

[924Guy]

I agree, this rule seems outdated and unnecessary added cost and complexity. I do agree with the desire to not add sensors, but eprodrx7 has a very good point. Just as I have a wheel speed sensor, and could readily have more than one - all of a sudden I can implement traction control! :o (Don't worry; while I have the capability, it ain't gonna happen on my CIS car!) But yeah, how can this be policed? Perhaps the existing rules are already sufficient to prevent this, even if catching cheating may be difficult? Maybe they would just need more teeth? Either way, the ECU case rule is outdated IMO...

[Greg Amy]

Open it up, along with modded or completely removed stock harness.[/b]

Let's explore John's idea a bit; I'm intrigued. What's the risk of simply opening it all up? How will adding sensors and outputs affect the prep level? After all, what Jake's proposing (and I support) is the idea to make currently allowed mods easier and cheaper, without opening holes for increased prep level.

ECU tuning is allowed now. What is the marginal risk of allowing additional sensor input (e.g., wide-band O2 sensor, temp sensors, position sensors)? I suggest that allowing additional sensor inputs will produce minimal returns over what you can do now. What's the risk of allowing additional outputs? Honestly, I'm drawing a blank as to what outputs we could use, but it's early and I haven't had my fourth cup of coffee yet...

Really, the only thing that immediately comes to mind is using wheel speed sensors to create some kind of traction control, but even that has little value in classes ITA and below; besides, it's not particularly difficult to program to limit the rate of acceleration of an engine, thus doing "traction control" now...

Dunno, John, you may have a point. Barring someone coming up with some clever way of abusing such an idea, it may have merit... - Greg

[Ron Earp]

Really, the only thing that immediately comes to mind is using wheel speed sensors to create some kind of traction control, but even that has little value in classes ITA and below; besides, it's not particularly difficult to program to limit the rate of acceleration of an engine, thus doing "traction control" now...

Dunno, John, you may have a point. Barring someone coming up with some clever way of abusing such an idea, it may have merit... - Greg
[/b]

Open it on up - the engine is an air pump and can't produce more power than the mechanical limitations. Naturally, tweeking the ECU allows you to extract more of the available power. And having an open ECU rule will allow even more of that, but it'll level the playing field for ECU cars.

As far as traction control or limiting wheel spin, a simplistic wheel spin (when both spin) has been available in modified MSD boxes for years. Sample the spark timing, reference to RPM, take the derivative and when it exceeds a certain value cut spark because you know you've got wheel spin. Was a common cheat on roundy round and no doubt has been in an SCCA car somewhere.

It'll be easier with open ECUs, but cheating is illegal with or without an open ECU.

I've been a big fan of the Megasquirt and have followed it for years on the forums and web sites. Good stuff for those interested and completed ones can now be bought, no more soldering, masking boards, etching, etc. There are lots of hobbist on the Megasquirt forums who offer install packages on your engine and tuning help for few dollars. The Megasquirt can offer good control over an engine and sort of deflates the "I have to spend $5000 for a Motec" argument.

Ron

[Bill Miller]

Don't most traction control systems work through the ABS system?

Here's my take, you want an open ECU/harness/sensors, It's a 5% wieght penalty.

I agree, the current ECU rule is silly. Make people spend more money just to meet the letter of the rule. It's almost exactly like the old shock rule. But, people wouldn't do it if there were real gains to be had. Opening it up makes it accessible to those w/o the huge budgets. However, there are still gains to be had that some can't take advantage of (CIS folks, carb folks, etc). I have no problem w/ letting people do it, just that it will cost them (in terms of lead).

[tnord]

careful fella's.

combine open ECU's with a national class, and cheating is only cheating if it can be caught in the tech shed. just because traction control is illegal, if you can't find a way to catch it, i promise people will use it unless you find an easy way to detect it.

[Greg Amy]

Here's my take, you want an open ECU/harness/sensors, It's a 5% wieght penalty.[/b]

"Not within the philosophy of the class. Thank you for your input."

Let's not step into that quagmire of adding/subtracting weight penalties for specific modifications. Open ECUs - in as far as working within the existing limitations - are here to stay. Whether or not to allow ECU mods is not the issue at hand; what we're discussing here is how to make an existing rule more accessible to more people, all without allowing any more effective mods.

I'll say it, even though it's painful: if you want to step into that quicksand, go Production. - GA

[Z3_GoCar]

Don't most traction control systems work through the ABS system?

Here's my take, you want an open ECU/harness/sensors, It's a 5% wieght penalty.

I agree, the current ECU rule is silly. Make people spend more money just to meet the letter of the rule. It's almost exactly like the old shock rule. But, people wouldn't do it if there were real gains to be had. Opening it up makes it accessible to those w/o the huge budgets. However, there are still gains to be had that some can't take advantage of (CIS folks, carb folks, etc). I have no problem w/ letting people do it, just that it will cost them (in terms of lead).
[/b]

Here's the misconception, the gains to be had with an OBDII car is simply what's avalible with a distributor bluprint and carb rejetting. The very function of OBDII is to be tamper resistant, only gutting the box and installing a MOTEC allows adjustment of mixture and spark. Otherwise you're stuck with a system that runs lean, and won't make any more power than stock. My system has like 10 or 12 programable points in it where you can adjust the injector pulse width. What winds up happening is they're bunched around the low to mid RPM range where the fuel curve in non-linear but when I'm running the car I'm pretty much in the linear band above 3500rpm, actually I can keep it in the 4500-6500 band pretty much all day long, it's just getting into that band when starting out where it becomes nice to have a decent working system. I drove the car once on the default setting, and it was too fat at idle dumping gas down into the oil, the vanos would kick in and it'd be way too lean and die out. Only when moving could I get through above that range and then it'd straghten out and run right. This is just to get the motor functional.

James

[Ron Earp]

Here's the misconception, the gains to be had with an OBDII car is simply what's avalible with a distributor bluprint and carb rejetting. The very function of OBDII is to be tamper resistant, only gutting the box and installing a MOTEC allows adjustment of mixture and spark.
[/b]

Not to start an agrument, but that isn't completely true ith respect to OBD-II being not highly modifiable. Might be true on the BMW OBD-II ECUs, but on my Lightning I've got complete spark and fuel control (and everything else like MAF transfer function, retard, and literally large numbers of parameters, some I have no clue about) in 100 RPM increments, using a hand held tuner and PC. Modify, change, download to tuner, then to truck. It is OBDII too, no check engine lights, and smooth sailing.

A lot of how tunable the car is will be related to the aftermarket size - lots of Lightnings being modified, so lots of options available. There are lots of OBD-II tuners with fantastic control for lots of other popular "performance" cars, but none in IT that I know of. As you say, I bet there isn't this sort of control for say, a 1989 Porsche 944 (OBD wasn't even around). Or a 2000 BMW 328i.

You'd definitely benefit from a Megasquirt, Wolf, Motec, Electromotive, etc. ECU it sounds like. As will a lot of other modern IT racers working with their newer cars.

[JoshS]

I agree, this rule seems outdated and unnecessary added cost and complexity. I do agree with the desire to not add sensors, but eprodrx7 has a very good point. Just as I have a wheel speed sensor, and could readily have more than one - all of a sudden I can implement traction control! :o (Don't worry; while I have the capability, it ain't gonna happen on my CIS car!) But yeah, how can this be policed? Perhaps the existing rules are already sufficient to prevent this, even if catching cheating may be difficult? Maybe they would just need more teeth? Either way, the ECU case rule is outdated IMO...
[/b]

You can't implement traction control because your wheel speed sensor is disconnected at the wheel, right? The rules require it!

This bugs me a bit because I've just discovered that my new ITR car will REQUIRE custom software, or a whole ECU. The stock one will go into "limp-home" mode if I disconnect the wheel-speed sensors, or if I remove the cats, both of which will happen for any IT build. That's based on experts I've spoken to at this point -- the car isn't to that point. But I will try it just to make sure it's true.

If it is true though, that means that we're past the point of software being a nice go-fast part -- it's now become more like a cage -- gotta have it even to race at all.

[tnord]

with the way cars are these days, that's unfortunately probably going to be the norm.

also, i bet you could get a simple reflash from turner/bimmerworld that would alleviate your problem for a few hundred bucks.

[JoshS]

with the way cars are these days, that's unfortunately probably going to be the norm.

also, i bet you could get a simple reflash from turner/bimmerworld that would alleviate your problem for a few hundred bucks.
[/b]
There don't appear to be any off-the-shelf software kits that fix this particular problem. Why would there be? Standard stuff raises the rev limit, maybe remaps the timing ... certainly don't do anything with wheel-speed sensors, limp-home mode, etc.

It's going to have to be custom.

[Z3_GoCar]

A simple reflash is not so simple. The one guy who's even close to modifying the program in Bosch / Siemens OBDII systems is Jim Conforti, and I'm not sure he can get the stock ECM to ignore the kind of faults that a disconnected CAT or wheel sensor will trigger. The probelm is that the program is Proprietary to Bosch/Siemens and they're not about to share the secrets, and it's designed to be tamper proof. Some ecm's require removal and being sent in to be reflashed like the Motronic M-42, and even then some months are not reflashable. So you send in your ecu to only find out that nothing can be done to it. Even if it is reflashable all that's really done is to remove the top speed limiter or maybe tweek the timing 2 degrees a sort of one size fits all approach. The shark won't make it ignore these kinds of faults, only a new standalone will do, now will or can it be stuffed into the stock housing?

James

[tnord]

hmmm....

how about mounting the sensor on the driveshaft/axle so that the sensor can still see a wheel speed but can't do anything about it?

[lateapex911]

It seems like most of us here are actually in agreement. Odd. .....LOL.

Just to recenter it for a second, my proposal is to create a scenario that eliminates the need for certain cars to:

- Spend a fortune (or circumvent the rules) just to get the car on the track. (I know of one BMW owner who is a sharp guy and posts here, who spent a season in limp mode becuase he followed the rules and unhooked ALL his wheel sensors. Once he had one hoooked up, all was well...but he was illegal. None of us want that, it's a great example of how the current rule fails the category)

- Allow more subscribers to attain the performance level the process predicts they can acheive.

What I am NOT proposing is:

- A scenario that allows anyone to exceed the performace that is currently allowed,

- Or creates a legal way to perform illegal functions, like traction control.

Thats where this gets sticky. Of course, defacto traction control exists, and has undoubtably been used my a few now and in the past.

My thought about mandating the stock harness was that it seemed like a good middle ground. It allowed free control, resulting in easier and cheaper mods, but also made policing things like actual wheel sensor derived traction control easier.

Best of both worlds, in a way.

Of course, I'd let everyone have traction control if I knew they weren't running high compression pistons, ilegal aold air/ram air, cheater cams, big displacement, and all the other things I stumbled onto in the past......year.

[Bill Miller]

"Not within the philosophy of the class. Thank you for your input."

Let's not step into that quagmire of adding/subtracting weight penalties for specific modifications. Open ECUs - in as far as working within the existing limitations - are here to stay. Whether or not to allow ECU mods is not the issue at hand; what we're discussing here is how to make an existing rule more accessible to more people, all without allowing any more effective mods.

I'll say it, even though it's painful: if you want to step into that quicksand, go Production. - GA
[/b]

Two words Greg, "unintended consequences'

James,

If you think having an on-the-fly adaptive fuel curve is the same as re-jetting a carb, there's not a whole lot of point in continuing this discussion.

The trick ECUs are all about optimizing the area under the curve.

[Doc Bro]

[quote]

- Spend a fortune (or circumvent the rules) just to get the car on the track. (I know of one BMW owner who is a sharp guy and posts here, who spent a season in limp mode becuase he followed the rules and unhooked ALL his wheel sensors. Once he had one hoooked up, all was well...but he was illegal. None of us want that, it's a great example of how the current rule fails the category)



That's me!! (and Noam) And it's still hooked up to this day!!! The RR wheel sensor must be in or else suffer the 5200 RPM consequences. The BMW traction control on the 96 Z3 1.9 is done with selective application of the ABS system to the spinng wheel. ABS pump is gone = no traction control. Legal...not as written. The best we could do....absolutely. Protest away!!! As I was arguing last year on this topic, if you don't have an OBD 2 car you may not completely understand the conundrum, wrapped in an enigma, shrouded in mystery that the rule as written creates.

I'll quote myself from last year. "let it out of the box or stuff it back in the bottle"

How many guys weighing in on this topic have a 96 or later IT car??

R

[dj10]

R,

I was @ Nelson Ledges for a National last year. Will Turner brought down a T2 M3 he was going to race. I missed the race but heard he had problems with the traction control of his OBDII M3. My point is what did he do to fix the problem? Have you tried contacting anyone? What do the World Challange & Grand Am teams do? The don't run traction control.I believe there are are ways around everything.

I'm also very happy to see a lot of us in agreement. Now since we got the ITAC's attention, let's get this worked out so everyone can benefit and get the rule changed.

[Doc Bro]

DJ,

We are in agreement- there are many ways to skin the cat....and as soon as I have Turner's cat and knife I'll skin 'em his way!!!

For the rest of us I guess we'll just have to stick to burning ants with a magnifying glass.

R

[sstecker]

grand am cup /prototype rules are on their website. grandam rules (http://www.grandamerican.com/CONTENT/Docs/PDF/Rules/Rolex/2006/DP_Rules.pdf#pagemode=bookmarks)

you use a spec wire harness for all classes and only get 1. some classes have a spec ecu that gets enabled at the event.

[dj10]

DJ,

We are in agreement- there are many ways to skin the cat....and as soon as I have Turner's cat and knife I'll skin 'em his way!!!

For the rest of us I guess we'll just have to stick to burning ants with a magnifying glass.

R [/b]



Rob, if you think of it, to me it's no big deal if you HAVE to run one sensor to make the damn thing work. You are not gaining and performance advantage from one sensor, now are you? :D I'd like to know how much good performance software is out there for the OBDII's or is everyone chucking them in place of the EMS's? I believe your problem and others like it could be over come with the correct rule wording.

dj

[JamesB]

I think OBD2 programming varies from ECU to ECU. I know everything from the CIS-Motronic through the 2007 VW EFI systems have chips of various types out there. sure most of the street chips are still not enough for racing, but these guys already have the baseline mappings and the skills to tweak them more. But you can still find ways to get around that. From diods on the MAF, resistors on the temp sensors these are all common tricks to get more fuel out of OBD2 systems.

If your lucky like the 2001-2005 VW you can actually go into OBD2 and change an adaptation byte to permanently disable traction control (which if you have AXed one is more of a hindrence then a help on any given day.)

[dj10]

It seems like most of us here are actually in agreement. Odd. .....LOL.

What I am NOT proposing is:
My thought about mandating the stock harness was that it seemed like a good middle ground. It allowed free control, resulting in easier and cheaper mods, but also made policing things like actual wheel sensor derived traction control easier.
[/b]

Jake,

I hope you are not proposing to mandate the stock harness. We are getting back to the old rule somewhat. Would would need vast knowledge or money to have someone wire the EMS to make these things work with the stock harness. You are infact defeating the purpose of the rule change. All you need to do is limit what can and will be controled by the EMS. As with Rob's situation, go ahead and allow one sensor if that what he needs to make his system work. Just make sure the other 3 are not on the car or are completely disconnected. Mandating the OEM Harness is a step backwards. I'm sure we can figure out another way.

dj

[lateapex911]

Well, at this point it's all fact finding.

Rob won't have a problem if he goes to a stand alone system, he won't need that sensor because the standalone doesn't need it...he's the master of his domain.

My thinking is that the mandate that we allow aftermarket systems for some, but not all is the big problem here. The "fit it in a box" is the arbitrary point...why have it?

From a rules writing standoint, I worry that allowing open harnesses means specifying what can and what can't be done. By requiring the stock harness and sensors, we can limit the extra verbiage, and the future reworking.

But maybe I'm wrong about that. IF the harness is open, how will we enforce what it is thats being done?

(and yes, I know....how do we enforce whats being done NOW!??...good point, LOL)

Someone take a crack at writing the rule. Gotta keep mass air flow sensors, etc, but allows alternate ECUs. Remember, when you write the rule, it should be forward thinking, but yet not allow any performance upgrades not already possible. The carb guys are watching, LOL. ;)

[Z3_GoCar]

R,

I was @ Nelson Ledges for a National last year. Will Turner brought down a T2 M3 he was going to race. I missed the race but heard he had problems with the traction control of his OBDII M3. My point is what did he do to fix the problem? Have you tried contacting anyone? What do the World Challange & Grand Am teams do? The don't run traction control.I believe there are are ways around everything.

I'm also very happy to see a lot of us in agreement. Now since we got the ITAC's attention, let's get this worked out so everyone can benefit and get the rule changed.
[/b]

Dan,

I can tell you what World Challenge does, ecu's are open. I've got a WC system from '01 custom engine wire harness was made by Tri-Point Engineering, who were an Electromotive dealer at the time, and Computer is Electromotive TECII, all it does is feed it fuel and spark based on the rpm, manifold pressure, and throttle position. When a trigger rpm is reached it activates a relay that switches the VANOS on from the single general purpose output. Alternatively, you could ground out the GPO and it would activate a secondary rev limit for launch control or to keep at the hot pit speed in say 3rd gear, you could do this with a MSD box too. With the stock ecm, no changes can be made to the fuel curve and only minor changes to the spark timing. Also, timming mod's are done in a one shot fits all mannor.

T2 has the same ecm stuffing rules as IT does, so I'm suprised that he's not stuffed the box on the M3. But then again is Turner a MOTEC dealer??

Bill,

Maybe you don't understand the lack of adjutability that we currently don't have unless we buy the one system that can be stuffed, and where is that system, where can we even buy it?? Someone who's good with tunning carbs should be able to replicate the kind of tunning that we desire but are unable to achieve legally.

James

[dj10]

Well, at this point it's all fact finding.
Someone take a crack at writing the rule. Gotta keep mass air flow sensors, etc, but allows alternate ECUs. Remember, when you write the rule, it should be forward thinking, but yet not allow any performance upgrades not already possible. The carb guys are watching, LOL. ;)
[/b]



Jake, I ask you what a EMS stuffed into a oem ecu with a oem harness does now? It should be controlling nothing more or nothing less than it does now. It's programming should not be able to be changed by the driver from inside the car while the car is in motion.

What's a carb? :D

Dan

[JoshS]

My wish list:

1) Ease barrier to entry -- change the rules to not require ECU changes on cars like mine. Make it legal to disable ABS and traction control by means other than disconnecting the wheel sensors and replumbing brakes (i.e., by removing fuses or relays).

2) Make it easier to achieve replacement ECUs/software without megabucks custom solutions. This is supposed to be a bolt-on category, not a custom programming category. So commonly available electronics solution should be available. That means piggy-back systems or replacement ECUs in the stock locations, in addition to custom programming chips or reflashes.

I'm not sure that allowing custom wiring for these external ECUs is really in the spirit of the bolt-on nature of IT, but I'm willing to be swayed on that point. For right now though, I'm thinking the "no additional sensors" is a sensible rule.

[Z3_GoCar]

Well, at this point it's all fact finding.

Rob won't have a problem if he goes to a stand alone system, he won't need that sensor because the standalone doesn't need it...he's the master of his domain.

My thinking is that the mandate that we allow aftermarket systems for some, but not all is the big problem here. The "fit it in a box" is the arbitrary point...why have it?

From a rules writing standoint, I worry that allowing open harnesses means specifying what can and what can't be done. By requiring the stock harness and sensors, we can limit the extra verbiage, and the future reworking.

But maybe I'm wrong about that. IF the harness is open, how will we enforce what it is thats being done?

(and yes, I know....how do we enforce whats being done NOW!??...good point, LOL)

Someone take a crack at writing the rule. Gotta keep mass air flow sensors, etc, but allows alternate ECUs. Remember, when you write the rule, it should be forward thinking, but yet not allow any performance upgrades not already possible. The carb guys are watching, LOL. ;)
[/b]

Hey Jake,

Let's just count the inputs neccessary to make a FI/crank triggered car run:

There's 28 wires to trace for my system, they are:

right side:

1) Coolant temp
2) Sensor ground for coolant and MAP/MAF
3) MAP/MAF sensor
4) +5v for MAP/MAF and Throttle Position Switch
5) TPS input
6) Sensor ground for TPS and Crank Trigger
7) Crank Trigger
8) Shield wire for Crank Trigger
9) -EGO sensor wire
10) +EGO sensor wire
11) Manifold Air Temp
12) GRN for MAT and RS-232
13) TXT to RS-232
14) RND to RS-232

On the Left side:

1) Idle Speed Motor A (I'm not using the ISM outputs)
2) ISM B
3) ISM C
4) ISM D
5) Fuel Pump Relay
6) General Purpose Output
7) Tach Out
8) Check Engine Light
9) Battery key switch
10) Knock Sensor
11) Injector Batch A
12) Injector Batch B(not used for 4 cylinder motors)
13) Injector Batch C
14) + Injector Common

If you're worried about tunning on the fly, just make sure no one's running with anything hooked up to the computer output, Maybe seal off the computer connections at tech will keep people from tunning in the middle of the race. All it would take is a sticky dot with a signature on it. Or you could use the same wording as on adjustable shocks, not to be within reach of the driver during the race. Unless they've done their homework at the dyno there should be no reason to tune at the track. The harness is easily enough tracked to all the proper sensors with a continuity setting on a multi-meter. I know that I performed the same check on the harness to figure out what needed to be connected.

James

[Bill Miller]

If you're worried about tunning on the fly, just make sure no one's running with anything hooked up to the computer output, Maybe seal off the computer connections at tech will keep people from tunning in the middle of the race. All it would take is a sticky dot with a signature on it. Or you could use the same wording as on adjustable shocks, not to be within reach of the driver during the race. Unless they've done their homework at the dyno there should be no reason to tune at the track. The harness is easily enough tracked to all the proper sensors with a continuity setting on a multi-meter. I know that I performed the same check on the harness to figure out what needed to be connected.
[/b]

Do you really think something like this could be enforced? Heck, with the advent of annuals, most people's cars aren't even seen at tech. Not to mention you get your tech sticker at the beginning of the weekend, people aren't going to stand for not being able to tune their car during the weekend (nor should they). You expect our tech guys to trace harnesses? Yeah, that'll happen at a MARRS race w/ 300+ cars.

[Doc Bro]

What's a carb? :D

Dan
[/b]


It's short for carbohydrate. Carbohydrates are sugars. They can be simple or complex (ie a starch). They don't really factor into racing much unless you consume too many in which case they alter the weight distribution within the car.

Hope that helps.


R

[x-ring]

>Hope that helps.

Smarta$$

[dj10]

It's short for carbohydrate. Carbohydrates are sugars. They can be simple or complex (ie a starch). They don't really factor into racing much unless you consume too many in which case they alter the weight distribution within the car.
Hope that helps.
R [/b]



Very good Rob!!!!!!! :D



Guys and Gals, it's time to put together some language to submit to the ITAC & CRB. We can post it here 1st so it can be revised and discussed. It might be good if a couple of people work on it together and what ever I can do to help I will.

Dan

[tnord]

i assume that these standalone units we might be using in the future can function as DA as well?

[924Guy]

I have a fundamental disagreement with the idea of using secondary constraints in the design of the rules to achieve a primary intent; I fear that specifying stock wiring harness is just trading off one such irrelevant, secondary constraint for another. I respect what you're trying to do, but I think that we'll only end up with a different version of where we are today by such means.

If you want to make TCS and such illegal, say so. Don't tell me how big my ECU needs to be, and pretend that I can put TCS in that box. More advanced technologies will become available; baseing your rules only on currently available technology will virtually guarantee you're painted into a corner later.

It's just like shocks. It's not that threaded bodies are a technological performance advantage, it's just that they were a common feature on expensive shocks. Then they weren't just for expensive shocks anymore.

If you want to control costs, control costs. Directly. Explicitly.

If you want to rule TCS (or any other such technology) illegal, say so, don't dance around the issue. Then the issue is only one of policing. But let's not try to pretend the issue is with peripheral stuff... size of your ECU isn't related to performance, now, is it? It's the Moton of the Ocean, right? :wacko:

[bldn10]

I am not up to date on the technology so can someone explain what the purpose of all this is? The way I see it, a huge unintended consequence came out of the rule change allowing ECU replacement in addition to alteration. I don't think it was contemplated or intended for Motec-in-a-box mods. But now, rather than correcting that error, many of us want to go even a step further and do away w/ the stock box restriction. Personally, I am running the stock ECU and the response I'd prefer to Motecs is not to allow me to spend more money, but to outlaw the Motecs, et al. On the other hand, if alteration of stock ECUs in the box creates an uneven playing field between cars of different vintage and ECU design and mod-ability, then I can see a need to level the field. And in the cheapest way possible. Is that what we are talking about? Or is it just that everyone will go faster and there will be no relative change? If that's the case, why bother?

[lateapex911]

Bill, I thought I adressed some of your points previously, but if not, here's a comment or three.

It's not so simple that it's an advantage for the new cars and not the old. Some of the new cars are VERY tough....read impossible...to crack the codes of. The ITAC specs cars assuming that they can, and class them based on their ability to make assumed levels of power...but some can not. Some cars go into limp mode when the wheel sensors for the ABS system are removed as per our rules, for example.

And keep in mind, the ECU rule change (from the 90s) that resulted in post classification performance enhancements to select cars has essentially been fixed with the recent weight realignment of the big PCA weight adjustments of '06. So, at this point, we are NOT talking about any shift in the competitive balance.

Second, as for policing, I doubt the "in the box" thing makes policing any easier or harder. The stock harness is the limitation, not the box. The box is purely arbitrary.

We are at, or at the very least approaching, a point where the stock ECu will eliminate certain cars from the list as candidates, because of things like rev limitations, speed limitations, limp mode activations and so forth. Not to mention things we haven't seen yet and can't think of.


I would love to turn back time, but putting the genie back in the bottle is like getting unpregnant...can't be done. At this point, hundreds of racers have spent tens of thousands of dollars solving limp mode issues and the like and heve invested countless hours in research and development.

And, with the advent of ITR, that number will double.

For what? It's all wasted time and money. Our rules are essentially forcing the average racer to go to a firm that can crack the Motec code, and is forced to pay them for their expertise.....and it's costing...make that wasting ...thousands upon thousands of dollars, and I think in a pointless manner.

keep in mind, changing the rule will not change the competitive balance one wit. The rules already allow the performance level of what I'm suggesting...and our process assumes the cars will make it....it's just that the way they are written doesn't allow equal implementation.

Vaughn, points well taken. Food for thought.

[WillM]

I would be in favor of either totally removing ECU mods or opening up the current rule.

At the very least, the current rule should allow the addition or replacement of the stock sensor that is used to gather intake air data. Every aftermarket system I've looked at requires a MAP sensor. Many cars (including mine!) come with either a mass air flow sensor or air flow meter, which is incompatable with everything except the top-level ECUs.

Like Greg, I'm intrigued by the MegaSquirt. It is a very nice low-cost solution. The only problem is that it does not work with anything but a MAP sensor, which as far as I can tell, is currently illegal in IT.

From what I understand, a Motec could be made to work with an AFM, but why should competitor "A" have to pony up $3,000+ for the same mod that competitor "B" could do for a few hundred?

Either equalize the rule or totally remove it. The current rule favors cars that can get plug & play pre-programmed ECU's from the manufacturer or 3rd party.

In a Miata, there is very little to be gained with an ECU, so it would be to my advantage to ask for the elimination of the ECU rule in its entirity. That said, I think allowing ECU mods are more in line with the principals of IT, and would support a rule change that would be more beneficial to all ECU-equipped IT cars. The current rule does not.

Cheers,

Will

[Ron Earp]

Times are a changing and the rules need to as well. It doesn't make sense that I, running a 35 year old car with essentially 50 year old carb technology, can in some cases adjust my A/F ratio easier than a fellow running a 1987 XYZ with fuel injection.

Of course, I have a dog in this hunt as I'm planning on an ITR car. I'd really rather not have to limit my car choices based on what car I think WON'T be limited by ECU tuning - i.e. having to pick a car with a stock ECU box large enough for my homebrew ECU, and/or excellent aftermarket ECU support.

Ron

[tnord]

i think this is an unavoidable change, and in the future replacing the ECU will be as much of a prereq to racing as installing a roll cage, we just gotta figure out the timing of when to do it.

think about this, all the BMW's have 155mph built into the software, ITR is going to be a damn fast class. will they be approaching this speed at places like road america, brainerd, miller, etc?

[Ron Earp]

think about this, all the BMW's have 155mph built into the software, ITR is going to be a damn fast class. will they be approaching this speed at places like road america, brainerd, miller, etc?
[/b]

Many other cars have a lower limit, such as 130mph. It'll be a problem.

Ron

[tnord]

do you have specific examples? are there readily available reflashes to eliminate the governers?

if this problem isn't circumventable via simple solution, people aren't going to build those cars, and ITR will not be as successful as it could be.

it's becoming clearer to me that this needs to happen.

[Ron Earp]

Off the top of my head I want to say the V6 Ford Mustang was limited to 130mph, or it might have been less, although I'm not sure it'd make it anyhow. Doesn't matter, the V6 Mustang listed in the approved R list doesn't exist. Anyhow, there will be others in there too.

Basically, if the car had non-high speed rated tires from the factory it'd be limited. A lot of the R cars were bonfide 150mph+ cars from the factory - Z, Supra, etc. but others in that group I'm not sure about.

RSX, limited?
328i limited depending on trim and tire?

I doubt the BMW is limited to less than the 155mph you mention, but I'm not sure. I don't have the list of R cars in front of me, but I know from reading car rags for 20+ years lots of cars have electronic limiters that are lower than their top speeds.

Ron

[Z3_GoCar]

Off the top of my head I want to say the V6 Ford Mustang was limited to 130mph, or it might have been less, although I'm not sure it'd make it anyhow. Doesn't matter, the V6 Mustang listed in the approved R list doesn't exist. Anyhow, there will be others in there too.

Basically, if the car had non-high speed rated tires from the factory it'd be limited. A lot of the R cars were bonfide 150mph+ cars from the factory - Z, Supra, etc. but others in that group I'm not sure about.

RSX, limited?
328i limited depending on trim and tire?

I doubt the BMW is limited to less than the 155mph you mention, but I'm not sure. I don't have the list of R cars in front of me, but I know from reading car rags for 20+ years lots of cars have electronic limiters that are lower than their top speeds.

Ron
[/b]

Nope, if my memory serves correctly the Z3 1.9 (ITA) is top speed limited to 128mph the 2.8l is limited to 135, not sure about the sedans though. The speed limiter is one of the easy things to remove though, as the Euro versions can be delivered sans limiter and off the shelf software takes care of it.

James

[JoshS]

Nope, if my memory serves correctly the Z3 1.9 (ITA) is top speed limited to 128mph the 2.8l is limited to 135, not sure about the sedans though. The speed limiter is one of the easy things to remove though, as the Euro versions can be delivered sans limiter and off the shelf software takes care of it.
[/b]

Don't forget that the shorter final drive gears that most people put in make this problem worse. You could see drops of 20mph or even more depending on what the changes are. Would it be legal to put in a system to fool the speedo into thinking you're going slower than you are? One of the tricks on Mazdas is to replace the speed sensor in the transmission with one from a different car that had a different rear end ratio.

The good news is that removing electronic speed limiters is one of the most common changes of off-the-shelf reflash systems, for cars that have these available. Unfortunately those off-the-shelf systems don't fix the other problems inherent in the stock ECU software, such as being intolerant of missing wheel speed sensors or missing catalytic converters.

I am considering going the custom software for the stock ECU hardware for my BMW, rather than the more complex approach of replacing the ECU hardware altogether. But there are very few people who can do custom software for the stock ECU hardware, and I'm sure it won't be cheap.

[Eric Parham]

I agree that it's time to open up the ECU rule (the "box" is just silly). But let me point out that we need to be able to add sensors and wiring too. Here's why: Different cars come from the factory with different TYPES of airflow measurement (e.g., hot wire temperature compensated mass air flow, simple flapper mass air flow, pressure sensor in intake, etc.). The Mega-Squirt is the probably both the cheapest and easiest solution, but it only uses a pressure sensor in the intake (no mass airflow sensor). Why exclude cars that simply came with a different type of system from being able to use the cheapest/easiest type of system? If you agree that there's no good reason, then it logically follows that wiring and sensors should be open as well (at least to add the pressure or MAP sensor and wires to it).

[lateapex911]

I agree that it's time to open up the ECU rule (the "box" is just silly). But let me point out that we need to be able to add sensors and wiring too. Here's why: Different cars come from the factory with different TYPES of airflow measurement (e.g., hot wire temperature compensated mass air flow, simple flapper mass air flow, pressure sensor in intake, etc.). The Mega-Squirt is the probably both the cheapest and easiest solution, but it only uses a pressure sensor in the intake (no mass airflow sensor). Why exclude cars that simply came with a different type of system from being able to use the cheapest/easiest type of system? If you agree that there's no good reason, then it logically follows that wiring and sensors should be open as well (at least to add the pressure or MAP sensor and wires to it).[/b]

Well, I've thought about that. On the surface, it appears that that could be written into the rule, but that the existing meter would need to be left intact, and operational, except that it's output would be ignored.

(For example, any 'flap' style meter would need to be left to 'flap' as stock, not have the flap removed or pinned.)

But what am I missing with that concept? Unintended consequences??

[shwah]

At the very least, the current rule should allow the addition or replacement of the stock sensor that is used to gather intake air data. Every aftermarket system I've looked at requires a MAP sensor. Many cars (including mine!) come with either a mass air flow sensor or air flow meter, which is incompatable with everything except the top-level ECUs.
[/b]

The MAP sensor lives in the box. You just need to mechancally send it a vacuum/pressure signal from the manfiold - run a hose (your car probably already has one going to the ECU). You can then leave the original air meter system in place and ignore it's signal.

There are ways around throttle position sensors too if a car does not have one. MS allows you to use a MAPDOT function to use the rate of change of MAP signal in place of throttle position signal.

The real beauty of MS is that even if your car has something totally different that no one has ever integrated or controlled with it, you CAN develop that function on the system. It is totally open design and programming, and many of the functions people use were added by users, and the shared - spark control on the original systems for instance.

There should be no need, or freedom, to change or add sensors to run an allowed ECU modification. If we start going down that road, then the CIS guys could argue that they should be allowed new injectors because theirs don't have wires to integrate with the allowed alternate ECU.

[Eric Parham]

Well, I've thought about that. On the surface, it appears that that could be written into the rule, but that the existing meter would need to be left intact, and operational, except that it's output would be ignored.

(For example, any 'flap' style meter would need to be left to 'flap' as stock, not have the flap removed or pinned.)

But what am I missing with that concept? Unintended consequences??
[/b]

Jake, since you asked, here's my complete opinion on this subject. We should make the rule both simple and easy to enforce, without giving away the store. The only real motivation for high-dollar systems (e.g., MOTEC) is to control variable valve timing. Variable valve timing is almost as good as making camshafts free if the control is altered. I think variable valve timing should be severely restricted in all currently existing (hint hint) IT classes, if not disallowed completely. If that's done, then I really wouldn't worry about the nominal gains that non-variable valved cars might find from completely freeing the ECU, sensor, injector and pre-throttle body intake rules. Someone earlier in this thread mentioned not wanting to free injectors. Why? If folks want to fiddle with injectors for that last 0.025% why not let them? This isn't rocket science anymore. It's just like rejetting a carbueretor (did I remember how to spell that correctly?). Simple, effective, very easy to monitor, and best of all inexpensive and not contrary to common sense (e.g., heater core). :)



The MAP sensor lives in the box. You just need to mechancally send it a vacuum/pressure signal from the manfiold - run a hose (your car probably already has one going to the ECU). You can then leave the original air meter system in place and ignore it's signal.
[/b]

Chris, you must have the 88-92 VW Digifant ECU box with flapper (or late California with hot wire) in your car. The earlier ones (and many other makes) do not have any MAP sensor anywhere (although some of those did have a vacuum hose going to a non-ECU or ignition-only box). My read of the current rule is that you could not add an opening in the ECU or fuel computer box even for a vacuum line (presumably to an added MAP sensor in the box) if it didn't have it from the factory.

[Eagle7]

I'm pretty sure Chris meant that in a aftermarket ECU the MAP sensor lives in the box, so if you allow the aftermarket ECU box, you'd just attach a vacuum hose to it. That is true of a Megasquirt - I don't know about other brands.

[tnord]

I think variable valve timing should be severely restricted in all currently existing (hint hint) IT classes, if not disallowed completely.
[/b]

what are you trying to do, eliminate the ITS class altogether?

BMW 325 (of 93+ variety iirc)
99+ Mazda Miata
1994 + Integra GSR

are all cars off the top of my head that have variable valve timing in some form. and i completely disagree that allowing the adjustment of valve timing is the same as having an open camshaft rule.

[Greg Amy]

That is, of course, correct: the MAP sensor on the Megasquirt is on the board. The limitation is that 1)even if you could put the MS within a stock ECU housing, and 2) your car does not have a MAP from the factory, as my NX does not, then you cannot use the MS system.

If you're a lucky one that has a MAP system already then you can use Megasquirt. Alternatively, if you're really good with electronics you could figure out a way to program your existing system (e.g., MAF) as the input for airflow.

I looked hard through the rules for a loophole, and I looked far around that box to find an opening to stick a hose through (even to the point of leaving out one of the small case screws and fitting a small tube through it) but because of this ECU housing limitation I cannot easily use the lowest-cost standalone EMS system on the market... - GA

[sstecker]

and some cars will require a crank trigger
my car also has alternator control in the ecu box

[Z3_GoCar]

what are you trying to do, eliminate the ITS class altogether?

BMW 325 (of 93+ variety iirc)
99+ Mazda Miata
1994 + Integra GSR

are all cars off the top of my head that have variable valve timing in some form. and i completely disagree that allowing the adjustment of valve timing is the same as having an open camshaft rule.
[/b]

Not only that, but the two systems that I know how they work are are either cam setting A or setting B, there's no sweep between the settings just a simple bang-bang control system. Honda's does change the valve lift when it switches to the secondary cam, mine just changes the intake phasing, later BMW's changed both intake and exhaust phasing, but neither changes the lift. I did remember hearing about a system used in Ferrari's that does sweep the cam across the lifter, but how many Ferrari IT cars are there? Also, this system doesn't seem practical as the pressure and wear on the cam lobe would be very high because the roller lifter is shaped like a round ball bearing. Do a google search on Variable Valve timing and you'll come across a decent Wikkipeadia article on it. As for mine, we set it at a relatively low RPM and I run above the tip in point most of the time anyway. Only time I don't run on the second setting is at idle, warming up, and going slow through the pits/ hot pits.

James

[Eagle7]

That is, of course, correct: the MAP sensor on the Megasquirt is on the board. The limitation is that 1)even if you could put the MS within a stock ECU housing, and 2) your car does not have a MAP from the factory, as my NX does not, then you cannot use the MS system.

If you're a lucky one that has a MAP system already then you can use Megasquirt. Alternatively, if you're really good with electronics you could figure out a way to program your existing system (e.g., MAF) as the input for airflow.

I looked hard through the rules for a loophole, and I looked far around that box to find an opening to stick a hose through (even to the point of leaving out one of the small case screws and fitting a small tube through it) but because of this ECU housing limitation I cannot easily use the lowest-cost standalone EMS system on the market... - GA
[/b]
I pretty sure MS can use MAF instead of MAP. I don't know how many people are doing it (probably not many), nor how well it works. If your car has a simple Air Flow Meter rather than MAF you might be out of luck.

[Renaultfool]

It sounds like it took IT-R to get a lot of you to see the light! About time.
They quit making bug eye Sprites a long time ago. It is time we get into the present and run cars with the reality of the equipment and restrictions placed on them by the factorys.
To race many of these cars you must open up the ECU rule to make it economical for us to do.

Control the size of the intake hole and you control the power. The ECU can change the mixture and the timing on some cars, but it cannot change the size of the hole. (The "hole" being your current intake track restrictions, throttle body, air flow sensors etc.) There is nothing being made or accepted into IT with a carb any more, let go of it.
In my opinion the ECU and wiring harness both should be open, heck even the sensors, as long as they have to draw their air through the original intake track and restrictions. To allow the open ECU but not the harness would only increase the cost. You don't need a MOTEC if you open it up. I've talked to people who have spent more money getting their IT-C Honda carb "professionally built" than some of the lower end ECUs cost. Megasquirt being one example. Open it up, lets run!
Oh yes, if any of you "keep it the way it has been since the early 70s when the rules were written" guys run across some really fast wire, send me a roll.

Carl

[Bill Miller]

It is time we get into the present and run cars with the reality of the equipment and restrictions placed on them by the factorys.
To race many of these cars you must open up the ECU rule to make it economical for us to do.



Carl
[/b]

Pretty funny Carl, I'll give you that.

BTW, "Control the size of the intake hole and you control the power. " Sure sounds like an arguement for SIRs to me! :D

[Ron]

Being someone who runs a car with an "outdated and old" carb; mostly what I am reading is that opening up the ECU is for cost containment as for anything else. I run a carb instead of FI because I am the crew cheif on my car. If it stops running I check for Spark from that old distributor and fuel squirting out that carb thing. I grew up sailing with my parents , and KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID has worked for me. We still work really hard on all aspects of the car, just in a simple way. But don't think we don't want to run up front.
Then someone spoke of how much cost is involved in a race preped Weber carb. Well, if cost is the issue let us carb cars run a Holley 350. Every circle track around the country runs this carb. You can buy them anywhere, there cheap, even race preped. Sets of jets are cheap. Oh yeah we would get a little gain in performance, but so would an open ECU. I think Weber has even stopped producing the 32/36. You speak of updating from the seventies, here's a chance.
Yes , I am stiring the pot.

[Dave Ebersole]

And let the CIS cars adapt Mega-Squirt................ :happy204:

[Z3_GoCar]

Being someone who runs a car with an "outdated and old" carb; mostly what I am reading is that opening up the ECU is for cost containment as for anything else. I run a carb instead of FI because I am the crew cheif on my car. If it stops running I check for Spark from that old distributor and fuel squirting out that carb thing. I grew up sailing with my parents , and KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID has worked for me. We still work really hard on all aspects of the car, just in a simple way. But don't think we don't want to run up front.
Then someone spoke of how much cost is involved in a race preped Weber carb. Well, if cost is the issue let us carb cars run a Holley 350. Every circle track around the country runs this carb. You can buy them anywhere, there cheap, even race preped. Sets of jets are cheap. Oh yeah we would get a little gain in performance, but so would an open ECU. I think Weber has even stopped producing the 32/36. You speak of updating from the seventies, here's a chance.
Yes , I am stiring the pot.
[/b]

Ron,

First thanks for stirring the pot, as I came to realize several points about opening the ecu; however, this still doesn't change my opinion on the subject. It's just that cost containment isn't the only main reason for revising the rule. The philosophy of IT is that everything must remain togeather as an assembly, motors, carbs, intake manifolds, transmissions, all except the motor ECU. With the ecu one must open the case remove the control boards and sodder in a new set of control boards that already correspond to a very advanced tunnable engine management system, such that sensor gains and impeadances may be tuned to use the factory wire harness and sensors. Secondly I say count yourself fortunate that you can use an alternate carb, in all honesty I'd say restricting us to only using ecu's that can fit inside the stock computer case is equvallent to not allowing those of us with electonic FI to switch to a tunnable system(aka an alternate carburetor). How would you like it if you had to stay with the factory Hitatchi/Rochester/Solex/Motorcraft untunnable junk? Once you switched didn't you see a rise in HP? We who have post 1995 cars have systems that are designed to be untunnable. I say if we're not allowed an alternate ecu then you should be forced to return back to your original carburetor, after all what's good for the electronic FI cars should be good enough for the carbureted cars too, and while we're at it all distributor timming must remain at the stock setting, no timming advances, no adjusting the advance curve, nothing! It should all stay at the stock setting and sealed too.

James

[Bill Miller]

Ron,

First thanks for stirring the pot, as I came to realize several points about opening the ecu; however, this still doesn't change my opinion on the subject. It's just that cost containment isn't the only main reason for revising the rule. The philosophy of IT is that everything must remain togeather as an assembly, motors, carbs, intake manifolds, transmissions, all except the motor ECU. With the ecu one must open the case remove the control boards and sodder in a new set of control boards that already correspond to a very advanced tunnable engine management system, such that sensor gains and impeadances may be tuned to use the factory wire harness and sensors. Secondly I say count yourself fortunate that you can use an alternate carb, in all honesty I'd say restricting us to only using ecu's that can fit inside the stock computer case is equvallent to not allowing those of us with electonic FI to switch to a tunnable system(aka an alternate carburetor). How would you like it if you had to stay with the factory Hitatchi/Rochester/Solex/Motorcraft untunnable junk? Once you switched didn't you see a rise in HP? We who have post 1995 cars have systems that are designed to be untunnable. I say if we're not allowed an alternate ecu then you should be forced to return back to your original carburetor, after all what's good for the electronic FI cars should be good enough for the carbureted cars too, and while we're at it all distributor timming must remain at the stock setting, no timming advances, no adjusting the advance curve, nothing! It should all stay at the stock setting and sealed too.

James
[/b]

James,

Please, find someone else to sell this load of BS too. Just because it has to fit in the stock housing means that it won't offer any tunability? Since there are guys out there that have stuffed full MoTec systems into their stock housings, I think you need to re-evaluate your statement.

And maybe this is a good time to trot out the 'no guarantee' clause. Every car in IT has warts, pick the one you want to run, but realize it has to run w/ those warts. You've got FWD cars and RWD cars, you've got cars w/ live axles and cars w/ IRS, you've got cars w/ strut suspensions and ones w/ torsion bars (and some w/ dbl wishbones), you've got cars w/ OHV motors and cars w/ OHC motors, you've got cars w/ FI (many flavors) and cars w/ carbs. They've all got pluses and minuses, pick the one you want to run, and deal w/ its 'fact set'.

The ECU rule should have never been changed. The underlying reason behind the change was based on the assumption that given the opportunity, and the low probablity of being caught, people will cheat. Maybe there's enough evidence throughout the history of racing to support this assumption, and maybe there isn't. I think it's a sad comment on our sport though.

I agree that newer cars' electronics will have to be addressed. We've got rules on the books that may make some of these cars un-raceable (cars go into limp mode if you disable or remove xxx, but the rules require that xxx be removed or disabled. Short of diddling the ECU, I don't know how you solve this problem. But to claim that you're at a disadvantage to a guy that can run an alternate carb, because you can't run an alternate ECU is a crock!

[Greg Amy]

...And maybe this is a good time to trot out the 'no guarantee' clause...The ECU rule should have never been changed.[/b]
:dead_horse:

Bill, I relented on the spherical "bushings" and I feel better for it; I suggest it's time to discontinue tilting this windmill... - GA

[Ron]

Running the stock carb would be fine as it is basiclly the weber 32/36 with a holley name on it. I am not opposed to opening up the ECU. I agree that there are certain cars that benifit from the rules more than others as they are written now. My own goal would be to class all IT cars into a production class. I think that SCCA should greatly reduce the number of classes. Do we really need CSR, DSR, and S2000 (Three of my favorite classes). What Grand Am did by going to just two classes was great.
Sorry. a bit off topic. Open up the ECU make it easier for FI cars to run. Make it easier for CIS cars to run. Just don't force me into building a new car without a 2 year warning so I can plan my next move. Thats all. I would hate to show up at Road Atlanta in February and find the FI cars much faster all running Mega Squirt and me just whinning like one of my three daughters. YES THREE.

[JimLill]

Does it make sense to have an age based scheme?

Something like cars older than 1990 can make more changes than newer ones or something along those lines? Or maybe a 20 year limit, that is older than 20 years you have more freedom. (I have a 1986 !! )

Swapping CIS for Megasquirt would be nice........

[Ron Earp]

Does it make sense to have an age based scheme?

Something like cars older than 1990 can make more changes than newer ones or something along those lines? Or maybe a 20 year limit, that is older than 20 years you have more freedom. (I have a 1986 !! )
[/b]

Won't work IMHO. Some manufactuer's persisted in using essentially 80s based FI systems into the 90s, late 90s. There is no hard and fast cut off year for easily modified verus not easily modified ECUs.

As I mentioned in an eariler post how easy it is to modify is directly related to how much aftermarket support there is. My Lightning is OBD-II, but there are so many things out there you can essentially write your own running code for the motor. Simple. Our late model Volvo V70 is OBD-II too, but there isn't a thing on the market for it useful for racing and you'd need to Megasquirt or similar to get good racing performance from it.

R

[Ron Earp]

Pretty funny Carl, I'll give you that.

BTW, "Control the size of the intake hole and you control the power. " Sure sounds like an arguement for SIRs to me! :D
[/b]

Uggh. Not there again.

I think what he means to say is the intake size is fixed, the engine is an air pump, and no amount of electronic management will make it produce more power than the mechanicals dictate. Certainly, good a ECU management will allow you to harness more of what is available, but it isn't magic.

R

[Z3_GoCar]

Uggh. Not there again.

I think what he means to say is the intake size is fixed, the engine is an air pump, and no amount of electronic management will make it produce more power than the mechanicals dictate. Certainly, good a ECU management will allow you to harness more of what is available, but it isn't magic.

R
[/b]

Exactly!

If we're not allowed alternate ecu's then why are carburetor/distributor guys allowed to re-jet, change timming, recurve the advance? If it's a limitation that came with the car, why are the guy's harnessed with a non adjustable smog carb from the early 80's allowed to change their engine management to a re-jetable alternate carb? If IT's philosophy is to change assemblies, then why is an ecu change made by gutting the oem box, then installing new boards in the stock box? It seems to me, IT's philosophy should just allow the chucking of the stock ecm box as an assembly, and installing a new one as a replacement. Any gains seen were always there, to be had the same as a re-jet and recurve would give, but are unavalible because of the tamper-proof nature that CARB/EPA has mandated into the stock OBDII system. I guess some manufactures listened to the EPA's requirement for a tamper proof system more than others did :wacko: I also understand that OBDIII with send out a signal when ever the system operates outside it's design parameters, so that hand held tuners and resistor cluges designed to make the motor think it's always cold will trigger an alert to notify the smog authorities of a non-compliant vehicle. Smog tickets in the mail anyone??

James

[C. Ludwig]

Well, I'm glad after a couple years a few people see it my way. The current rule is poorly thought out, counterproductive, and only serves to further seperate the haves from the have nots. Convoluted is the word I love to use. I am fully supportive of opening the rule to include any aftermarket ECU as well as being allowed to modify or replace the stock harness as is needed to install the aftermarket ECU. And for the record, and anyone can go back and read my old posts, I have been a proponent of "putting the genie back in the bottle" from the start. I'm not here trying to sell an EMS.

I left IT this year and this rule was on the list of determining factors. It's not so much the rule in and of itself but what the short sightedness of the rule represents within the SCCA process as a whole. For example, differentials are a free item. A 5:12 ring and pinion for an ITS RX-7 costs around $1500 to purchase new and modify to work in the stock housing. Most are strong and run several years but they do break. No one crys because it's too expensive, makes the car way too fast, or bitches because it's a complex welding/machining operations that few shops in country even want to attempt. Hey guess what, I can set up any IT car with a brand new EMS, harness, sensors, installation, and tuning for about what you'll have in an RX-7 diff and it should last forever. And that's about about half the price of the "Motec in a box option". Clearly anyone basing their lack of support of a change in EMS rules on the cost factor is not seeing the big picture.

Why is it perfectly OK to spend $1500+ on a wear part ring and pinion, $1000+ per corner on shocks, but we must use the stock 20 year old rotten, greasy, pain in the ass wire harness? Because we don't want rules creep? We want to keep expenses down? The rule as it is now written is the most expensive solution possible. Period. By convoluting any attempt to allow easier access to aftermarket EMS by requiring the use of a stock harness or stock sensors only continues to make it more expensive to achieve the same end results. If aftermarket EMS is allowed the easiest, cheapest, most reliable solution will be to allow those systems to run on the harness they ship with as well as the sensors they are intended to untilize. Why?

Strictly speaking of sensors, only the highest end systems are capable of being programmed to use sensors of alternate output outside the range of sensors that the EMS manufacturer originally intends them to be used with. By requiring stock sensors you automatically rule out the less expensive entry elevel systems. The ubiquitous Motecs are programmable...and expensive. Price starts around $2500 for a kit with harness. Again the process is convoluted in using the stock sensors because you need to have knowledge of that sensors output pattern and reprogram the ECU to work with that pattern. Not rocket science but it's easier , less time consuming, to use the manufacturer's sensors. Requiring a stock harness for that EMS simply means we'll need to build a patch harness between the EMS and the stock harness. Again plugging my brand new wiring into something that is 20 years old, dry rotting, and suspect. Why? To prevent someone from cheating? More on that later...

On the low end there are full stand alone systems that are trigger adaptive (can be configured to work with practically any stock trigger negating the need to install some sort of crank and/or cam trigger). These systems ship with wire harness and sensors (coolant temp, intake air temp, throttle position - all needed for speed density injection systems...can't run correctly without them as some might have printed). Starting price? Around $1000. My shop charges $400 for basic install and we usually end up with around 4 hours invested in dyno tuning to optimize the system. You have brand new sensors (most all aftermarket EMS use GM sensors that are available at any Autozone) and brand new wiring. And guess what...very often a warranty!!! Only downfall of speed density is that they are not friendly to mods that alter VE. Change a header, flow more air, and you need to retune. I can see how the HUGE financial investment has all of you cringing!

Speed density...what is it and why do I care? It's what most all aftermarket EMS rely on to control fuel. Speed density uses inputs from a MAP (manifold absolute pressure) sensor, coolant temp, intake air temp, and throttle position sensors to compute the mass of air entering the engine and then lookup the desired amount of fuel for that mass of air. Who cares? Well, again, that's what most systems use. Problem is most newer OE EFI systems (Honda being the notable exception) use some form of either vein air (usually pre-1990 systems) or mass air. Mass air directly measures the mass of air entering the engine without need for input for the temp and TPS sensors. The vein meters measure airflow from a combination of the common flapper door and an air temp sensor usually internal to the flow sensor. Some Japaneese makes use other systems such as the karman vortex sensor. Problem is only the highest end systems support vein air or mass air meters. Good luck getting someone to help you setup that karman vortex sensor! Again, by requiring stock sensors we have inadvertently raised the price of entry. How much? Again base standalone EMS can be had for around $1000 plus install and tuning. The base Motec that supports mass air in around 2.5x that cost. The cost is further escalated in time invested by the user or tuner matching the EMS to sensors no one else uses. The knowledge base in EMS is in speed density. Want a system installed and tuned? It will be orders of magnitude more difficult to find someone fluent in mass air adaption than in a straightforward speed density install and tune.

In the end mass air is a more precise control system as the mass of air is directly measured. But practically no one in the aftermarket works in it. Talk to any EMS supplier about shipping you a kit and they'll immediately presume you'll convert to speed density. If so we need a MAP sensor. Does your car even have a MAP sensor now? Does it fit the output specs for the EMS of your choice? "Most EMS have the MAP sensor already in the box. Just run the hose to it". Wrong. Some do, some don't. Some of the least expensive don't. And who can justify the thought process that says if the MAP sensor is inside the box it's OK and we can run a hose from the intake to the box but adding a sensor outside the box is crazy talk and leads down a long dark road of rules creep? I'm sorry but that's a head in the sand/SCCA point of view.

There are a few misconceptions I've read of what the aftermarket ECUs can do and how they work. As a dealer/installer/tuner some are obvious to me and it would be a shame for any new rules to be written based on those misconceptions. Those that would re-write this rule, if that time came, should approach more than one person with advanced knowledge of engine management with their intents and ask honest questions about the what the unintended consequences may be. Preferably NOT someone with a vested interest in selling products to IT racers. Clearly the current rule was written with a very narrow viewpoint that left IT with a big mess. One thought that comes to mind is a spec ECU. This is the direction GA Cup is moving and where several drag racing bodies have been for years. If you want to use an aftermarket EMS spec one of the lower tier systems that does not support traction control (if TC is such a huge fear). This is precisely how TC is controlled in some drag racing. There are systems in the sub $2000 range that support variable cam systems but do not support traction control or ABS.

The above deals specifically with standalone EMS. It doesn't even touch on the world of piggyback systems. Some are very good, don't require auxilary inputs, are cheap (Apexi's SAFC can be had for around $300 new), are easy to program and install, and produce real results. They do require that you hack into a few wires on the stock harness. GOD FORBID! THE SKY IS FALLING!

And to prevent someone from cheating like I mentioned earlier? If you all really wanted to prevent that we'd have some kind of real tech. We'd protest and bounce people that cheat. But we don't. So we sit back and write rules that try to balance placating the cheaters out of violation and appease those that don't want the rules to change. And we end up with a bastardized version that no one likes. If you're going to placate and appease let's make it the cheapest most reliable method of doing so.

[Z3_GoCar]

Hey Chris,

That's a great idea spec alternate ems systems just like alternate carburetors. Relatively simple systems that don't include traction control, speced with what ever sensor pack they were designed with. Maybe even keep the unneccessary sensors in place like a hot wire MAF or flapper doors, just to keep the inlet hole the same relative size. I'd suggest the electromotive TEC II as one possibility, but then I'm biased as that's what I'm currently using.

James

[C. Ludwig]

Hey Chris,

That's a great idea spec alternate ems systems just like alternate carburetors. Relatively simple systems that don't include traction control, speced with what ever sensor pack they were designed with. Maybe even keep the unneccessary sensors in place like a hot wire MAF or flapper doors, just to keep the inlet hole the same relative size. I'd suggest the electromotive TEC II as one possibility, but then I'm biased as that's what I'm currently using.

James
[/b]

I agree completely. The Tec II isn't in production anymore. The ECU would also need to be trigger adaptive and I'm not sure that Electromotive is. Again, if something like a spec EMS were adopted those writing the rules should consult with a good number of professionals that deal with EMS on a daily basis to find something that worked for everyone. There are systems out there that would fit the bill.

[dickita15]

Chris, interesting post.

My only question is this thread started as “if we were to allow alternate ECUs with the stock harness more cars could get the same results they can get now only cheaper”

I we allow alternate harnesses and adding sensors wont we make it possible to increase performance over the current Motec in a box solution.

That seems a different end than letting us accomplish what we already can but in a cheaper manner.

[JimLill]

Another way to understand where this might lead would be to have some of the knowledgeable people make a more detailed proposal as to what they would do if the rules were to open up a bit. Then that could be constructively discussed.

For example, I own a 86 VW with CIS-E. What could be done as an increment up from that would be equivalent to carb rejetting and that kind of thing. Isn't that all we're looking for? A increment of power and $, not a leap to new science.

BTW, OBD-2 is a marker in time that is related to the complexity and level of control you can exert over these systems, but doesn't really establish any ability or lack-off to mod things.

[Greg Amy]

Another way to understand where this might lead would be to have some of the knowledgeable people make a more detailed proposal as to what they would do if the rules were to open up a bit.[/b]

A fine idea.

On my NX2000, by far the easiest solution is the AEM Power EMS (http://www.aempower.com/ViewProduct.aspx?ProductID=503). At $2000 it ain't cheap, but it is LITERALLY a plug-n-play system. I remove my factory ECU and plug theirs into the factory wiring harness. Fully tunable. Not legal under current rules because of the unmodified factory housing restrictions.

The other alternative is a Megasquirt system (http://www.megasquirt.info/). Much less expensive than AEM but possibly a lot less technical support for my specific application. Uses MAP, IAT, and TPS. It would be *possible*, but extremely difficult, to fit into a factory ECU housing, plus I'd need to be able to get a vacuum line from the manifold to the MAP sensor on the ECU board. Further, melding it to the factory wiring harness would be a bear. Optimally, I'd be allowed to either bypass or modify the factory wiring harness in order to integrate this into the car's existing sensors.

Third choice would be a Unichip piggyback. Don't know much about it.

I'm certain there are other viable alternatives, but I'm simply ignorant of them.

The phreak in me likes the Megaquirt, the lazy screw in me likes the AEM. - GA

[C. Ludwig]

Chris, interesting post.

My only question is this thread started as “if we were to allow alternate ECUs with the stock harness more cars could get the same results they can get now only cheaper”

I we allow alternate harnesses and adding sensors wont we make it possible to increase performance over the current Motec in a box solution.

That seems a different end than letting us accomplish what we already can but in a cheaper manner.
[/b]

Good question. This is where it would be important to request help from an experienced outside party(s).

As I posted before there are only four sensors required for speed density to run correctly. A MAP sensor, coolant temp, intake air temp, and throttle position. Any car that runs speed density as OE (Honda) already is so equipped. Any car that runs some form of air meter likely is equipped with coolant, air temp, and TPS sensors in addition to the air meter. What I'm saying is that we're not so much adding sensors just for the sake of it, but by requiring the stock sensors we are limiting ourselves to only high end systems which can be alternately programmed to read an OE sensor that may have an output different than what the EMS designer intended for their base systems.

Let's say we allow alternate sensors. What are we most afraid of? Traction control? Spec a low end system that doesn't support the function. Easy enough. You still don't eliminate TC, the MSD rate of gain algorithm has been mentioned, but you remove the black patch from the eye of the EMS. Cheaters will be cheaters.

I know it's been rumored that some teams are using the current rule to take control of idle speed control systems. Most idle speed controls are setup with some kind of variable valve that routes additional air around the throttle blade at idle to allow electronic control to stabilize the idle speed during varying load situations and during cold warm up. The rumor is that teams are using the open box rule to pin these valves open to serve as an alternate route for additional air to enter the engine. This makes more power. Here's what's important. This could be accomplished with a simple jumper inside the stock box (gray area legal?) and isn't the direct result of an EMS change. It would also be possible if we speced an EMS and harness to have the harness shipped from the manufacturer with just enough leads to only allow interface between the ECU and the needed sensors and needed outputs. No PWM outputs for things such as idle control valves that would be used for an unintended purpose. I suspect this is where GA Cup is going with their spec ECU/harness rule. Want to eliminate this? Require all idle speed control systems be removed and any holes left in the intake blanked if an alternate EMS is used. Idle speed control is not required for a race engine where cold start is of little concern and there is not an a/c compressor continually cycling. In fact, probably 90% of the street cars that I do installs on do not utilize any form of idle control with their aftermarket EMS. They cold start and idle just fine.

The problem with the above senario and the thought that the perfect rule could be written to eliminate cheating is that it is just as easy for a creative person to mechanically alter the idle control aparatus so that it is pinned open all the time. This would be blatantly illegal but impossible to ever find under our current tech process. My point is that the EMS rule as it is now isn't something that is causing or preventing any significant amount of cheating. Only making it more expensive to reach a level of 10/10s prep. Or even get some of these ITR cars on the track?

In the end the only way to create more power is to alter VE (volumetric efficiency), flow more air. The sensors mentioned and wire to directly connect them can't do that. Taking control of variable valve timing and lift could. But that's already leagl under the current rule. Taking control of idle control can do that but that's already (gray area) legal. There might be something I'm not thinking of. That's why I'm suggesting industry experts be consulted. Might I suggest Ben Strader of EFI 101? He has experience heaped upon experience, is knowledable in a variety of systems, has built engines and EMS for a variety of platforms, and to my knowledge is not currently a supplier of any one system. But, IMO, allowing alternate sensors (only those required for proper engine function?) along with and alternate harness (only enough inputs/outputs for basic engine functions?) along with a speced box(s) would be a less expensive, easier to apply solution than what we have now.

[dj10]

Chris,

What we need is a way to work the new rule that IS to be viewed & hopefully approved by the ITAC and CRB. Once we have it written then all of us can start to write emails to the CRB for implementation.

BTW nice write ups.

dj

[lateapex911]

Chris, I'm in agreement with your points. I am well aware of the issues with the idle controls, and the allowance of semi open EMS's has created that issue. For those that might not understand, having air inlets past the throttle plates allows tuner/racers to pump more air. More air = more power. Problem is, how do you do that, and keep the mixture correct? Motec.

Actually, there are several scenarios that can work...and of course, they are all blantantly cheating.

But...one of the reasons we hear resistance to the open EMS/ECU concept is that it will increase performance and or cheating.. Well, guess what...look around....we've been there for awhile now.

Thanks for the well reasoned info.

[Z3_GoCar]

If we're going to propose a change to the current rules, we need a mission statement along with supporting goals. To that end here's my proposed mission statement:

Our mission is to provide alternate Engine Management Systems (EMS) or Electronic Control Units (ECU) much as alternate carburetors are listed for carbureted motors.

The purpose is to provide acess to adjustments in fuel and ignition curves where before either none were avalible or convuluted means were required to both satisfy both the letter of the rules and make the systems adjustable.

These alternate EMS/ECU's will only be allowed to perform the function of fuel curve and ignition, they will not allow air to bypass the throttle plate, nor perform functions not allowed (i.e. traction control or anti-lock brakes). Only the systems listed are allowed to replace factory EMS/ECU's and will be mounted in such a fashion as to be easily inspected for compliance with allowed connections. All original air metering sensors, including flapper valves or hot wire Air Flow Meters, will remain installed in the intake tract irregardless of if the alternate EMS/ECM uses the signal or not. All air bypass control valves will be removed and the openings plugged, or used for alternate approved replacement sensors.

If an alternate EMS/ECU is not used then the original EMS/ECU must be used in an unaltered and unmodified state other than availible downloadable software or proms. If the original EMS/ECU performs other functions neccessary to the operation of the vehicle other than controling fuel and ignition, it may remain installed and connected to the stock wiring harness. Otherwise the original EMS/ECU may be completely removed from the vehicle.

All tunning and adjustments are to be made by means that are outside of the drivers compartment. Drivers are not to be able to adjust the alternate EMS/ECU while belted in and driving.

The alternate EMS/ECU's and their allowed sensors are as follows:

......

How's that for a first pass? Now what holes can be poked in that? Let's figure out how to make this hold air. So that we can get what we need (adjustability) without going too far overboard that everything that's not EFI is no longer competitive.

James

On edit and second thought:

I think I've written myself into a corner as what I've written doesn't allow acutation of varible cam timming, cooling fans, or driving fuel pumps. Should this be added? to allowed functions?

[dj10]

All tunning and adjustments are to be made by means that are outside of the drivers compartment. Drivers are to to be able to adjust the alternate EMS/ECU while belted in and driving.
James
[/quote]



Don't you mean "Drivers are NOT able to adjust the ........etc ect?

[Z3_GoCar]

I agree completely. The Tec II isn't in production anymore. The ECU would also need to be trigger adaptive and I'm not sure that Electromotive is. Again, if something like a spec EMS were adopted those writing the rules should consult with a good number of professionals that deal with EMS on a daily basis to find something that worked for everyone. There are systems out there that would fit the bill.
[/b]

You're right the TEC II uses a 60-2 tooth trigger wheel on the crank or a 120-4 tooth on a cam. Mine uses the stock trigger on the crank between 5 and 6 that's been reindexed. The most common means of triggering a TECII is to install the trigger wheel on the harmonic damper/main drive pulley, then have a bracket hold the sensor in place. I'll alert the guy who tuned my system. He may have some suggestions since he's worked with Electromotive systems for over 15 years.

James

[sstecker]

All tunning and adjustments are to be made by means that are outside of the drivers compartment. Drivers are NOT to to be able to adjust the alternate EMS/ECU while belted in and driving.

[Z3_GoCar]

All tunning and adjustments are to be made by means that are outside of the drivers compartment. Drivers are to to be able to adjust the alternate EMS/ECU while belted in and driving.
James




Don't you mean "Drivers are NOT able to adjust the ........etc ect?
[/b]




All tunning and adjustments are to be made by means that are outside of the drivers compartment. Drivers are NOT to to be able to adjust the alternate EMS/ECU while belted in and driving.
[/b]

Sorry, that's what I ment to say. I've fixed it now.

James

[dickita15]

Our mission is to provide alternate Engine Management Systems (EMS) or Electronic Control Units (ECU) much as alternate carburetors are listed for carbureted motors.
[/b]
Of course if you want to use the analogy to alternate carburetors you will need to specify a ECU that will only work on a limited number of cars. :rolleyes:

[Renaultfool]

Chris, very good job!
Just so you know my Renault runs with a MAP sensor, water temp sensor, intake air tempreture, but no throttle position sensor. Renault Renix system, those crazy froggy Frenchmen.
How about that Alonzo in F!! I just have to paint my car blue and yellow for next year.

James, good start at a proposal. I think that you should still allow for the changing of the resistance of the tempreture sensors for those of us who want to change our mixture on the cheap.

Good start guys.
Carl

[JimLill]

Has anyone ever produced a write-up on what the current rules say on this subject. Perhaps a matrix on can/cannots that we could all agree to. That might be a good starting point for proposed changes.

[dj10]

I think I've written myself into a corner as what I've written doesn't allow acutation of varible cam timming, cooling fans, or driving fuel pumps. Should this be added? to allowed functions? [/quote]



James, I think the should be ( I own a vanos engine) included as well as the ability to monitor but not change while driving the a/f mixture. To some degree, don't these system have the ability of Data Acquisition?



Great start James, go for it.

dj

[Z3_GoCar]

I think I've written myself into a corner as what I've written doesn't allow acutation of varible cam timming, cooling fans, or driving fuel pumps. Should this be added? to allowed functions?



James, I think the should be ( I own a vanos engine) included as well as the ability to monitor but not change while driving the a/f mixture. To some degree, don't these system have the ability of Data Acquisition?



Great start James, go for it.

dj
[/b]

I also would like to include these functions with the allowed engine management functions, and for the same reasons as you Dan. Our system can operate on a simple bang-bang control signal, but the future valvetronic type systems aren't so simple to operate. Maybe we should just cross that bridge in five years.

As for the D/A function. Speaking from my system, I need a lap-top hooked up to a RS-232 serial port to collect the data and write it to a file. I doubt that's something you'd want banging around during a race. Steve mentioned allowing direct collection of signals from sensors for D/A purposes, monitering those signals might be one way to watch but not touch a/f ratio's. Any idea on how you'd insert it into the current language Steve? I'd be a little concerned it might go into a system that does more that what we intend, but I might be convinced otherwise as I'm still considering it.

James

[dj10]

I also would like to include these functions with the allowed engine management functions, and for the same reasons as you Dan. Our system can operate on a simple bang-bang control signal, but the future valvetronic type systems aren't so simple to operate. Maybe we should just cross that bridge in five years.

As for the D/A function. Speaking from my system, I need a lap-top hooked up to a RS-232 serial port to collect the data and write it to a file. I doubt that's something you'd want banging around during a race. Steve mentioned allowing direct collection of signals from sensors for D/A purposes, monitering those signals might be one way to watch but not touch a/f ratio's. Any idea on how you'd insert it into the current language Steve? I'd be a little concerned it might go into a system that does more that what we intend, but I might be convinced otherwise as I'm still considering it.

James [/b]

As for me, I'd be happy with a system like yours James. You can monitor the A/F when you down load the data into the laptop and still be able to make changes accordingly while the car is not on track. I'm not a 100% sure what you mean by a "bang-bang control signal" and how would this work the same on a double vanos?

dj

[Eagle7]

I know it's been rumored that some teams are using the current rule to take control of idle speed control systems. Most idle speed controls are setup with some kind of variable valve that routes additional air around the throttle blade at idle to allow electronic control to stabilize the idle speed during varying load situations and during cold warm up. The rumor is that teams are using the open box rule to pin these valves open to serve as an alternate route for additional air to enter the engine. This makes more power. Here's what's important. This could be accomplished with a simple jumper inside the stock box (gray area legal?) and isn't the direct result of an EMS change. It would also be possible if we speced an EMS and harness to have the harness shipped from the manufacturer with just enough leads to only allow interface between the ECU and the needed sensors and needed outputs. No PWM outputs for things such as idle control valves that would be used for an unintended purpose. I suspect this is where GA Cup is going with their spec ECU/harness rule. Want to eliminate this? Require all idle speed control systems be removed and any holes left in the intake blanked if an alternate EMS is used. Idle speed control is not required for a race engine where cold start is of little concern and there is not an a/c compressor continually cycling. In fact, probably 90% of the street cars that I do installs on do not utilize any form of idle control with their aftermarket EMS. They cold start and idle just fine.
[/b]
1) Sure you can bypass the throttle but all the air still has to flow through the air meter and snorkle. On my car I couldn't tell a bit of difference with that valve open or closed. Seat of the pants dyno and logging of MAP agreed - nothing. The restriction is downstream of the throttle.
2) I like the idle control valve on my race car. Much less hassle warmup and more consistent idle.
3) I don't see anywhere in the current rules where having the ECU operate signals that the stock harness brings to it is even remotely illegal. No gray in my reading of it. The only exception I see is traction control.
4) I don't like the idea of a spec ECU. Write the rules to nail the issues and use any brand that conforms.

[Z3_GoCar]

With the bang-bang control there's two states, off and on. In my case I'm single VANOS so the single general purpose output wire goes to a relay, which switches a full 12v. to the intake VANOS wire. The control is set so that when x,xxx rpms is reached the relay activates the VANOS and the intake is advanced increasing overlap between intake and exhaust. With a double VANOS two GPO's and you could trigger both seperately, or use one GPO and trigger both at the same time. During tunning of my system we found that activating it early ment we didn't have to deal with a large shift in the fuel curve when it did kick in. Originally, the system would be way rich, untill the tip in point then it'd go lean once it was activated. I'd imagine that the dual VANOS whould want to activate early too as the same issues could be encountered.

James

[Eagle7]

These alternate EMS/ECU's will only be allowed to perform the function of fuel curve and ignition,

That won't fly for lots of cars.


they will not allow air to bypass the throttle plate,

I disagree. Why prevent the use of these stock parts.


nor perform functions not allowed (i.e. traction control or anti-lock brakes).

Agreed.


Only the systems listed are allowed to replace factory EMS/ECU's

Totally disagree with a spec ECU. What's next, spec shocks?


and will be mounted in such a fashion as to be easily inspected for compliance with allowed connections.

OK.


All original air metering sensors, including flapper valves or hot wire Air Flow Meters, will remain installed in the intake tract irregardless of if the alternate EMS/ECM uses the signal or not.

Agreed.


All air bypass control valves will be removed and the openings plugged, or used for alternate approved replacement sensors.

Disagree.


If an alternate EMS/ECU is not used then the original EMS/ECU must be used in an unaltered and unmodified state other than availible downloadable software or proms.

Why? If the ECU is open, modify to your heart's content.


If the original EMS/ECU performs other functions neccessary to the operation of the vehicle other than controling fuel and ignition, it may remain installed and connected to the stock wiring harness.

I think you're saying that the alternate ECU must not perform any non-fuel/spark function. The original ECU must be used for those functions. Disagree.


Otherwise the original EMS/ECU may be completely removed from the vehicle.

Strike the "Otherwise".


All tunning and adjustments are to be made by means that are outside of the drivers compartment. Drivers are not to be able to adjust the alternate EMS/ECU while belted in and driving.

OK. No pot on the dash for fuel mixture. Why not?


The alternate EMS/ECU's and their allowed sensors are as follows:

Again, no spec ECU for me.

[/quote]How's that for a first pass? Now what holes can be poked in that? Let's figure out how to make this hold air. So that we can get what we need (adjustability) without going too far overboard that everything that's not EFI is no longer competitive.

James

On edit and second thought:

I think I've written myself into a corner as what I've written doesn't allow acutation of varible cam timming, cooling fans, or driving fuel pumps. Should this be added? to allowed functions?[/quote]

Thanks James. Good to get this discussion started.

I'd also like to bring additional sensors into the ECU as a logging point, and be able to log ECU data and arbitrary sensor data during events.

EDIT: Quotes didn't work, so I italicized them.

[Z3_GoCar]

1) Sure you can bypass the throttle but all the air still has to flow through the air meter and snorkle. On my car I couldn't tell a bit of difference with that valve open or closed. Seat of the pants dyno and logging of MAP agreed - nothing. The restriction is downstream of the throttle.
2) I like the idle control valve on my race car. Much less hassle warmup and more consistent idle.
3) I don't see anywhere in the current rules where having the ECU operate signals that the stock harness brings to it is even remotely illegal. No gray in my reading of it. The only exception I see is traction control.
4) I don't like the idea of a spec ECU. Write the rules to nail the issues and use any brand that conforms.
[/b]

Part of the problem is that older or lower cost systems that are simple enough to prevent unintended consequences are designed to only operate on a given set of sensors. Secondly, the pattern is set, if a replacement ECU is to be used it must be specified, much like a replacement carburetor is specified, otherwise one could show up with ECU brand X with it hooked up to perform illegal functions, and how would it be detected? By spec'ing the list of approved ECU's and how they're hooked up there's much more control on what functions are allowed and how to make cheating easier to discover. If you want to use brand X, then propose it to be included, including how it's to be hooked up, what sensors are used and where, and it will be considered. If we were to just openly accept all EMS/ECU's how would there be any manner of policing their implementation? We might as well let all the carburetted guys pick their poision too. Finally, I'm sure you like your idle control valve, and if you're running the oem computer you can keep it, but take it from me, it's not neccessary. For cold start all I need to do is crack the throttle plate open and get it above the surge point. Once I get 150 degrees in water temp the idle settles down and the surging stops, simple. As a matter of fact, I can go from cold to ready to shut down in the time it takes the pre-grid to form all without an idle control valve, or I can get it fully warm before I roll up to the pre-grid, then shut it down and wait quietly untill they give me the thumbs up.

James

[C. Ludwig]

1) Sure you can bypass the throttle but all the air still has to flow through the air meter and snorkle. On my car I couldn't tell a bit of difference with that valve open or closed. Seat of the pants dyno and logging of MAP agreed - nothing. The restriction is downstream of the throttle.
2) I like the idle control valve on my race car. Much less hassle warmup and more consistent idle.
3) I don't see anywhere in the current rules where having the ECU operate signals that the stock harness brings to it is even remotely illegal. No gray in my reading of it. The only exception I see is traction control.
4) I don't like the idea of a spec ECU. Write the rules to nail the issues and use any brand that conforms.
[/b]

re: 1) A MAP sensor reading won't show additional flow. It's simply a pressure signal. In a speed density system there is not a sensor that will enable you to monitor flow. Quite simply, the only way you will recognize an increase in VE is when you need to add more fuel to maintain a common a/f ratio. Flow, or more precisely VE, is not actually directly determined in a speed density system. When programming a fuel curve you need to make assumptions on what the flow will be for a given MAP reading and program the fuel curve to match the assumed VE. I could go on but trust me when I say that MAP is manifold pressure and has nothing to do with flow. Now if you were to monitor a mass air sensor output it would be possible to see changes in VE.

In an RX-7 the restriction may be down stream of the throttle. Be it the ports, crappy manifold, whatever. But if we are to allow introduction of air sourced around the throttle it is a possibility to source air from around any restriction in the intake tract ahead of the throttle plate. ie. the infamous 325 restrictor plate. With the new rule that allows us to rework the intake tract ahead of the throttle plates it's an easy matter to route air to the IAC from in front of the restrictor. Peg the restrictor open under WOT and you can theoretically increase VE. Legal? If it were my car I'd make a damn good arguement that I have done nothing illegal.

re: 3) The current rule reads "No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function." Though the letter of the rule is met in the senario we are referring to I highly doubt those that wrote the ECU rule ever considered this consequence. That is why I term it gray area legal. It does not IMO meet the spirit of the rule.

The more I think about it the spec ECU rule might not be the solution. The wording is already in the rule book. "No permitted component/modification..." Simply stipulate in the rule what is allowed and what isn't. No traction control, no abs, all air entering the engine must pass through any required restrictor plate and additionally must pass through the unaltered throttle body. I still think requiring that all IAC controls be ditched is a good idea. Turn the idle up from the stock 700-800 rpm to 1200-1500 and there is no problem. Ditching the control solves many more problems than it would create. However, I will concede that most won't like the idea.

At that point it then becomes incumbent upon the tech process to catch those that want to cheat. The current rule does nothing to deter anyone from cheating. Just like another rule won't. The current rule simply makes it more expensive and harder to obtain the 10/10 prep. At the biggest races part of the tech process would include downloading the current map/settings from the ECU onto a hard disc or CD in impound. This process takes all of about 1 minute. If it's not possible at that time to have a 3rd party fluent in that particular EMS to analyze the settings to determine if illegal functions have been programmed then the data can be stored and sampled later to determine legality. Employing one person for an afternoon at the ARRC who is fluent in major EMS coding should not be that much trouble. It would certainly be many times easier to check the coding of a common Motec box than it would be to check the coding of a stock PROM that has been burned with alternate information.

[dj10]

At that point it then becomes incumbent upon the tech process to catch those that want to cheat. The current rule does nothing to deter anyone from cheating. Just like another rule won't. The current rule simply makes it more expensive and harder to obtain the 10/10 prep. At the biggest races part of the tech process would include downloading the current map/settings from the ECU onto a hard disc or CD in impound. This process takes all of about 1 minute. If it's not possible at that time to have a 3rd party fluent in that particular EMS to analyze the settings to determine if illegal functions have been programmed then the data can be stored and sampled later to determine legality. Employing one person for an afternoon at the ARRC who is fluent in major EMS coding should not be that much trouble. It would certainly be many times easier to check the coding of a common Motec box than it would be to check the coding of a stock PROM that has been burned with alternate information. [/b]



Chris, are you ready to make a play to the CRB & ITAC with what you know as to be facts?

dj

[shwah]

Chris, you must have the 88-92 VW Digifant ECU box with flapper (or late California with hot wire) in your car. The earlier ones (and many other makes) do not have any MAP sensor anywhere (although some of those did have a vacuum hose going to a non-ECU or ignition-only box). My read of the current rule is that you could not add an opening in the ECU or fuel computer box even for a vacuum line (presumably to an added MAP sensor in the box) if it didn't have it from the factory.
[/b]
Nope. I have an 86 CIS-E car. None of this applies to my setup. This would only be a viable option for a digifant VW. FWIW CIS-E does have a vacuum line going to one of the engine control boxes, but that does not really matter since we lack those all important electronic fuel injectors :P

[shwah]

The premis that only the high end systems allow you to adapt to factory sensors is incorrect. In fact the cheapest system - Megasquirt - supports this, and tons of people take advantage of it.

MAP vs MAF is not a big deal. It comes down to tuning. When you tune the ECU you essentially define the volumetric efficiency of the engine at different operating conditions (MAP vs. RPM). Once you get this map properly defined it will run great. If you have a MAF you now have a method to know explicitly how much air is entering, as long as you choose an ECU that allows you to use a MAF then tuning should be easier for you. I would expect the MAP guy to spend more on dyno time and the MAF guy to spend more on hardware and/or ECU development time.

All this talk has me looking through the garage for that old Digifant system I have laying around from a past project....

[sstecker]

The premis that only the high end systems allow you to adapt to factory sensors is incorrect. In fact the cheapest system - Megasquirt - supports this, and tons of people take advantage of it.

[/b]

there are sensor maps available but not for the factory MAP sensors.

[shwah]

In that case you will spend some time scaling the sensor and building/tweaking the sensor map. It can still be accomplished.

I am one of those that has wanted to undo the 'anything in the box' rule, but agree that this is just not feasible. I do not agree with allowing alternate sensors or wiring harnesses, but do agree that the shape of the box is inconsequential and should be updated. You should only be able to change the ECU connector on the wiring harness. If you have an old damaged/worn wiring harness, repair it.

The contention that some cars are old and some wires are damaged, therefore the whole harness must be replaced is silly. Identify the offending wire(s) and repair/replace that wire, running it from the original source to the original destination along the original path.

[Renaultfool]

Nice artical on the MegaSquirt in the copy of GrassRoots Motorsports I picked up at Borders last night. I have spent quite a bit of time researching MegaSquirt and you can fairly simply adapt it to about any combination of sensors that you want.

I see that some are still hung up on wiring harnesses and sensors, neither of which can make more horsepower than the Volumetric Effeciency of the mechanical parts of the engine design and intake restrictions built in from the factory. Leave the long block and intake tract factory stock according to our current rules and make the rest open. There is not significant weight savings from a harness, and the aftermarket ECUs can be adapted to your current sensors with a little work, so what are you preventing by allowing these items to be open? It ain't cheaten if it is open.
Carl

[Ron Earp]

I see that some are still hung up on wiring harnesses and sensors, neither of which can make more horsepower than the Volumetric Effeciency of the mechanical parts of the engine design and intake restrictions built in from the factory
Carl
[/b]

EXACTLY! Something I've been saying for a week now with respect to the situation. Doesn't matter what wires, computer, or software are hooked to the damn thing, you are not going to exceed the VE that is mechanically dictated.

You might harness more of what is available, but, that is the goal of all of our modifications.

R

[dj10]

EXACTLY! Something I've been saying for a week now with respect to the situation. Doesn't matter what wires, computer, or software are hooked to the damn thing, you are not going to exceed the VE that is mechanically dictated.

You might harness more of what is available, but, that is the goal of all of our modifications.

R [/b]



Agreed, the hp you might gain is from making what you have more efficent.

I'm now interested, what the ITAC have to say about this and are we far enough along to sumbit something to the CRB?

[dickita15]

The original premise behind this thread was that requiring all ECU modification to be within the original box was making people spend more money that necessary to get the maximum legal improvement in performance. For the sake of illustration that you were being forced to spend $6000 for a Motec when a less expensive system would give the same result but would not fit in the box. It was said that by allowing different systems if would not change the 10 10ths level of performances but would just make it less expensive to get to this already available level of performance. This proposed solution is said to have no change in the balance of performance between cars.

Now some of you are suggesting that harnesses and sensors should be unrestricted. I have to believe that this would affect some cars more than others. Would this not upset the balance of performance that the ITAC achieved thru PCAs?

The original proposal, using the stock harness, is a cost saving measure but it seems to me that what you are talking about now could be a significant increase in performance.

[C. Ludwig]

Now some of you are suggesting that harnesses and sensors should be unrestricted. I have to believe that this would affect some cars more than others. Would this not upset the balance of performance that the ITAC achieved thru PCAs?

The original proposal, using the stock harness, is a cost saving measure but it seems to me that what you are talking about now could be a significant increase in performance.
[/b]



Can you explain that point of view?

[seckerich]

Can you explain that point of view?
[/b]
The current weights and allowances take into account historical %gains for the cars now in IT. If you now allow wide band O2, more precise sensors for Map, TPS, and air flow you open it up to some real creative solutions. How about a 65MM hot wire from a mustang on the Mazda? Total control of the dual Vanos on the BMW? I know some Honda's will get real fast with unlimited sensors and ECU. It will take years to balance the equation again as cars have to go 10/10ths in all these cases to see the real outcome. Open up the ECU but keep the STOCK sensors as the only inputs. Anyone with the brains to set up a system is smart enough to solder to the original ECU plug.

[Greg Amy]

Fully recognizing what Dick is saying (and agreeing with it) I do believe that the marginal gains in performance that could/would come from open sensors and wiring is small.

Once you start getting into a full-programmable EMS, you're on the fat part of the learning/performance curve, and it's easy to get fat gains with minimal work. Once optimized with factory parts, that little bit you can eek out with more sensors and wires is, really, not that much (generally speaking, of course; each car is different).

That said, I suggest we go with leaving most of the rule as-is and simply removing the "unmodified stock ECU housing" part. Let's run that way for a few years, with factory sensors and wiring, and let's see what happens. At best it changes nothing, where someone decides to run whatever system they're running now except in a bigger box; at worst someone figures out a clever way around the rules (a la "Motec in a Box" did) and we've nipped that in the bud before it gets too over-the-top.

If, after some limited time frame, we find that the lack of aftermarket sensors has itself created a system where it costs more to meet/get around the rules (as did the 'unmodified ECU housing') then we can revisit it at that time.

If you try to go full-guns and attempt to convince the ITAC, CRB, and BoD that Improved Touring needs wide open engine management system, I'm quite confident the status quo will prevail... - GA

[JimLill]

That said, I suggest we go with leaving most of the rule as-is and simply removing the "unmodified stock ECU housing" part. [/b]

I like that

[dj10]

That said, I suggest we go with leaving most of the rule as-is and simply removing the "unmodified stock ECU housing" part. Let's run that way for a few years, with factory sensors and wiring, and let's see what happens. If you try to go full-guns and attempt to convince the ITAC, CRB, and BoD that Improved Touring needs wide open engine management system, I'm quite confident the status quo will prevail... - GA [/b]



Lets go one step farther, change the "unmodified stock ECU housing" part and also remove the stock wiring harness, but keep the factory sensors.



My reasoning here is that it will keep the costs down more if we are able to link the EMS wiring harness to the factory sensors than to try and rewire & rework the stock wiring harness to the EMS. I will caution, the factory sensors may or may not be compatable with some EMS's. I also believe that any gains will be directly related to the quality of the engine, fuel system and exhaust it is hooked up to. Just a note, I don't believe that any of the EMS sensors out there will make a difference in power, all they are there to do is monitor, record and to be adjustable.

[Z3_GoCar]

Well, with my system NONE of the stock sensors are compatible with my system. All of my sensors have been replaced and there's not any hint of the stock engine wire harness to be found on my car. Also the stock idle control valve isn't compatible with my systems control algorythm as it's not a stepper motor. To meet these requirements of using stock sensors and actuators I'd have to switch up to a new TECIII system add a new used motor harness and I'm looking at easily adding $3.5k to $5.0k to just making my engine management system legal. With all this IT illegal technology on board my car, and it only dyno'ed what it was expected to if fully IT built.... I may be staying in ITE/DM for another season.

James

[JoshS]

James,

I feel badly for you, and I would hope you could get to ITR so we'd have more west coast turnout.

However, the rules should not be catering to cars that were built beyond the IT rules and have to convert back. They should be built to make it easy to convert a stock car to IT rules. Perhaps you bought the wrong car for IT ... Did you really think when you bought this car with the intent to go IT racing with it that the rules would change in the next 6 months? You must have been prepared for this possibility ...

[Z3_GoCar]

Well Josh,

I was prepared for some issues, and in the mean time I've tried not to make it worse by modifying the car more than it's at now. My goal for this year is to just get my novice/rookie licenses signed off, which I'm most of the way there. When I made the offer on the car, ITR was still not even a proposal yet. So I figured that I'd have a couple of years to collect parts and get to the position of being legal before it went through. Then SIR gate happened, and ITR came in a warp speed.

That being said, restricting the rules to stock sensors means that many systems are ruled out and we're back to only using the sytems that either have an open architecture or have multiple sensor drivers, and thus the latest and most expensive systems. Really thought what's wrong with the system that I'm using, other than it's not on the bleeding edge of management technology? It only functions to control the engine with fuel and spark, it's real basic, with basic commonly avalible sensors, such as a FORD narrow band oxygen sensor. It sits on an aluminum plate, in the box that the battery used to sit in for the early Z3's. Also, it will never perform an illegal function such as dumping the throttle for traction control like a TEC III with an electric throttle car would. Now talk about a mine field, what would open EMS/ECU's have when paired with electronic throttle actuation, and no way to prove or disprove it?

James

[Ron Earp]

Well, with my system NONE of the stock sensors are compatible with my system. All of my sensors have been replaced and there's not any hint of the stock engine wire harness to be found on my car.
James
[/b]

James,

You can use the sensors you have as you mentioned, but you have to be preppared to do some work for sure. A Megasquirt can be taught any sensor output to be used and isn't that hard to do. No, it isn't plug and play, but it can be done. The guys on this forum have probably done it all, and if they can't help they can find someone that can:

http://www.msefi.com/

Doesn't help with your wiring harness though, for that, you might have to attempt to get one from a junkyard. Complete wiring harnesses are amazing easy to install these days as they are so modular.

I know these are not exactly what you need, but with a 10s search on ebay this appeared:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1998-BMW-Z3...VQQcmdZViewItem (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1998-BMW-Z3-Engine-Wiring-Harness-OEM_W0QQitemZ110038987288QQihZ001QQcategoryZ6763QQ rdZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQcmdZViewItem)

An engine harness for a Z3, $150. And a computer too, $16.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1998-BMW-Z3...VQQcmdZViewItem (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1998-BMW-Z3-ECU-Computer-OEM_W0QQitemZ110039107082QQihZ001QQcategoryZ33596Q QrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQcmdZViewItem)

I'm sure with some watching you'd get what you need relatively easily.

In any event, without a change rule you'll be forced to do a lot more work putting an ECU into the stock housing. I'm all for opening up the ECU rule, doing away with the box argument, and the wirnessing harness argument. However, I'm not sure the ITAC is ready to go that far, although I can't see the logic in maintaining a wiring harness rule.

And, sometimes you have to be careful what you start with - if I'd started with this Jensen (with a blower!) I'd still be trying to make it IT ready!

http://www.race-cars.com/carsales/other/11...160498070ss.htm (http://www.race-cars.com/carsales/other/1160498070/1160498070ss.htm)


R

[dj10]

In any event, without a change rule you'll be forced to do a lot more work putting an ECU into the stock housing. I'm all for opening up the ECU rule, doing away with the box argument, and the wirnessing harness argument. However, I'm not sure the ITAC is ready to go that far, although I can't see the logic in maintaining a wiring harness rule.
R [/b]

Acually Ron, I'm not concerned about the ITAC, It's the CRB who will make the final decision. I believe with the info that I've seen on this subject on this forum, the ITAC & CRB can only conclude logically, it would be in the best interest of SCCA & the "New IMPROVED TOURING" to maintain cost effectivness by allowing the ECU & wiring harness rule be changed. This rule could save the members thousands of dollars over a year or two in engine repairs, maintance costs, fuel not to mention polution while probably picking up some new found engine performance. I also believe the cheating will be no more than it is right now.

dj

[Ron Earp]

Acually Ron, I'm not concerned about the ITAC, It's the CRB who will make the final decision.
dj
[/b]

Sorry, I meant CRB. I confuse all those groups - can you tell I'm not much of a organizational guy? I find the ITAC very helpful, supportive, and wanting to move IT into the modern day.

Ron

[dj10]

Sorry, I meant CRB. I confuse all those groups - can you tell I'm not much of a organizational guy? I find the ITAC very helpful, supportive, and wanting to move IT into the modern day.

Ron
[/b]



From what I've seen lately Ron I will agree with you and they do deserve some thanks.

[C. Ludwig]

How about a 65MM hot wire from a mustang on the Mazda? [/b]

That's not at all what I'm suggesting. All stock sensors would remain in place so as not to free up any current restrictions. We'd just be able to add EMS specific sensors to ease installation, setup, and tuning. Changing from a speed density control system to MAF or vice versa will not create power in anyway. Optimum tuning is optimum tuning regardless of the control structure. And the reality is that the physics of VE limitations will never be overcome by electronics. With cam control you may be able to shift the power band or fatten up the torque curve. But the current rule already allows this


Total control of the dual Vanos on the BMW? [/b]

It's already possible with in the current rule structure.


I know some Honda's will get real fast with unlimited sensors and ECU. [/b]

I don't agree but am interested in your explanation. Maybe I'm missing something. Just like the BMWs total cam control is already possible.


It will take years to balance the equation again as cars have to go 10/10ths in all these cases to see the real outcome. Open up the ECU but keep the STOCK sensors as the only inputs. Anyone with the brains to set up a system is smart enough to solder to the original ECU plug.[/b]

I agree it will take time for this to shake out. However, I reiterate it's my opinion that a properly worded rule opening up sensors and wiring will produce no more power than what is already currently available. It will make it easier for the masses to achieve what some have already through more expensive, cumbersome methods.

[dj10]

I agree it will take time for this to shake out. However, I reiterate it's my opinion that a properly worded rule opening up sensors and wiring will produce no more power than what is already currently available. It will make it easier for the masses to achieve what some have already through more expensive, cumbersome methods. [/b]



Hass anyone written to request the change to the CRB?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hass anyone written to request the change to the CRB?

[/b]

It's on tonights agenda.

[dj10]

It's on tonights agenda.

[/b]



Thanks Andy. Can you lets us know some details from tonights meeting?

dj

[lateapex911]

Basically, we have been discussing the same issues on the ITAC that we've been discussing here. There are members of the ITAC, and the CRB, who read this board, but don't post, as well as some who do post occasionally, or regularly, such as Andy and myself.

When I posted the initial subject here, I also submitted a very similar concept for internal discussion to the ITAC. From there, we've done some research, and had some outside expert submissions, and we've created a proposal that will be discussed by the ITAC tonight.

Now, the ITAC is made up of guys from different corners of the country, as well as guys who own different makes and models in different classes. Opinions will, I assume, be varied on this subject. I know where I stand, but we''ll see what other viewpoints come up. I can't predict the outcome, but rest assured, it will be gone over, and not lightly, LOL!

[Z3_GoCar]

Thanks Jake,

Believe me the restriction on my Bosch OBDII system makes replacement the only viable option. And to replace it under the current rules means only one option. I appreciate your effort on this.

James

[dj10]

Basically, we have been discussing the same issues on the ITAC that we've been discussing here. There are members of the ITAC, and the CRB, who read this board, but don't post, as well as some who do post occasionally, or regularly, such as Andy and myself.

When I posted the initial subject here, I also submitted a very similar concept for internal discussion to the ITAC. From there, we've done some research, and had some outside expert submissions, and we've created a proposal that will be discussed by the ITAC tonight.

Now, the ITAC is made up of guys from different corners of the country, as well as guys who own different makes and models in different classes. Opinions will, I assume, be varied on this subject. I know where I stand, but we''ll see what other viewpoints come up. I can't predict the outcome, but rest assured, it will be gone over, and not lightly, LOL! [/b]



How did the meeting go?

[lateapex911]

Well, since you asked (and by the way, a birdie tells me your SIR equipped BMW just set a lap record at Mid Ohio...congrats!!)....

The ECu was discussed at length.

Now, lets preface this by saying that at this point, this is what I think will happen, but.............there are no guarantees!

To summarize, I think it's safe to say that the majority of ITAC and CRB guys on the con call agree that it's a problematic rule, and in general, would support an open solution. The crux of the matter is the drawing of the line on additional sensors and such. In a larger architecture view, not allowing addition sensors limits the desired effect of the change, which is to allow everyone a fairer shot at taking advantage of the ECU rule than currently exists, as some of the cheaper EMS units aren't as flexible sensor-wise as the more expensive units.

On the other hand, allowing additional sensors/swapping sensors is seen as a step to Prod, and a loss of the IT philosophy.

At this point, we will submit the rule change as we wrote it ( at this point it's at a fairly progressive state, in order to look at the extremes) to the CRB and it should go out on next months Fastrack for member feedback, with a preface to summarize the situation and intent, and we'll see what happens.

It's a fairly major rule change, and while we need to be swift about it, we also need to cover all the bases, and be sure we've looked under all the stones before we finalize it. As such, it won't be in place at the begining of '07, but could be, if it works out, effective sometime early in the season.

To those that are anxious for it to happen, sit tight, the wheels are turning, and to those who are fearful, relax, everyone will have a chance to give input, and nothing is being rushed here.

[Eagle7]

:happy204:

[dj10]

Well, since you asked (and by the way, a birdie tells me your SIR equipped BMW just set a lap record at Mid Ohio...congrats!!)....

The ECu was discussed at length.

Now, lets preface this by saying that at this point, this is what I think will happen, but.............there are no guarantees!

To summarize, I think it's safe to say that the majority of ITAC and CRB guys on the con call agree that it's a problematic rule, and in general, would support an open solution. The crux of the matter is the drawing of the line on additional sensors and such. In a larger architecture view, not allowing addition sensors limits the desired effect of the change, which is to allow everyone a fairer shot at taking advantage of the ECU rule than currently exists, as some of the cheaper EMS units aren't as flexible sensor-wise as the more expensive units.

On the other hand, allowing additional sensors/swapping sensors is seen as a step to Prod, and a loss of the IT philosophy.

At this point, we will submit the rule change as we wrote it ( at this point it's at a fairly progressive state, in order to look at the extremes) to the CRB and it should go out on next months Fastrack for member feedback, with a preface to summarize the situation and intent, and we'll see what happens.

It's a fairly major rule change, and while we need to be swift about it, we also need to cover all the bases, and be sure we've looked under all the stones before we finalize it. As such, it won't be in place at the begining of '07, but could be, if it works out, effective sometime early in the season.

To those that are anxious for it to happen, sit tight, the wheels are turning, and to those who are fearful, relax, everyone will have a chance to give input, and nothing is being rushed here. [/b]



Thanks for the congrats Jake. Those damn birdies. ;)



This to me is great news. If there is anything we can do to help, just ask. I hope it will work out like the SIR's did and be in place by 5/1/07. :D

[tnord]

good to hear gentleman. :035:


now to start looking into what EMS units work on a 1.6 miata. :024:

[Z3_GoCar]

:happy204:
[/b]

:happy204: :happy204: :035:

Anything would be an improvement over the current situation. Thanks for the update.

James

[lateapex911]

Well, ladies and gentlemen, you are part of the equation. Do your research, and then write in with your thoughts. List what you'd like to do, and what caveats you have, and why you'd like to go the route you chose. In other words, if you want to run XYZ system, but you can't because you need to add a sensor it requires, say so.

Of course, if you think the idea is rubbish, and all ECU cars should be stricken from the list, or we should disallow any ECU mods altogether, (the genie back in the bottle stand), then by all means say so.

If you think the rule is better the way it is, because it limits the amount of money the average racer will spend on it, (only the really rich will go Motec), and you see the opening of the rule as an additional financial burden, say so.

Frankly, this is an area that not just the ITAC, but the SS and Touring guys are looking at and all inputs are good. The CRB wants, I think, to understand this issue, and your opinions will help.

Keep in mind though, that while the official Fastrack response might be the usual lame "Thankyou for your input", that your letters DO get read and discussed.

[dj10]

:happy204: :happy204: :035:

Anything would be an improvement over the current situation. Thanks for the update.

James
[/b]



James, a favor please. You seem to know BMW's, what EMS units are out there compatible with E36 & E46's beside Motec? I'm not to familar with the others, but I would like to be.

Thanks

dj

[Z3_GoCar]

James, a favor please. You seem to know BMW's, what EMS units are out there compatible with E36 & E46's beside Motec? I'm not to familar with the others, but I would like to be.

Thanks

dj
[/b]

Hey Dan,

I'd think that opening the box would allow lots of options that could plug into the stock harness connector, even if it'd have to reconfigure pins and ect. The real limit would be in matching the sensors to the system, that's where the older and less expensive systems are really limited, operation on the stock sensor signals. That's why I'm in favor of wording that follows the allowable carburetor replacement rules, spec system options and sensors that meet the minimum requirement of operation and tunning of the motor, without bypassing the throttle plate or manifold, even keep the stock AFM even if it's not used. Keep the air flow the same, just allow us to tune the fuel and ignition curve all we want.

So, I'll look into the different options and get back to you, I may be able to turn up more systems.

BTW, Congrats on the win :happy204:

James

[shwah]

It has been mentioned several times in this thread now that the cheapest system available can be configured to operate with your OEM signals. So, if the sensors are not opened up, all is not lost for you guys.

[Eagle7]

It has been mentioned several times in this thread now that the cheapest system available can be configured to operate with your OEM signals. So, if the sensors are not opened up, all is not lost for you guys.
[/b]
I assume you're talking about Megasquirt. If so, here's some clarification as I understand it: If you have a MAP sensor you should be able to adapt MS to use it.
If you have a true mass air flow sensor, you will be in a small minority of MS users, and things may not work as well as with a MAP sensor. I do not know if all MAF sensors are supported nor whether it is possible to adapt to non-supported sensors.
If you have neither MAP nor MAF you're out of luck, unless you are allowed to attach a vacuum line to your Megasquirt box.
I don't know if there are crank/cam sensor configurations that are not supported.
I don't know if there are ignition system configurations that are not supported.

[shwah]

The beauty of the open architecture of MS is that you can literally do anything you want with it. Heck it was not designed to run ignition in the MS-1 architecture, but it did not take long for folks to develop methods to do so, running off of crank trigger wheels and/or factory hall sensor for sure - don't know what other methods are there; triggering spark directly or via factory ignition modules.

Every air measurement sensor has the same basic function - a signal that varies with airflow. One just needs to teach the MS what those values mean.

No it is not as simple as an off the shelf setup, and will take more time for sure. But you will know your car, your motor and your fuel injection better than ever, and be able to meaningfully tune it yourself as a result.

Having said all that, for my application I don't see a real big potential gain, so will probably stick with stock solutions.

[C. Ludwig]

The downsides of the Megasquirt are plenty and IMO they should not be considered as the benchmark for any rule that will be written on the ECU. They are not a mainstream product in the sense that you can lean on a regional tuning shop for help when it all goes wrong. You, the user, need to have a very good understanding of how the individual electronic components work to assemble one on your own and take real advantage of it's price point. It is open arcitechture and it can be adapted to anything but that is just about as open ended of a statement as saying the stock ECU can be adapted to do anything. Yes it can be. But the reason we are having this debate is that the masses either don't have the knowledge and desire to do the work themselves and it's prohibitvely expensive to hire it done, IF you can find someone to undertake such a custom project. We can not take it for granted that every car owner has an advanced knowledge of electronics and has the desire or patience to build their own system. Yes there are commercial suppliers of pre-built MS units. But are they readily available for each application or will they have to be re-worked? You run into the same challenges when you begin tuning. Some will want to tune their own stuff. But what about the guy that wants to lean on a professional tuner? That tuner will be expected to have advanced knowledge of the interface and how the control system works. MS is simply not prevelant enough in this field for it to have built up a large following among professional tuners. Again, by benchmarking MS we assume that the mass of car owners will want and be able to assume the task of tuning. The MS simply can't be regarded as a benchmark.

The whole gripe about the current ECU rule is that while there are some great, inexpensive, drop-in solutions that meet the letter and spirit of the rule for some cars, most are left either pioneering their way into expensive, uncharted territory to keep up with the Jones' or left without and a bitter pill to swallow. While a great solution for some cars, again, Megasquirt travels a somewhat parallel path. Though the ultimate expense in hardware may be low by comparison, if the knowledge base doesn't support your goal you are again blazing a path you shouldn't have to.

[BudMan]

I guess I'm on the other side of the fence.

Race a honda - $400 for an ecu that uses the stock harness & spend $300 to tune it with a new chip.

Fits in the case & is extremely reliable.


I've always been a bmw fan, but it seems that most of the gut-wrenching discussion and arguments against rules comes from the bmw drivers (high percentage). I didn't realize it was that hard to make them run fast. These are just my observations - Please don't think I'm trying to be an ass. Perhaps it is only the BMW guys that are smart enough to come here & have good discussions??

I'm looking forward to getting my butt handed to me next year in ITR - Hopefully, we'll have a really good turnout in the new class :)

[tnord]

sorry jeff, my guess is you're going to be the only one out there.

[dj10]

I guess I'm on the other side of the fence.

Race a honda - $400 for an ecu that uses the stock harness & spend $300 to tune it with a new chip.

Fits in the case & is extremely reliable.


I've always been a bmw fan, but it seems that most of the gut-wrenching discussion and arguments against rules comes from the bmw drivers (high percentage). I didn't realize it was that hard to make them run fast. These are just my observations - Please don't think I'm trying to be an ass. Perhaps it is only the BMW guys that are smart enough to come here & have good discussions??

I'm looking forward to getting my butt handed to me next year in ITR - Hopefully, we'll have a really good turnout in the new class :) [/b]



Yo BudMan, BTW I drive a BMW and I drink Wild Turkey. :D

As for your post I'm also going to ITR for 07 and I'd like to comment on your observation. What you described sounds to me like you'd like something like a Honda Challange. Not all cars are so lucky to have a plug and play EMS like you described. The fun of IT racing is that you are racing against different manufactures. If I wanted to race against all the same cars, I'd be doing BMW club racing, to which I have no interest to do. I'm happy for you if you want to go the Honda route and you have a cheap way to get the EMS to work for you. I for one believe in the new ITR and the multi manfactures concept and I hope to see you on the track.

Best of luck with your ITR project.

dj

[lateapex911]

He may, or may not be, the only one out there in ITR. It really will mirror the IT subscription levels in that part of the country I bet.

But it will grow. Here in the NE, I know lots of guys thinking and scheming...we'll see counts near ITC counts to start with. Integra Rs, E36s, Porsche Boxsters and 944S2s and Z cars will all see track time I bet.

On the BMW thing, I don't think we can attach any of the need for open ECU rules to the needs of BMW drivers.... thats just preposterous. Maybe certain BMWs are common platforms and are plentiful, and demonstrate certain characterisics that apply to this rule, but this is NOT about BMWs.

How do I know? Well, I started the thread, I started the internal ITAC thread/discussion, and I am basically the guy who got the ball rolling on this. Now, others have contributed massively, but as the ball roller, so to speak, I can tell you that until I read that post, the term BMW never crossed my mind.

This is about making it easy for as many as possible to acheive the process power that has been assigned to their car. Some of you are lucky, others, Honda owners as well, are most definately not lucky.

[tnord]

a lot of times in racing, we try to bring the guys at the front back to the middle ground by way of spec tires, SS based rules, sealed engines, etc. THIS DOESN'T WORK. All it does is make it more expensive to get to the front.

what this rule is about is bringing the bottom up. opening up the ECU rule has the intent of making it cheaper to achieve the same gains as the guys who are currently stuffing "motec in a box." nobody is promising you will improve your position, all that's intended is to make it easier for you to have the best equipment available.

[Bill Miller]

On the BMW thing, I don't think we can attach any of the need for open ECU rules to the needs of BMW drivers.... thats just preposterous.[/b]

Not trying to be an ass here, but isn't that exactly what they did w/ the dual-classification?

[lateapex911]

DC applies to all cars that were currently in ITS that have also been listed in ITR. Not marque specific at all, categorical.

[C. Ludwig]

a lot of times in racing, we try to bring the guys at the front back to the middle ground by way of spec tires, SS based rules, sealed engines, etc. THIS DOESN'T WORK. All it does is make it more expensive to get to the front.

what this rule is about is bringing the bottom up. opening up the ECU rule has the intent of making it cheaper to achieve the same gains as the guys who are currently stuffing "motec in a box." nobody is promising you will improve your position, all that's intended is to make it easier for you to have the best equipment available.
[/b]

That is so clear, to the point, and concise...eloquent dare I say?...it brings a tear to my eye!

[dj10]

But it will grow. Here in the NE, I know lots of guys thinking and scheming...we'll see counts near ITC counts to start with. Integra Rs, E36s, Porsche Boxsters and 944S2s and Z cars will all see track time I bet.

On the BMW thing, I don't think we can attach any of the need for open ECU rules to the needs of BMW drivers.... thats just preposterous. Maybe certain BMWs are common platforms and are plentiful, and demonstrate certain characterisics that apply to this rule, but this is NOT about BMWs.

How do I know? Well, I started the thread, I started the internal ITAC thread/discussion, and I am basically the guy who got the ball rolling on this. Now, others have contributed massively, but as the ball roller, so to speak, I can tell you that until I read that post, the term BMW never crossed my mind.
[/b]



Jake,

To me this attitude is refreshing as well as productive. Even though I do race a BMW, it is only logical that an open ECU would benefit every car possible with few exceptions. If a Honda, as an example has a less complicated EMS install, good for them. But I assure you it will be worth it in the long run, no matter what car you run.

I hope we can keep the pressure on the CRB to draft asap, the new rule. I know you have had some very talented people involved. We need this sooner than later because this isn't tuning for a flat plate restrictor.

dj

[tnord]

That is so clear, to the point, and concise...eloquent dare I say?...it brings a tear to my eye!
[/b]


thanks chris...like Jules in Tarrantino's classic, i felt i had a moment of clarity right before i posted, and that all my experience in racing (a whopping 3yrs) finally came together. or maybe it was just gas.

i've been meaning to respond to your PM, but i've actually been working while at work.

i would really like to hear more arguments on both sides for where the line is drawn for the open ECU rule in terms of sensors and wiring harness.

[Bill Miller]

DC applies to all cars that were currently in ITS that have also been listed in ITR. Not marque specific at all, categorical.
[/b]


Ok, that's the party line, but we know why it was done. And speaking of which, has there been any decision as to what the exact parameters of DC are going to be? Will there be a sunset date? Does it only apply to cars that have a current logbook?

[Knestis]

... At this point, we will submit the rule change as we wrote it ( at this point it's at a fairly progressive state, in order to look at the extremes) to the CRB and it should go out on next months Fastrack for member feedback, with a preface to summarize the situation and intent, and we'll see what happens. ...[/b]

Sorry, Jake - I've been swamped with work and getting ready for the VIR 13 so I might have missed something, but what are the specifics of the "rule change as [you] wrote it?" I continue to be of a mixed mind on this issue and am working hard to resolve things myself, one way or the other.

And, Miller - I could have gone for ages without being reminded about the DC thing. My prognostication is, now that that particular horse is out of the barn, the door ain't going to get closed. DC's will be applied inconsistently in the future and within a few years, they will become an issue.

K

[Z3_GoCar]

......

On the BMW thing, I don't think we can attach any of the need for open ECU rules to the needs of BMW drivers.... thats just preposterous. Maybe certain BMWs are common platforms and are plentiful, and demonstrate certain characterisics that apply to this rule, but this is NOT about BMWs.

How do I know? Well, I started the thread, I started the internal ITAC thread/discussion, and I am basically the guy who got the ball rolling on this. Now, others have contributed massively, but as the ball roller, so to speak, I can tell you that until I read that post, the term BMW never crossed my mind.

This is about making it easy for as many as possible to acheive the process power that has been assigned to their car. Some of you are lucky, others, Honda owners as well, are most definately not lucky.
[/b]

While I'm a BMW racer, I'm only able to speak to what I know. This weekend while talking to the driver of 200sx Radial Sedan that's going to switch over to ITA, I learned that Nissan racers with OBDII are in the same boat, even the Nissan tuner guru's are scratching their collective heads on it. There are work-arounds that are tuned as a package with cams, but it's not flexable enough to be installed minus the cams package and be reprogrammed. The BMW need is there, but also Nissan's have the need too, how about Porsche's, VW's, Toyota's? So I can say that just because a couple of BMW racers are active on this thread, it's not just a BMW problem. I've been saying all along that the intent of ODBII was to make engine management tamper-proof. Even before OBD, there was the old non-adjustable smog carburetors, you know the ones with the factory sealed adjustment screws :wacko: What does OBDII do when you remove the cat? What about the post cat oxy sensor? These things are engineered, designed, and built as a system. They are fully integrated into how the car runs. Unless you were on the design team, and studied what would happen if??, there's no way to tell what the consequences of just willy-nilly unplugging things like post-cat oxygen sensors. Sometimes it's just benign, and sometimes it's really bad, it all depends on the system dynamics.

James

[stevel]

I guess I'm on the other side of the fence.

Race a honda - $400 for an ecu that uses the stock harness & spend $300 to tune it with a new chip.


[/b]

Relative to the other makes here that's not a bad price. But if you're paying $400 for a chipped ecu for a honda someone is really ripping you off. Using a stock chipped ECU is the way to go (for most apps i've had). No need to stuff anything in the case. Just plug the stock one back in. Can't get more reliable than a stock honda ECU! And $300 to tune it isn't a great price either. For hondas I do the whole thing for about half that total cost!

s

[shwah]

I was looking at the 'alternate' fuel injection system for my Golf the other night (we can run CIS-E or Digifant electronic fuel injection). Noticing the small cross section of the Digi mass air flow sensor, the idea to allow alternate sensors floated in this thread came to mind. If this were allowed I would certainly convert to Digifant and find a reason to run an alternate MAF unit with much lower flow restriction, or run a speed density system swapping a MAP sensor for the MAF sensor.

So I guess I am more opposed to alternate sensors than I was before.

[stevel]

I've been saying all along that the intent of ODBII was to make engine management tamper-proof. Even before OBD, there was the old non-adjustable smog carburetors, you know the ones with the factory sealed adjustment screws :wacko: What does OBDII do when you remove the cat? What about the post cat oxy sensor? These things are engineered, designed, and built as a system. They are fully integrated into how the car runs. Unless you were on the design team, and studied what would happen if??, there's no way to tell what the consequences of just willy-nilly unplugging things like post-cat oxygen sensors. Sometimes it's just benign, and sometimes it's really bad, it all depends on the system dynamics.


[/b]


Again, that's a blanket statement about OBDII. The BMW crowd may have it tough when it comes to OBDII, but that's certainly not true for all makes. There are plenty of OBDII cars out there with aftermarket options that allow full tuning of A/F and timing parameters and more. I know it doesn't have a whole lot to do with this discussion, but I just wanted to get it out there. OBDII is not tamper or "tune-proof" by any means. It all depends on the car you have. If you've got a ford or chevy (bad example i know, who wants to race those things ;) ), you can pretty much control whatever you want in the ECU. Some of the Honda's have fully programmable options out there also.

For the record, I think solutions have become cheap enough and I think it's a great idea to open up the ECU. Hell, I say make the wiring unlimited too. As long as you don't have to alter the intake manifold (to get other gains) then I say let people replace all the sensor they want.

s

[dj10]

Relative to the other makes here that's not a bad price. But if you're paying $400 for a chipped ecu for a honda someone is really ripping you off. Using a stock chipped ECU is the way to go (for most apps i've had). No need to stuff anything in the case. Just plug the stock one back in. Can't get more reliable than a stock honda ECU! And $300 to tune it isn't a great price either. For hondas I do the whole thing for about half that total cost!

s [/b]



This is about engine management systems, not chipped ecu's. If you like your ecu, keep it. I'm sure you'll find out you can fine tune more with a EMS.

[Eagle7]

I was looking at the 'alternate' fuel injection system for my Golf the other night (we can run CIS-E or Digifant electronic fuel injection). Noticing the small cross section of the Digi mass air flow sensor, the idea to allow alternate sensors floated in this thread came to mind. If this were allowed I would certainly convert to Digifant and find a reason to run an alternate MAF unit with much lower flow restriction, or run a speed density system swapping a MAP sensor for the MAF sensor.

So I guess I am more opposed to alternate sensors than I was before.
[/b]
I hadn't heard this slant on it before. I had always assumed that we'd be required to make all intake air pass through the original unmodified air metering device. If your whizbang ECU doesn't need it, fine, don't use its output, but it still passes all the air through it. If you need a different sensor for your ECU, fine, add one, but keep that stock air metering device intact.

So, would it be a good or a bad idea to allow the removal of the stock air metering device?

[C. Ludwig]

I hadn't heard this slant on it before. I had always assumed that we'd be required to make all intake air pass through the original unmodified air metering device. If your whizbang ECU doesn't need it, fine, don't use its output, but it still passes all the air through it. If you need a different sensor for your ECU, fine, add one, but keep that stock air metering device intact.
[/b]


I agree 100%.

[Z3_GoCar]

That's the thing thought, I'm not talking about a system where you can just change the chip. The type of systems that I'm refering to require a software download. Imagine trying to install Mac based Word on a Windows system and you start to see the issue we're really dealing with. Now combine that with chassis differences that mean to make a maximum effort require in car dyno tuning, when there's maybe one guy in the US that has most of a system cracked and is holding that knoledge as proprietary as he's spent literally hundreds of hours cracking code that's held proprietary by the O.E. manufacture. What this one guy does offer is a software download that's a one size fits all approach, maybe it's matched to his trick intake system, or a cam swap kit, or even intake manifold, but what it isn't is matched to is your IT car. Now go ask any woman in your life if one-size-fits-all really fits. It's really more like one-size-fits-none, unless you stuff a new on the fly programable system in.

With my stand-alone I started to see this same kind of problem. You see the early TEC-II systems, which mine is, have a non-tunable chip. So you have to guess what parameters to start with, write, compile, and down-load the software code into the system, run it on the dyno to make measurements, rebuild the software with tweeked parameters, recompile and download and repeat. With this sytem I was looking at a 3-day effort and maybe $1500 just to dyno-tune. I cut this cost in half by changing out the prom to the newer on-the-fly programable one. Three days of on and off dyno effort became a couple of hours. I went from a system that was so rich that I had to change oil because of the fuel dumped into it and plugs lasted minutes before they were totally fouled, to one where I've just put three double race weekend on one set of plugs. Anyway, like I said before any relief will be appreciated.

James

[Eric Parham]

I was looking at the 'alternate' fuel injection system for my Golf the other night (we can run CIS-E or Digifant electronic fuel injection). Noticing the small cross section of the Digi mass air flow sensor, the idea to allow alternate sensors floated in this thread came to mind. If this were allowed I would certainly convert to Digifant and find a reason to run an alternate MAF unit with much lower flow restriction, or run a speed density system swapping a MAP sensor for the MAF sensor.
So I guess I am more opposed to alternate sensors than I was before.[/b]
Actually, you're quite lucky. Not only do you already have the two choices that you mentioned, but you can also use the California-only hotwire sensor with a different version of Digifant (BTW, this is the best way to go for your application, IMHO). So, now that you can use so many different sensors under the CURRENT rules, why not let others have an option too?

Obviously, some cars have it even better, though. For example, NOTHING measures the air before the intake manifold on many Japanese models. Their only limitation is already the throttle-body and hard parts. I think we should draw the line right there, at the stock throttle body, and allow removal/substitution/addition of ANY desired or needed air metering device.

I think carbuereted cars should be allowed to update/upgrade to electronic fuel injection too, should they so desire. Injectors could be allowed to be inserted into the manifold or disabled carb. The only thing I wouldn't do is allow direct injection into the combustion chamber (unless OEM), mainly for safety reasons.

[Z3_GoCar]

Again, that's a blanket statement about OBDII. ..... OBDII is not tamper or "tune-proof" by any means. ....
s
[/b]

That's silly, the EPA/CARB madate is for the system to be tamper proof. No if's and or but's about it.

This is from a proposed California Senate Bill:

SB-1146 (http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/sen/sb_1101-1150/sb_1146_cfa_19990714_220721_sen_floor.html)

Pursuant to California's unique authority under the CAA to
establish its own vehicle emissions standards for new cars,
CARB revised its regulations for use in 1994 and later
model year cars to require the use of OBD II devices. To
address concerns about aftermarket tampering of the
computer chips in OBD systems, CARB's OBD II regulations
require the computer monitoring system to be tamper-proof
so that its computer-code operating parameters cannot be




SB 1146
Page
7

altered without specialized tools and procedures. (Title
13, CCR, Section 1968.1(d)(1993).) Thus, prior to selling
any new car or new car engine in California, automobile
manufacturers must obtain certification from CARB that the
car and engine comply with CARB's OBD II requirements.

Proponents of this bill contend that auto makers have used
the regulations and designed the OBD II systems in such a
way as to lock out competitors in the aftermarket parts
replacement market. Proponents of this bill thus seek to
persuade the Legislature to exercise its police powers to
compel the disclosure of specified information to enable
aftermarket parts manufacturers to build aftermarket parts
that are compatible with the OBD II systems.

And also this gem:

Anti-Tampering, some legaleese (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=dc&navby=case&no=961392a)

Second, California has been certifying cars with OBD II systems since the 1994 model year. Until the 1997 revisions, each car sold with an OBD II system had to "employ proven methods to deter unauthorized reprogramming which may include copyrightable executable routines or other methods." Cal. Code Regs. tit. 13, § 1968.1(d) (1995). These cars contin- ue to carry OBDs equipped with methods to deter repro- gramming, notwithstanding repeal of the requirements. If, as petitioners contend, the Clean Air Act requires both California and EPA to implement regulations barring the installation of any anti-tampering mechanisms in their OBDs, then the state unlawfully required manufacturers to install copyrightable routines designed to deter reprogramming over four model years.

James

ps. Just because California stopped requiring copyrightable routines doesn't mean that copyrighted routines aren't still being used even to this day. Also, to reinterate this isn't just a BMW issue, Evo's, Impressa's, and Honda/Acura's, are practically open source, Great! just because they are doesn't mean everything is.

[shwah]

Actually, you're quite lucky. Not only do you already have the two choices that you mentioned, but you can also use the California-only hotwire sensor with a different version of Digifant (BTW, this is the best way to go for your application, IMHO). So, now that you can use so many different sensors under the CURRENT rules, why not let others have an option too?

Obviously, some cars have it even better, though. For example, NOTHING measures the air before the intake manifold on many Japanese models. Their only limitation is already the throttle-body and hard parts. I think we should draw the line right there, at the stock throttle body, and allow removal/substitution/addition of ANY desired or needed air metering device.

I think carbuereted cars should be allowed to update/upgrade to electronic fuel injection too, should they so desire. Injectors could be allowed to be inserted into the manifold or disabled carb. The only thing I wouldn't do is allow direct injection into the combustion chamber (unless OEM), mainly for safety reasons.
[/b]

I know about the California system.

I do think that we basically move way down the road towards Production class if we go to the point alluded to here - anything in front of the throttle body is OK as long as you keep the original type of fuel injection. I do not support going that far. There is a definite element of choosing the right car in Improved Touring. IMO that is part of the technical challenge, among many others, of building a competitve car.

[lateapex911]

Agreed. Any movement that I support will not have any changes to the parts on the car, which I feel should remain functional. (If your car came with a flapper box, it has to stay, and keep flapping, in the same exact fashion it did from the factory)

I am considering the issue of ignoring it's signal, lets call the signal "russian", and the allowance of say, a MAP sensor that outputs, lets say "english", so that a cheaper EMS system could be used, one that understands English, but not Russian.

But anything that allows a system that wasn't delivered from the factory is not going to fly in my book.

Again, if we go this route, the goal, in my mind, is to make it easier for more people to approach the performance levels that have been designed into the process, that are only attainable by a lucky or wealthy few now.

[JoshS]

I am far from an expert in this subject, but I can't just help but think that almost all of the variations of the original proposal suggested in this thread RAISE my costs, not lower them.

I think the "stock box" rule is a HUGE limitation, just because of the number of "piggyback" units available off-the-shelf for many cars that the current rule makes unavailable to IT racers.

But as soon as you allow alternate wiring, additional sensors, or replacement/removal/addition of "hard parts," that really shouts "expensive" to me. Yes, yes, yes, I know about this open-source programming system available. It still requires an expert to install it, and experts are expensive. Much more expensive than buying off-the-shelf components and plugging them in.

You all should go back to the simpler approach you'd been proposing. I feel like most of these suggestions really are a huge leap beyond what IT has always been, and I don't think that was your goal.

[Eric Parham]

Agreed. Any movement that I support will not have any changes to the parts on the car, which I feel should remain functional. (If your car came with a flapper box, it has to stay, and keep flapping, in the same exact fashion it did from the factory)

I am considering the issue of ignoring it's signal, lets call the signal "russian", and the allowance of say, a MAP sensor that outputs, lets say "english", so that a cheaper EMS system could be used, one that understands English, but not Russian.

But anything that allows a system that wasn't delivered from the factory is not going to fly in my book.

Again, if we go this route, the goal, in my mind, is to make it easier for more people to approach the performance levels that have been designed into the process, that are only attainable by a lucky or wealthy few now.[/b]
I think sensors and wiring should be free, but would support the above even if it required that "the stock air metering unit must be retained and all intake air must pass through it", or something like that. There's just one more minor problem to consider, if you do insist on that language. That problem is that certain air metering or measuring units actually operate in feedback, and even more will as time goes on. That is, the tension and/or opening angle and/or temperature of the "air metering device" may be controlled by the stock computer, either by a direct electronic actuator or in some cases by indirect means. If the stock computer isn't there anymore, I suspect that some of these units will be "flapping in the breeze", so to speak, and might require that a complicated new control output be provided to them for no good reason. Hence, I question not whether it's possible to do this, but whether that's really a desired outcome (unnecessary costs, etc.). YMMV.

Edit: Possible solution: "The stock air metering unit must be retained and all intake air must pass through it, but the air metering unit may be gutted of movable and/or electrical parts".

[Eagle7]

Edit: Possible solution: "The stock air metering unit must be retained and all intake air must pass through it, but the air metering unit may be gutted of movable and/or electrical parts".
[/b]
Well, my car has a spring loaded flapper door, so what you are proposing would lower the restriction on my intake, potentially allowing more air to pass. Is that what you intended?

[Eric Parham]

Well, my car has a spring loaded flapper door, so what you are proposing would lower the restriction on my intake, potentially allowing more air to pass. Is that what you intended?
[/b]
Yours and most existing airflow meters happen to be inherantly stable, and operate open-loop (passive) rather than in a feedback (active) mode. You could just disconnect the electrical connector and pull the air through it. This was the way it was designed so that cars could "limp home". I don't know the spring rate of your flapper valve spring, and probably neither does anyone else. Thus, any restriction from the flapper part is either negligible or unenforcible.

As I said, I'd prefer to do away with everything in front of the throttle body, but I think that keeping the airflow meter (with it's potentially restrictive i.d., etc.) is also a workable solution provided that we allow the movable or electrical parts to be removed, as desired. Note that it's also possible that gutting the flapper might actually cause more restriction due to turbulence, so it's not necessarily going to be an advantage either.

[dj10]

I am far from an expert in this subject, but I can't just help but think that almost all of the variations of the original proposal suggested in this thread RAISE my costs, not lower them.

I think the "stock box" rule is a HUGE limitation, just because of the number of "piggyback" units available off-the-shelf for many cars that the current rule makes unavailable to IT racers.

But as soon as you allow alternate wiring, additional sensors, or replacement/removal/addition of "hard parts," that really shouts "expensive" to me. Yes, yes, yes, I know about this open-source programming system available. It still requires an expert to install it, and experts are expensive. Much more expensive than buying off-the-shelf components and plugging them in.

You all should go back to the simpler approach you'd been proposing. I feel like most of these suggestions really are a huge leap beyond what IT has always been, and I don't think that was your goal.
[/b]



No one is forcing you to use optional sensors, use the one's you need to fine tune your car. You think this is expensive, deal with the current rule that only allows a ems stuffed in your ecu box and you have to use the factory wiring harness!!!!!!!! Now your talking BIG BUCKS. What everyone here is proposing is a way to fine tune your engine which will save you engine repairs, gas and will be evironmentally friendlier. The other option is use you stock ecu and that won't cost you anything.

[tnord]

What everyone here is proposing is a way to fine tune your engine which will save you engine repairs, gas and will be evironmentally friendlier. The other option is use you stock ecu and that won't cost you anything.
[/b]

that is not my intention at all; as these are irrelevant benefits. if you can't make a engine reliable it's your own fault, open ECU or not. environmentally friendly? seriously? if the EPA comes knocking on the front door of the SCCA and says "clean up or we're shutting you down," then fine, otherwise no need to mention it. saving $ on fuel? what's it going to do, give you 10.5mpg instead of 10? what's it cost you for a standalone EMS? $1000 minimum for parts and tuning? care to do the math on how long it will actually take to recoup those costs through fuel efficiency.

don't distract from the real issues. i may go back and read everything i missed over the last week or so, but somehow it seems the discussion has progressed to alowing any wiring, and any sensor you choose.....i'm not sure how i feel about that just yet.

[JoshS]

No one is forcing you to use optional sensors, use the one's you need to fine tune your car. You think this is expensive, deal with the current rule that only allows a ems stuffed in your ecu box and you have to use the factory wiring harness!!!!!!!! Now your talking BIG BUCKS. What everyone here is proposing is a way to fine tune your engine which will save you engine repairs, gas and will be evironmentally friendlier. The other option is use you stock ecu and that won't cost you anything.
[/b]
I'm not being selfish here, I'm thinking about what's best for the long-term life of the IT category. The goal, as I understand it, of refreshing the ECU rules is to help reduce costs without increasing the ultimate performance.

I'm just suggesting that the best way to do *that* is to find a way to allow any available off-the-shelf components, without essentially forcing anyone who wants to run at the front to take the most advantage of the rules by replacing all of the original stuff.

For me personally, I feel I pretty much have to stick with the stock ECU and just do some custom programming for it. the stock ECU does a LOT of stuff in this car. On the output side alone, the stock ECU controls the fuel injectors, the ignition coils, the throttle valve, the valve timing, the intake manifold valves, the coolant thermostat, the idle speed, and then a whole bunch of other things that don't matter at all for racing performance in IT trim (air pumps, cruise control, A/C, blah blah, blah).

I don't see how I can replace this thing and even get the car to start without a tremendous amount of expensive, custom, knowledge. It would be WAY more expensive than custom programming. So that's all I will be doing (and the only reason I need custom programming instead of off-the-shelf programming is that I need the computer to be willing to avoid limp mode when it doesn't have catalytic converters or wheel speed sensors).

And my car is 8 years old. Many newer cars are going to be even worse.

So anyway, none of this is about me ... I won't be doing anything other than changing programming. I truly believe that the best thing for IT in the future is to simply allow piggyback computers that use the factory wiring and sensors, but essentially removes the "stock box" requirement. The goal was to reduce costs, right?

I guess maybe as more and more IT cars are like mine, whatever gets decided won't matter. It will be SO expensive to take advantage of whatever rules you are all proposing now that everyone will ignore them and use their stock ECUs. But what I fear is that the rules will allow for something a little bit faster than off-the-shelf software or piggyback units but a LOT more expensive, both in parts and knowledge.

[Eric Parham]

So anyway, none of this is about me ... I won't be doing anything other than changing programming. I truly believe that the best thing for IT in the future is to simply allow piggyback computers that use the factory wiring and sensors, but essentially removes the "stock box" requirement. The goal was to reduce costs, right?[/b]
Right, the goal is to reduce costs for EVERYONE, including those whose cars didn't originally come with all the desired sensors (with wires leading into the box) and actuators that yours did. To paraphrase, aren't you saying that you don't happen to need to add any sensors or wiring since it's already there, so why should you agree to a rule that might let others catch up, right?

[C. Ludwig]

Some newer systems may operate in an inherantly unstable active mode (e.g., absolute emissions control may take precedence over limp mode for a perceived emissions malfunction). Thus, disconnecting a near-future flapper might cause it to close rather than open under the force of the incoming air, thereby stalling the engine if the original computer doesn't send it exactly the right signal to balance the incoming airflow. Such an active feedback-loop type meter is preferred because it's more sensitive over a wider range of airflows. All in all, I don't mind "giving" you whatever slight advantage gutting the flapper might provide in order to come up with a workable rule so newer cars can play too.
[/b]


There's nothing like that in place currently and your hypothesis holds no water. I can't think of a single new vehicle that currently uses the dated flapper door aparatus. It's a dated technology that has been surpassed by true mass air meters that have no moving parts. Not only is a MAF system potentially more accurate than the older systems but manufacturers want to remove just as much restriction in the air stream as you do. Flapper doors haven't been used in years for good reason and I highly doubt there will be a return.

Where do you guys come up with this stuff?

[Eric Parham]

Sorry, my mistake.

[dj10]

that is not my intention at all; as these are irrelevant benefits. if you can't make a engine reliable it's your own fault, open ECU or not. environmentally friendly? seriously? if the EPA comes knocking on the front door of the SCCA and says "clean up or we're shutting you down," then fine, otherwise no need to mention it. saving $ on fuel? what's it going to do, give you 10.5mpg instead of 10? what's it cost you for a standalone EMS? $1000 minimum for parts and tuning? care to do the math on how long it will actually take to recoup those costs through fuel efficiency.

don't distract from the real issues. i may go back and read everything i missed over the last week or so, but somehow it seems the discussion has progressed to alowing any wiring, and any sensor you choose.....i'm not sure how i feel about that just yet.
[/b]



Do you think for 1 second I was just talking about you? I'll do the math, 2% of 1 = .02, 2% of 100000 = 2000. Don't think in the 1st person or they will name streets after you.........."ONE WAY". Remember, every little bit helps.

[Z3_GoCar]

Just curious Jake. Any new information from the CRB?
Thanks,


James

[dj10]

Just curious Jake. Any new information from the CRB?
Thanks,
James [/b]

James I just sent the CRB a letter on this. Hey ITAC any news? Is it me or does it seem like any more questions about the ECU Rule are purposely being avoided?

[dj10]

James I just sent the CRB a letter on this. Hey ITAC any news? Is it me or does it seem like any more questions about the ECU Rule are purposely being avoided?

[/b]

[lateapex911]

We are discussing it tonight. The next Fastrack will, I hope, have an item concerning it, and we'll go from there.

Feel free to send in your thoughts currently, or in reaction to the Fastrack item.

As you all know, this isn't the simplest item ever, and involves nearly every aspect of rulemaking and policy setting that a commitee will encounter.

It's got people on all sides, and the subject needs to be thoroughly understood.

Even the core philosophy gets involved on this one.

(I like thes kinds of things, LOL)

[dj10]

We are discussing it tonight. The next Fastrack will, I hope, have an item concerning it, and we'll go from there.

Feel free to send in your thoughts currently, or in reaction to the Fastrack item.

As you all know, this isn't the simplest item ever, and involves nearly every aspect of rulemaking and policy setting that a commitee will encounter.

It's got people on all sides, and the subject needs to be thoroughly understood.

Even the core philosophy gets involved on this one.

(I like thes kinds of things, LOL) [/b]



Thanks, Jake for the come back. I emailed my letter to the CRB/ ITAC on Sunday concerning this matter. I agree with you, this would be interesting, I wished I tap the phone line and just listen. :D

[lateapex911]

Thanks, Jake for the come back. I emailed my letter to the CRB/ ITAC on Sunday concerning this matter. I agree with you, this would be interesting, I wished I tap the phone line and just listen. :D
[/b]

LOL...well, if you did tap the line, your bill might have been high, although at 3 hours, this con call wasn't all that long.

We went over a normal amount of letters, then the ECU topic got a very productive discussion.

I will be submitting a new rule that will go out in the december Fastrack for member comment.

I think many here are going to be pleased with the concept.

[dj10]

LOL...well, if you did tap the line, your bill might have been high, although at 3 hours, this con call wasn't all that long.

We went over a normal amount of letters, then the ECU topic got a very productive discussion.

I will be submitting a new rule that will go out in the december Fastrack for member comment.

I think many here are going to be pleased with the concept.
[/b]

Jake, I have vonage, all calls are free. But what you are saying sounds like most everyone was and is receptive to the idea of change? Can you post how your new rule is to read? This looks very positive and should make a lot of people happy, buyers, sellers and tuners. This would be great if approved by the anniversity date of the SIR or before.

WTG ITAC & CRB

[lateapex911]

Can you post how your new rule is to read?

WTG ITAC & CRB
[/b]


LOL...no can do.....I haven't written it yet, LOL.

Once I write it, we will hash it back and forth I imagine, fie tuning the wording, then it will go to Fastrack.

If the big bosses think it's OK for net consumption before then, i'll post it.

Suffice it to say that most on the commitee feel that indeed the time has come and a more progressive approach is needed.

[gran racing]

IF a change to the ECU rules were given a thumbs-up, when is the earliest the new changes would be legal? Is this something that could be made effective for the 2007 racing season?

[lateapex911]

No, this is a big deal, so it will hit the Fastrack in December. Then member feedback occurs. Then it goes back to the ITAC for a call yea, or nay. If "yea", then it goes to the CRB, and so forth. I would imagine, (but I'm a bit hazy on the protocols upstream) that it could be set up for a "go live" date in the spring. Kinda like the , acckk..cough...( sorry...hairball in the throat there)...SIR was last year.

But hopefully this will be seen...IF it passes...as a good thing.

[dj10]

No, this is a big deal, so it will hit the Fastrack in December. Then member feedback occurs. Then it goes back to the ITAC for a call yea, or nay. If "yea", then it goes to the CRB, and so forth. I would imagine, (but I'm a bit hazy on the protocols upstream) that it could be set up for a "go live" date in the spring. Kinda like the , acckk..cough...( sorry...hairball in the throat there)...SIR was last year.

But hopefully this will be seen...IF it passes...as a good thing. [/b]



Damn right this is a BIG deal. I've hated the ECU rule ever since I first read it. Jake you seem pretty level headed I hope you take advantage of the quality tuners and installers that are out there for their advice. Knowledge + Common Sense = Wisdom

[88YB1]

Anything new? :014:

[lateapex911]

The current status is that we (the ITAC) are going over proposed wording for the Fastrack notice/ call for member input.

The next Fastrack will, I think, have it, and you will be encouraged to respond with your support, or your criticism.

[dj10]

The current status is that we (the ITAC) are going over proposed wording for the Fastrack notice/ call for member input.

The next Fastrack will, I think, have it, and you will be encouraged to respond with your support, or your criticism.
[/b]

Myself and I'm sure many others have been waiting for something on this. I'm sure you will see immediate response.

[DaveITB1]

The current status is that we (the ITAC) are going over proposed wording for the Fastrack notice/ call for member input.

The next Fastrack will, I think, have it, and you will be encouraged to respond with your support, or your criticism.
[/b]


The Feb '07 Fasttrack is out.
This is the only thing I found regarding the topic.

4. IT – Allow oxygen sensor simulators (Sirota). We will continue to monitor programming and piggyback technologies.

Was that it, or did I miss it in a different part of the document?

[lateapex911]

Nope, thats not it. Thats a seperate item.

The ECUu rule didn't make fastrack due to the Christmas/New Years holiday stuff and the messing that does with con call schedules, etc.

The discussion has happened over several con calls, with research done in between, and the direction has been settled.

I have written the rule, with several versions/revisions, and the CRB will be discussing it on their next con call, and as they have been on our con calls, it should go straight to Fastrack. I am HOPING that it hits the newstands 2-20, and member feedback will be overwhelmingly suppportive.

The gears ARE turning, but this is a BIG deal, and one that attempts to fix what many considered to be one of the most screwed up rules on the books....and one that nobody could seem to agree COULD be fixed.

Your patience is appreciated.