ECU Rules.....is it time? HELL YES!!! [Archive] - Page 2

Joe Harlan

01-27-2007, 11:59 AM

Joe when you do a 300zx, do you flash the ecu as well as tuning with a chip? Yea 600.00 is cheap but how do you deal with dyno time to setup the ecu on a dyno tuned to the engine? Like I told you I have a obd1 and this is no sweat off my ass which ever way this goes. I do know the current ecu "rule has to be changed".

Dan
[/b]Dan your gonna have dyno time no matter what you do? Some how I think you have been sold on the idea you plug this magical bax it and make instant power? The 300zx boxes I have done are OBD1 and require the same mods as the 240sx ecu. Flashing is just a term for reprogramming a chip. I posted several great links to get an education on this stuff I am not going to try to type all of that information.

Yes the rule needs fixed to close a big money eating loophole.

pfcs49

01-27-2007, 12:14 PM

What makes "chip tuning" so much simpler than stand-alone is that the basic map has been written by the manufacturer, you just have to move the roads a little. (and only 4000rpm^/full load)
With stand-alone, you're starting in a deep forest with a blank piece of paper. Now figure out all data points from coldstart/idle on up including acceleration enrichment up to full load, and don't waste any time while you're on the dyno! KISS! (keep it simple, stupid!) phil

tnord

01-27-2007, 12:35 PM

Now you just need to jump on the "remove the words 'or replace' and refine the existing wording to limit the rule" bandwagon! Limit the wording to allow refinement of the fuel and timing maps (if applicable), but to NOT allow additional circuitry or functionality, and you'll have a step in the RIGHT direction for IT as a class... :happy204:
[/b]

i don't pretend to know how to write solid rules. i only know what i want the intent of the rulewriters to be, and that's to get rid of standalones in a box, and replace that with the ability to chip the stock ECU and tune ignition, fuel, rev limit, speed limit, and any other variable cam/valve timing. based on how joe says it's done, i realize you can't get rid of TC, but i will administer my own form of marshall law upon these princesses as previously mentioned. :bash_1_:

dj10

01-27-2007, 12:44 PM

Dan your gonna have dyno time no matter what you do? Some how I think you have been sold on the idea you plug this magical bax it and make instant power? The 300zx boxes I have done are OBD1 and require the same mods as the 240sx ecu. Flashing is just a term for reprogramming a chip. I posted several great links to get an education on this stuff I am not going to try to type all of that information.

Yes the rule needs fixed to close a big money eating loophole.
[/b]

I guess what I meant to ask, whas there anything additional that was done to the obd1 box other than making a new chip? I know about computers, you don't snap your fingers and everything is installed and setup. I do feel for the people that have stuffed their old ecu's boxes. If you allow a open ecu rule they will at least be able to not have pissed away all their money in vain and would be able to continue to use their systems. By reverting back to stock ecu's, how much will they have to spend to set up their cars again? I believe opening up the ECU rule may be the most fair, but as you suggest what will come out of the can when you open the rule up is another question. Someone's going to get hurt no matter which way this plays out I'm afraid.

Dan

Joe Harlan

01-27-2007, 01:04 PM

I guess what I meant to ask, whas there anything additional that was done to the obd1 box other than making a new chip? I know about computers, you don't snap your fingers and everything is installed and setup. I do feel for the people that have stuffed their old ecu's boxes. If you allow a open ecu rule they will at least be able to not have pissed away all their money in vain and would be able to continue to use their systems. By reverting back to stock ecu's, how much will they have to spend to set up their cars again? I believe opening up the ECU rule may be the most fair, but as you suggest what will come out of the can when you open the rule up is another question. Someone's going to get hurt no matter which way this plays out I'm afraid.
Dan
[/b]

My money says there are far less people that have exploited this rule than there are in the other catagory.

As far as other things done to the ECU. In the case of the early 240sx you have to desolder and solder in a socket, other Nissan stuff requires a small daughter board to handle the chip. As I stated folloow some of the links I posted an dget a quick education on some of this stuff. Go to AEM or Motec and download their demo software and see just how much you think the average IT racer wants to deal with.

dj10

01-27-2007, 06:34 PM

[quote]

Dan,

Remember, there are guys on the ITAC with active programmable units, guys with the money spent but not active yet (me), and guys with nothing in the works. While we would all like the change (if there is one) to happen immediatetly, I am not sure it can. Since my money is tied up already, I am going to continue my development, run 2007 with a programmable unit and act per the rules in 2008. I WISH I was in your shoes right now.
/quote]

Andy, I can honestly say, I'm glad I'm not in your shoes right now. B) I or we haven't hear from the newbie ITAC member, Mr. Lytle. I think he told me he was running a Stock ecu. I'm wondering what his take is on this?

Z3_GoCar

01-27-2007, 08:38 PM

is it really a kit you bolt on though? a complete standalone system that you have to figure out how to get all of your sensors to talk to, and rewire everything going to the ECU. at this point you've still got a car that doesn't necessairly run. those oddball cars that don't have easy solutions for a chip/reflash won't have an easy solution for standalone EMS either. you'll be on your own.

off to the dyno you go....

....
that doesn't sound like IT to me, sounds like prepared.
[/b]

It really is that easy. Plug the correct sensors in and they talk to the standalone. Furthermore, there are dealers across the nation that can do the tuning too. Unlike stock ecu's where you have to find the few who do the tuning, and they may be a coast away. What sounds like Production is parsing the built in hex code then determining which few bit's to change, then what do you change them too? Wow, that's a real tinker's project. Look at the dealers on the Motec site, you'll find at least one less than 1000 miles from anyone (including the Dakota's.) I've got 5 Electromotive dealers in the LA basin alone. From the built in map it only took three hours of dyno time to find my ideal settings.

Joe Harlan

01-27-2007, 10:54 PM

It really is that easy. Plug the correct sensors in and they talk to the standalone. Furthermore, there are dealers across the nation that can do the tuning too. Unlike stock ecu's where you have to find the few who do the tuning, and they may be a coast away. What sounds like Production is parsing the built in hex code then determining which few bit's to change, then what do you change them too? Wow, that's a real tinker's project. Look at the dealers on the Motec site, you'll find at least one less than 1000 miles from anyone (including the Dakota's.) I've got 5 Electromotive dealers in the LA basin alone. From the built in map it only took three hours of dyno time to find my ideal settings.
[/b]

James, I will ask you. How many systems have you installed tuned or anything else?

lateapex911

01-28-2007, 05:37 PM

"We have one running here in the NE that has a complete system in the stock box. Quite an ingenious setup. I will ask about his power result, but his on track performance hasn't shown any significant difference. "
QUOTE: Jake Gulick

I have a big problem with a member of the ITAC reffering to something that's clearly illegal as "ingenious"
Do you understand this stuff Jake?? phil
[/b]

But Phil, I have a problem with you branding what he has done as illegal, and I say that based on the fact that you are reacting to what he has written, as opposed to what you've see.

What exactly is illegal about it? From what I have been told, his solution is legal, and rather ingenious. Prove me wrong, or protest him, but until that point, dragging acccuatrions across the net doesn't cut it.

(If the info I have gotten is incorrect, and I'm wrong, I apologise, but my info says he's got a good setup)

pfcs49

01-28-2007, 06:50 PM

lateapex911

01-28-2007, 11:48 PM

"I could have SWORN I was shooting the breeze with a Volvo guy, and we were talking ECUs...and I really thought I saw a stock vacuum line running to the ECU box...

So, if thats the case, he's good to go, right?" Jake Gulick, about 3 pages back.

As pointed out previously: how can you get a vacuum liine through an un-modified ECU case without violating the current rule? Clearly it constiutes a modification to the case and clearly it's illegal. Correct me if I'm wrong, phil. [/b]

Re read my post. I clearly said "Stock" as in original equipment vacuum line.

Secondly, if the OEM case has holes in it, you can send whatever you want in or out...and sensors are free at that point. as long as YOU don't mod the case.

It's another part of the "luck of the draw" when it comes to picking a car to race under the current rule.

Now, if I have been misinformed on the OEM nature of that line, then I stand corrected. But if it's a stock line, OR if the case has an existing hole, well then that horse is out of the barn.

pfcs49

01-29-2007, 07:44 AM

Jake: all ECUs are installed in tightly sealed cases. There never was an original vacuum line to the Volvo ECU and there is no legal way to install one. phil

Gary L

01-29-2007, 08:00 AM

Re read my post. I clearly said "Stock" as in original equipment vacuum line.

Secondly, if the OEM case has holes in it, you can send whatever you want in or out...and sensors are free at that point. as long as YOU don't mod the case.

It's another part of the "luck of the draw" when it comes to picking a car to race under the current rule.

Now, if I have been misinformed on the OEM nature of that line, then I stand corrected. But if it's a stock line, OR if the case has an existing hole, well then that horse is out of the barn.
[/b]

Naahh... the horse is still in the barn. Sounds like someone in this particular case left the door open though. :D

For damned sure, there ain't no stock vacuum line that runs to the D-Jet computer. Also, I've seen multiple examples of these ancient devices, and I've never seen one with a hole in the case, never mind one large enough to allow a vacuum line through.

bldn10

01-29-2007, 11:00 AM

"Secondly, if the OEM case has holes in it, you can send whatever you want in or out...and sensors are free at that point. as long as YOU don't mod the case."

Jake, where are you getting all this sensor business? How are sensors free when it expressly says that the addition of sensors outside the ECU box is not permitted? The Rule clearly contemplates that the only connection to the ECU is the "stock (unmodified) wiring harness." I just do not see any allowance to run a connection from an albeit stock sensor into the ECU box other than via the unmodified harness. And it's a "wiring" harness - nothing about any vacuum lines. Moreover, gauges and their necessary sensors/sending units can be added to monitor engine operation and perhaps other things like wheelspeed but no where do I see where it says they can be adjustable on the fly or wired into the ECU. Maybe I'm missing something (and I apologize if so) but I think you are far afield here.

lateapex911

01-29-2007, 01:06 PM

Well, my reading of the rule describes things as you say, and thats probably what the rulesmakers wanted.

Now maybe my info is wrong, but IF there are ways of getting things into the ECU case, then you are free to do whatever you want. So I can see scenarios where it could be possible.

pfcs49

01-29-2007, 04:20 PM

Jake-Nat called me today. What he actually did was run a throttle linkeage setup for an automatic vehicle and run the throttle cable that normally gives throttle position info to the automatic trans into the ECU to a TPS inside the box. Ingenius I agree. Legal? Reasonable men could argue it both ways. In the spirit of IT??
Well, I was a "Volvo From Hell" once too, and the way the D Jetronic wiring hrness and plug mates to the ECM, it may be possible to get the cable thru without cutting the box. phil

bldn10

01-30-2007, 10:38 AM

Jake, I don't understand your reply:

"Well, my reading of the rule describes things as you say, and thats probably what the rulesmakers wanted."

This sounds like we agree, but ...

"Now maybe my info is wrong, but IF there are ways of getting things into the ECU case, then you are free to do whatever you want. So I can see scenarios where it could be possible."

this sounds like you don't.

Are you being devil's advocate or do you actually read the rules to allow you to connect "things" to the ECU that are not connected in a stock setup and/or are not connected via the unmodified stock harness? If so, where do you get that? I just don't see it. If I were a steward and someone told me that they ran such a "thing" into the ECU because there happened to be a vent hole in the ECU box, they would walk away w/ a DQ, suspension, and points. Sounds like you are saying that if there is a way to cheat then it's not cheating. :blink:

lateapex911

01-30-2007, 11:24 AM

What I'm saying is that it's bit grayer.

- IF there is room inside the case, you are free to replace the entire ECU.
- That new ECU may have sensors incorporated in it.
- IF the ECU box has openings, there may be items on the stock car that could be attached.
- Some ECUs are connected in different ways than others. That can allow some creative options.

(I've talked to lots of folks on this, and guys who have stock systems can see ways to do this stuff, and make a good case for it being legal. Others read the rule and think it's not, or shouldn't be.)

Now, I can see the Stewards debating on situations that could arise, and I can see both sides to the issue. Fact is that there are situations where it could be legal, and situations where it might not be.

Basically, allowing the replacement of the entire ECU in the box creates a whole host of issues. If we're going to allow that, then we should allow it. If we're not, then we should be clear that we're not.

pfcs49

01-30-2007, 01:32 PM

Life is circular: When I built my 4dr Volvo in 91, I wanted to take advantage of the rules to sit as far back as possible. Steering wheels and gearshift knobs were free so my hub became 14" long and my knob 8".
The then current rule stated that you could modify the external throttle linkeage to the standard or optional carbertetor(s), so I asked fuel injection to be included under errors and omissions and it was done at once!...And my accelerator pedal got moved back 6". A tech inspector protested my "rear drive" setup (I could pay tolls out the rear window) and the stewards court found the car illegal, I appealed, and national reversed.
Based on precedence (I know, I know!) the existence of Nat's throttle cable is legal-he's halfway home now. Proving that getting it into the ECU is allowed? Your guess is as good as mine, but pushing the rules to the limit I consider to be the mark of a true competitive driver. phil

seckerich

01-30-2007, 06:33 PM

Boy this thing grew while I was at Daytona. I just can't wait to buy the hardware, software, and associated devices needed to connect to a stock computer and burn a new chip every time I change something on the car. This will save tons of money over opening up the laptop and reading the sensors real time and pushing a button. :rolleyes: Joes arguement about the cost of a backup unit is total BS--we carry a spare stock one now--big cost. Might not be as fast but just as cheap as his new rule. It takes the same time and effort to have someone program a Motec/AEM/etc as it does to find the one guru that has cracked the code for your model. And yes--I have actually done this before you ask. This is supposed to be better that we all have to go to "The Guy" that has the crack? Doesn't fly as a cheaper alternative. It is no harder to go to the tuners that have the alternate ECU than it is the chip burner only now I can adjust for free. Data logging is a whole lot better and cheaper than 10 dyno visits. You can write all the rules you like to restrict the stock ECU to chipping or daughter boards and I promise we will go around it before the ink is dry and do it legal. This pipe dream that you will save all IT racers money is just that, a pipe dream. Money will be spent in every class to gain an advantage and that is part of the sport. If some are too lazy to put the time and effort in to go fast they can be happy with what they have--no problem. Some of us are willing to do the work needed to win. It will never be equal as some will do the testing and engineering to win. Joe has provided a ton of very useful and accurate information to this discussion, I just disagree with his conclusions.

pfcs49

01-30-2007, 08:22 PM

tnord

01-30-2007, 11:54 PM

If some are too lazy to put the time and effort in to go fast they can be happy with what they have--no problem. Some of us are willing to do the work needed to win. It will never be equal as some will do the testing and engineering to win.
[/b]

get over yourself. this comment is more than a little insulting, as it implies that those of use who don't have 100% max builds are lazy. actually, it's not even implied, you just come right out and say it.

just because you have more disposable income to waste on this rediculous hobby doesn't mean you work any harder than i do.

Gary L

01-31-2007, 07:00 AM

Based on precedence (I know, I know!) the existence of Nat's throttle cable is legal-he's halfway home now. Proving that getting it into the ECU is allowed? Your guess is as good as mine, but pushing the rules to the limit I consider to be the mark of a true competitive driver. phil
[/b]

Naahh... we need to make a distinction here. That may be the mark of a true competitive car builder/entrant, but it is not the mark of a true competitive driver. In most cases, the mark of a competitive driver is to be so without spending what may end up being thousands of dollars to electronically squeeze the last few horsepower out of an engine. (I realize that in many cases, we're talking the same guy here... builder/entrant/driver.) But my point would be that most drivers at the SCCA amateur level are going to get outrun anyway, tricked up ECU or no, because they don't drive very well.

From a larger perspective, based on this very informative thread, it is painfully obvious that any rewording of the current rule is simply going to result in the possibility of tons of additional money being spent, as a class... again.

Put the genie back in the bottle, go back to stock ECU's. If some individuals have already spent big bucks taking advantage of the current rules, too damned bad. They'll just have to get over it... see Travis' comment WRT disposable income... I agree completely.

seckerich

01-31-2007, 08:31 AM

get over yourself. this comment is more than a little insulting, as it implies that those of use who don't have 100% max builds are lazy. actually, it's not even implied, you just come right out and say it.

just because you have more disposable income to waste on this rediculous hobby doesn't mean you work any harder than i do.
[/b]
Not so Travis. I only pointed out that forcing me to do less than 100% so that you don't have to is no more right than the other way around. I built my car in 1998 and still race it today. I would call it 99% at this point with more labor than money. I worked races for Speedsource all this time to help pay for the upgrades. You can make your own decision on how dedicated you want to be. No disrespect intended.

lateapex911

01-31-2007, 09:32 AM

Put the genie back in the bottle, go back to stock ECU's. If some individuals have already spent big bucks taking advantage of the current rules, too damned bad. They'll just have to get over it... see Travis' comment WRT disposable income... I agree completely.

[/b]

You do realize the implications of going back to stock, don't you?

Increasingly, the ramifications of increased whole car control systems will eliminate cars in the ITCS from racing, as rev limiters, speed limiters, traction controls, stability controls and who knows what else rear their heads. Is that what you want? Newer cars to be essentially banned? And what of old cars with ECUs that even stock are unreliable and impossible to find/replace? Do you really think stock is enforceable? (not that that should matter, because nobody cheats....)

........... It takes the same time and effort to have someone program a Motec/AEM/etc as it does to find the one guru that has cracked the code for your model. And yes--I have actually done this before you ask. This is supposed to be better that we all have to go to "The Guy" that has the crack? Doesn't fly as a cheaper alternative............ [/b]

I agree with this in certain circumstances. Of course, in other circumstances, you cna buy a chip for very little, and in yet other circumstances it's impossible.

And many of us won't have to go to anyone to do their aftermarket system as the applications included eliminate the need to understand and write code....so in many cases an open rule would give the option of being your own tuner, and needing to rely on nobody, but having a manufacturer and the net as your support structure. And for less $ in many cases.

Gary L

01-31-2007, 10:39 AM

You do realize the implications of going back to stock, don't you?

Increasingly, the ramifications of increased whole car control systems will eliminate cars in the ITCS from racing, as rev limiters, speed limiters, traction controls, stability controls and who knows what else rear their heads. Is that what you want? Newer cars to be essentially banned? And what of old cars with ECUs that even stock are unreliable and impossible to find/replace? Do you really think stock is enforceable? (not that that should matter, because nobody cheats....)
[/b]

Yes.. I do realize the implications. But I look at the systems you mention (rev limiters, traction controls, etc) in an altogether different light. Some of them might make a car faster, some of them might make it slower... exactly the same situation we have already. It's part of the IT classificaton philosophy for Pete's sake, spelled out very clearly in the introduction paragraphs of the category specificaton.

Newer cars, with appropriate adjustments to the current ruleset (allowing originally-equipped ABS, for instance) will NOT be essentially banned. It's simply another one of those "makes it faster" or "makes it slower" things, for which we already have a process.

Older cars will NOT have a problem with ECU's becoming impossible to find/replace. If that were the case, all us dummies running 1971 Bosch D-Jet FI systems would already be screaming. And besides, if they do become unsupportable, so what? Let them die a natural death.

lateapex911

01-31-2007, 11:04 AM

Joe Harlan

01-31-2007, 11:05 AM

Not so Travis. I only pointed out that forcing me to do less than 100% so that you don't have to is no more right than the other way around. I built my car in 1998 and still race it today. I would call it 99% at this point with more labor than money. I worked races for Speedsource all this time to help pay for the upgrades. You can make your own decision on how dedicated you want to be. No disrespect intended.
[/b]

Steve, I appreciate your point on this, My point has little to do with the cost VS benefit ratio to any competitor. It has more to do with where we draw the line at what 100% is. My belief is 100% should not require the investment of 5k for a motec system to be competitive. Some will try to argue that the megasquirt blah blah are just as competitive as the Motec and that mayb true after you buy all the needed parts to make it that way and you still end up at 5k. IT has always been a place where the top 100% is not out of reach to the guy that can afford 85% and stay in the same lap with the competition. I would contend that the more we add to the 100% end of the class the further apart 85% and 100% become and that's what kills particaipation in a class.

tnord

01-31-2007, 11:09 AM

Not so Travis. I only pointed out that forcing me to do less than 100% so that you don't have to is no more right than the other way around.
[/b]

huh? how is it even possible to force you to do less than a 100% build?

seckerich

01-31-2007, 11:39 AM

Steve, I appreciate your point on this, My point has little to do with the cost VS benefit ratio to any competitor. It has more to do with where we draw the line at what 100% is. My belief is 100% should not require the investment of 5k for a motec system to be competitive. Some will try to argue that the megasquirt blah blah are just as competitive as the Motec and that mayb true after you buy all the needed parts to make it that way and you still end up at 5k. IT has always been a place where the top 100% is not out of reach to the guy that can afford 85% and stay in the same lap with the competition. I would contend that the more we add to the 100% end of the class the further apart 85% and 100% become and that's what kills particaipation in a class.
[/b]
Fair enough Joe. I just do not see that you will force anyone to buy the Motec or any other ECU if the chipped unit is just as good. I just do not want to be forced to go either route. A little choice will actually help cost. I think the ECU is the least of the high cost items in an IT car that seperate 85 and 100 percent. Tires, motor, and shocks will do more to widen the gap than any other items and there is no way to contain those costs. See the southeast spec tire rules. People just buy new shaved to 2/32 tires for every session. Show me a cost savings? The cars that have to use the $10,000 Motec were $50,000 to start with and are out of reach for the entry level guys anyway. Pieces of these cars are still very expensive. There are plenty of places for the lower dollar racers to run very competitive without spending a small fortune. As speed goes up, so does money.

seckerich

01-31-2007, 12:00 PM

You can buy a chip burner for $150, chip @$4 each. Cary a laptop and you're all set to edit files (tune chips) anywhere. You need to know what area of the file to edit-yeah, thats a problem to solve, but if you get into basic chip tuning logic, it's not so impossible (ask me how I know). And with data acq you can achieve a near perfect tune. In the old days, you could port your own head, or take it to a pro that had experience and a flowbench (today, a chip tuner). Today the situations similar, but the tools to learn and do your own chips is much cheaper than a flowbench. phil

What does Andy say? The only time sucess is before work is in the dictionary?
[/b]
So those of us that have made the investment under the current rule and learned to program an ECU need to switch over and learn to burn chips and make yet another investment? It takes about five minutes reading the other thread about what cars are not easily chipped to see what a cluster that will become. Start over again just so we give the feeling we are going to save money. RR shocks come to mind and are now cheaper than the revalved units we run today. The market is there for cheap ECU setups that use stock sensors and will not run much more than your "chip of the day" units. I carry a laptop now and don't even need the $4 chip. I didn't even need a seperate data unit--it is built in. More dollars saved. We just see this different.

tnord

01-31-2007, 12:05 PM

So those of us that have made the investment under the current rule and learned to program an ECU need to switch over and learn to burn chips and make yet another investment? It takes about five minutes reading the other thread about what cars are not easily chipped to see what a cluster that will become. Start over again just so we give the feeling we are going to save money.
[/b]

QUOTE(seckerich @ Jan 30 2007, 04:33 PM)

If some are too lazy to put the time and effort in to go fast they can be happy with what they have--no problem. Some of us are willing to do the work needed to win. It will never be equal as some will do the testing and engineering to win.
[/b]

why are you suprised this is happening if the current rule is not following the original intent?

seckerich

01-31-2007, 12:07 PM

huh? how is it even possible to force you to do less than a 100% build?
[/b]
It is more about wanting others to pull back to a prep level they are comfortable with. The top bar moves all the time in every class and it should take 100% car and driver to win most of the time. As I said in my other post it takes time and money-period. I got my butt kicked for years before I got to a level I could win.

dj10

01-31-2007, 12:07 PM

As speed goes up, so does money. [/b]

Steve, this is an unfortunate truth, as well as good teams or good people with the most money win. It has been this way from the beginning. Example, if I have a budget of say, 10k for the year and you have twice that and can afford more & better tires, more dyno time, track time, etc. The chances your will beat me will be certaintly be in your favor. So even with a flashed ecu, if you spend 4k on dyno time the chances you will be able to squeeze more hp out of your engine and ecu than I will. The only inequity of the ECU rule right now is allowing the top money spenders to be allowed to stuff their ecu boxes for hugh sums of money that most of us either can't or refuse to spend. Like the old shock deal, this will be unfair to those who have spent the money. I'm for opening the ecu up but really don't care which way it goes as long as current ecu rule is changed. No matter how much money anyone has, we should be understanding enough with the rule writing not to slam any group of people. In the end the good drivers that have the money will probably still beat us,...........just not by as much. :D

Dan

seckerich

01-31-2007, 12:14 PM

why are you suprised this is happening if the current rule is not following the original intent?
[/b]
You know the intent of those who wrote this rule? Have you spoken to them? The rule is written and racers exploit it. That will always be the case.

Steve, this is an unfortunate truth, as well as good teams or good people with the most money win. It has been this way from the beginning. Example, if I have a budget of say, 10k for the year and you have twice that and can afford more & better tires, more dyno time, track time, etc. The chances your will beat me will be certaintly be in your favor. So even with a flashed ecu, if you spend 4k on dyno time the chances you will be able to squeeze more hp out of your engine and ecu than I will. The only inequity of the ECU rule right now is allowing the top money spenders to be allowed to stuff their ecu boxes for hugh sums of money that most of us either can't or refuse to spend. Like the old shock deal, this will be unfair to those who have spent the money. I'm for opening the ecu up but really don't care which way it goes as long as current ecu rule is changed. No matter how much money anyone has, we should be understanding enough with the rule writing not to slam any group of people. In the end the good drivers that have the money will probably still beat us,...........just not by as much. :D

Dan
[/b]
Thats why I see the money deal in all this as a no brainer. You will make it cheaper if you do not need to stuff the box and you allow a cheaper ECU to be used that does not need a rocket scientist and $10,000 to install. You will save money if you do not have to defeat the factory code. I saw your latest times for Mid Ohio--you get the job done fine. :eclipsee_steering:

Doc Bro

01-31-2007, 12:14 PM

It's interesting.

People had dogs in a fight several years ago and got the rule written to accomodate their need (or budget or ulterior motive). Now we've got some different dog owners and things have the potential to change. If I was foolish enough to put Motec in a box and I could potentially be put out by a rule change, I'd just hold on to it. It seems likely it'll change again.

As an aside, I do believe the rules must "evolve", however we need to safeguard against the "moving target" rulebook. (ie ITS e36 (he says while ducking) or spherical bushings..errr...bearings....errr..... bushings- whatever the hell they're called!!)

.02

R

lateapex911

01-31-2007, 12:24 PM

why are you suprised this is happening if the current rule is not following the original intent? [/b]

The rule says "Replace"...thats REALLY clear....how can the intent of the rule be anything different??? WHY would they allow you to replace the ECU if that wan't the intent? And if the original rule didn't include the word "replace" then why did the same group change it (5 YEARS ago) if they didn't want to allow open ECUs?

(I think that, probably, in the mid 90s when the whole ECU thing came up, that the idea was probably to allow the ECU guys the same tunability as the carb guys had....but, I wasn't there so I can't say, and then, MAYBE they thought that allowing just chip flashes wasn't working, so they thought they'd open it up for those who needed it, but who knows, it's one of the more dorked up rules in my book...)

My issue is that the "in the box" aspect forces HUGE inequities both competitively and financially on the category.

Either allow them or don't. Five years ago they decided to allow them. Horse is out the barn...so fine....allow them, but lets do it right if we're going to do it at all.

Greg Amy

01-31-2007, 12:31 PM

You know the intent of those who wrote this rule? Have you spoken to them?[/b]
Before people get too riled up about this, the answer to that question is "absolutely." This rule was written in 2001, approved for 2002; that was only 5 years ago (and I've been in this game for over 20 now.) Although there was not an ITAC (as we know it now) at the time, a very large number of people on this board were part of the original thought process.

Prior to 2002 the ECUs were NOT open; the only thing you could do was changes input values via resistors. The true intent of the current rule was to allow folks to modify the factory ECUs for replacement chips, daughterboards, and the like. The unfortunate choice of words resulted in what we have today... - GA

tnord

01-31-2007, 12:43 PM

As far as the original intent of the ECU rule - I don't know 100% but I am 99.9% sure it was to allow flashes and chips. The CRB at the time decided to get 'smart' with the words and it came back to bite us all in the ass. You will all soon be asked for your input on 3 choices: Status quo, back in the bottle or open it up.
[/b]

It is more about wanting others to pull back to a prep level they are comfortable with. The top bar moves all the time in every class and it should take 100% car and driver to win most of the time. As I said in my other post it takes time and money-period. I got my butt kicked for years before I got to a level I could win.
[/b]

nope.

i do believe that making it easier for the bottom to rise to the top is a better approach than bringing the top down as i have posted many times. it's why i support written allowances for B&B to SM motors. but that's not what this is about.

this is about the complexity and ease of getting such a system to work. you act like running a standalone unit is child's play. i see it as rewiring every sensor that's going to talk to your new ECU, then trying to run a basemap (assuming one is available for your car) just to get the thing to start. then going to the dyno for a full day of testing, and paying someone a big fat check who knows what they're doing. do i know how (much less do i want to?) to sit there at the track with a laptop changing fuel, ignition, valve timing, cam timing, etc? no i don't. and that's not my vision of what IT racing is.

can you sit there just the same with a laptop and constantly burn new chips/reflash? sure. but you can buy a chip with a good tune on it for 1/10th the cost of a standalone unit, not have to rewire your whole car, and be 90% of the way there to the guys who are sitting there fiddlefucking with their ECU.

standalone ECU's and all the BS that comes with them does not fit within IT philosophy imo.

dj10

01-31-2007, 01:13 PM

My issue is that the "in the box" aspect forces HUGE inequities both competitively and financially on the category.

Either allow them or don't. Five years ago they decided to allow them. Horse is out the barn...so fine....allow them, but lets do it right if we're going to do it at all. [/b]

People, this is exactly what everything has boiled down to and everyone knows it! The existing ecu rule is what we called in the Marines, a "clusterfuc=". We have all have seen the arguements both pro & con for either opening up the ecu or going back to the stock boxes. Let the BS stop now and get the CRB to move on something so everyone hows what is going to happen. There are people wanting to build cars and get them ready for racing that can't because of this hold up on the ecu rule. Everyone should have sent their letters to the CRB by now.

tnord

01-31-2007, 01:17 PM

Everyone should have sent their letters to the CRB by now.
[/b]

i'm waiting to see what it says in Fastrack first, as i'm guessing many others are.

lateapex911

01-31-2007, 01:36 PM

Well, if all goes according to schedule, the CRB should have a document for your input published by 2/20.

The <strike>300</strike> 602 or so words (ask me how I know THAT!, LOL) are in their hands and should be in yours in about 3 weeks.

Read it over, and send in your comments.

It includes a preface to aid in understanding the ins and outs, of each option, as well as...gasp...... the intent.

Andy Bettencourt

01-31-2007, 01:38 PM

this is about the complexity and ease of getting such a system to work. you act like running a standalone unit is child's play. i see it as rewiring every sensor that's going to talk to your new ECU, then trying to run a basemap (assuming one is available for your car) just to get the thing to start. then going to the dyno for a full day of testing, and paying someone a big fat check who knows what they're doing. do i know how (much less do i want to?) to sit there at the track with a laptop changing fuel, ignition, valve timing, cam timing, etc? no i don't. and that's not my vision of what IT racing is.

[/b]

http://www.aempower.com/ViewProduct.aspx?ProductID=603

The installation of the AEM ECU on the 1990-1995 Mazda Miata uses the stock sensors and actuators. The base map is automatically installed in the calibrations directory in the AEMPro directory on your computer. It is named 1710.V01.00.CAL.

Here you go!

lateapex911

01-31-2007, 01:44 PM

here's another:

http://www.034motorsport.com/index.php?cPa...0e7d4424d636635 (http://www.034motorsport.com/index.php?cPath=22&osCsid=ed95b8bacef87ecc70e7d4424d636635)

and prices:

http://www.034motorsport.com/034Stage_comparison.htm

dj10

01-31-2007, 01:52 PM

i'm waiting to see what it says in Fastrack first, as i'm guessing many others are. [/b]

Hell, I sent my letter in 2 damn months ago. What's the matter? Don't you know what you want yet? I want them to know I want a change. I honestly don't care what's in fastrack now because it will not change my mind. How ever if I find out I can't get what I want, then I'll look at my options.

seckerich

01-31-2007, 01:54 PM

nope.

i do believe that making it easier for the bottom to rise to the top is a better approach than bringing the top down as i have posted many times. it's why i support written allowances for B&B to SM motors. but that's not what this is about.

this is about the complexity and ease of getting such a system to work. you act like running a standalone unit is child's play. i see it as rewiring every sensor that's going to talk to your new ECU, then trying to run a basemap (assuming one is available for your car) just to get the thing to start. then going to the dyno for a full day of testing, and paying someone a big fat check who knows what they're doing. do i know how (much less do i want to?) to sit there at the track with a laptop changing fuel, ignition, valve timing, cam timing, etc? no i don't. and that's not my vision of what IT racing is.

can you sit there just the same with a laptop and constantly burn new chips/reflash? sure. but you can buy a chip with a good tune on it for 1/10th the cost of a standalone unit, not have to rewire your whole car, and be 90% of the way there to the guys who are sitting there fiddlefucking with their ECU.

standalone ECU's and all the BS that comes with them does not fit within IT philosophy imo.
[/b]
Perfect. You can sit and flash chips and I can tune with my laptop and we can both be happy and get about the same performance. PS. This is all legal now so what is the problem? I agree with Dan--time to write the letter and move on.

Gary L

01-31-2007, 02:36 PM

see, I think ab bit more theoretically, or categoricallly. Suppose some car has a speed limiter. You say class accordingly. So a car that has ITA level HP should be classed in ITC because it has a speed limiter at 100mph?? That'd make some pretty goofy racing, eh? And lets not say thats a BS example, because the situation might not exist NOW...the rules need to be forward thinking, don't you think?

And yes, I am fully aware of the "no guarantee" clause.....but I for one think thats not a very good reason to do a crappy job with the rules and classing. Just because it says that nothings perfect doesn't mean we can't strive to make it the best it can be...........[/b]

Actually Jake, it is a BS example. Even if you could show me a potential IT car today that has a 100 mph speed limiter in the ECU, it's 5 years before the car can even be considered for classification. This is not something that should sneak up and bite someone in the butt. As someone said, we'll burn that bridge when we come to it. The key being that you have a minimum of 5 years to see the bridge coming. Now that's forward thinking.

But that's okay... I'm going to write my comments to the proposed change, which will represent the epitome of pissing into the wind. But what the heck. I can then sit back and watch this get screwed up even worse than it is today, and yell "I told you so" at the appropriate point in time. I repeat... we need to put the guy back in the bottle.

Andy Bettencourt

01-31-2007, 02:43 PM

But that's okay... I'm going to write my comments to the proposed change, which will represent the epitome of pissing into the wind. But what the heck. I can then sit back and watch this get screwed up even worse than it is today, and yell "I told you so" at the appropriate point in time. I repeat... we need to put the guy back in the bottle.

[/b]

Let me be perfectly clear on this. It ain't the your dad's SCCA. The ITAC is virtually split on this issue - and I believe that the CRB will go the way the ITAC goes. Well written letters WILL count. I am betting this will generate the most input from the members in a long while. And it SHOULD.

its66

01-31-2007, 03:03 PM

Actually Jake, it is a BS example. Even if you could show me a potential IT car today that has a 100 mph speed limiter in the ECU, it's 5 years before the car can even be considered for classification. This is not something that should sneak up and bite someone in the butt. As someone said, we'll burn that bridge when we come to it. The key being that you have a minimum of 5 years to see the bridge coming. Now that's forward thinking.

But that's okay... I'm going to write my comments to the proposed change, which will represent the epitome of pissing into the wind. But what the heck. I can then sit back and watch this get screwed up even worse than it is today, and yell "I told you so" at the appropriate point in time. I repeat... we need to put the guy back in the bottle.
[/b]

How about a current ITA car which the factory ECU has a limiter set at 108 mph(or is it 113...either way) ??And, this is currently one of the fastest ITA car classed. The Nissan 12 valve 240sx. If you are advocating 100% stock ecu's, then this guy doesn't throw away an ecu, he/she throws away the whole car, or goes to another class.

Joe Harlan

01-31-2007, 03:24 PM

How about a current ITA car which the factory ECU has a limiter set at 108 mph(or is it 113...either way) ??And, this is currently one of the fastest ITA car classed. The Nissan 12 valve 240sx. If you are advocating 100% stock ecu's, then this guy doesn't throw away an ecu, he/she throws away the whole car, or goes to another class.
[/b]

The speed limiter is easy to domp on a 12 valve car without touching the ECU and was fooled under the old rule with no issue

lateapex911

01-31-2007, 03:28 PM

Right...as Andy said, what you'll see in fastrack isn't a simple blow it by them it's already decided item....the ITAC and the CRB are genuinly interested in getting the feedback.

And I am a bit resentful that you're heaping on the "it will be whatever you want and I'll scream I told you so later" stuff....look at what I drive..and look at Andy's situation....do either of us have anything to gain by opening it up? Uh..no. If thats not an indication of openmindedness, then I can't help you.

We have our opinions, but neither of us has arrived at them though any route that includes self interests.

Z3_GoCar

01-31-2007, 04:29 PM

..this is about the complexity and ease of getting such a system to work. you act like running a standalone unit is child's play. i see it as rewiring every sensor that's going to talk to your new ECU, then trying to run a basemap (assuming one is available for your car) just to get the thing to start. then going to the dyno for a full day of testing, and paying someone a big fat check who knows what they're doing. do i know how (much less do i want to?) to sit there at the track with a laptop changing fuel, ignition, valve timing, cam timing, etc? no i don't. and that's not my vision of what IT racing is.

....

standalone ECU's and all the BS that comes with them does not fit within IT philosophy imo.
[/b]

If you can wire a few gauges, you can wire a new ECU. This isn't rocket science! I should know.

All systems come with a base map, even without touching the standalone it has enough programming to get the car running and warmed up off the defaut, it may not run very well and you may have an idle fuel ratio of 8.5:1, but it'll run.

As for spending a day at the Dyno. Yeah, sure if you've got a system that you've got to re-flash every time then you might spend a few days on the dyno. I almost made that mistake and had Tri-Point recreate my programming. Instead, I had Richard Clewitt at Clewitt Engineering install a new chip that makes my system on-the-fly programmable. The result was my system was tuned after 3 hours! I could change out my chip and re-dyno again a couple more times for what Tri-Point's estimate was.

Since the dawn of IT alternate carburetors have been the standard allowed modification. Just think of this as allowing an alternate digital carburetor. imho it is in IT's philosophy to allow alternate out of the box ECU's.

James

Gary L

01-31-2007, 04:42 PM

We have our opinions, but neither of us has arrived at them though any route that includes self interests.
[/b]

If I left an the impression that this was being driven by self-interest amongst the ITAC or CRB, that was absolutely not my intention.

Joe Harlan

01-31-2007, 05:18 PM

If you can wire a few gauges, you can wire a new ECU. This isn't rocket science! I should know.

All systems come with a base map, even without touching the standalone it has enough programming to get the car running and warmed up off the defaut, it may not run very well and you may have an idle fuel ratio of 8.5:1, but it'll run.

As for spending a day at the Dyno. Yeah, sure if you've got a system that you've got to re-flash every time then you might spend a few days on the dyno. I almost made that mistake and had Tri-Point recreate my programming. Instead, I had Richard Clewitt at Clewitt Engineering install a new chip that makes my system on-the-fly programmable. The result was my system was tuned after 3 hours! I could change out my chip and re-dyno again a couple more times for what Tri-Point's estimate was.

Since the dawn of IT alternate carburetors have been the standard allowed modification. Just think of this as allowing an alternate digital carburetor. imho it is in IT's philosophy to allow alternate out of the box ECU's.

James
[/b]
Again James, How many systems have you installed....The statement I highlighted is 100% BS and if you had actually installed anything yourself you would know it. There is no presto chango instant HP deal on the market in raw form unless somebody already is building it and marketing it for one a specific model and even then they are charging for their time to develop it. The alternate carb deal is a BS argument also because even a stock unmodified ECU can do things a thousand times better than a toilet boil with metering holes. Please stop passing off bad information.

dj10

01-31-2007, 05:33 PM

Joe Harlan

01-31-2007, 05:55 PM

"All systems come with a base map, even without touching the standalone it has enough programming to get the car running and warmed up off the defaut, it may not run very well and you may have an idle fuel ratio of 8.5:1, but it'll run. "
Joe, This what I have also been told by a very reputable engine tuner. At least the system he sells has this built in."It ain't the your dad's SCCA"

Let's hope not, the last time I looked it is the 21st century! I'm wondering what it would cost to build balls out bmw club racer in JP? I'm also wondering how much people in NASA have spent on their suspensions (Moton, or Penske?) in GTS-2 since everything (including brakes, wheels, flywheels, clutches, ecu's) is open with the exception of the hp to wgt which is their limiting factor? All we are trying to do here is open up one thing, the ecu's. If you have a stock ecu and want it flashed, go ahead. Spend what you want where you want. If you decide you want to spring for a EMS, fine, do it. if it's legal, we won't be making much more hp than the guy who has their ecu flashed. The SCCA rules must allow for some improvements or it will wither and die.
[/b]
That's not all systems as stated. What system is your guy selling? Again I have offered first hand information on the systems I have actually installed and or worked with and or own.

And BTW, My AEM plug and play system is bitchen and their support is excellent but the thing would not climb the trailer door to go to the dyno when I first got it. I have 15 year of FI background and I still struggle with ever new system I take on. Anything can be learned by those that are willing but FI is not a plug it in magic bullet unless somebody like me starts selling complete programmed kit for specific application and use. I promise if I do that every bit of my time and dyno time will be paid for in the kit price.

tnord

01-31-2007, 06:18 PM

http://www.aempower.com/ViewProduct.aspx?ProductID=603

The installation of the AEM ECU on the 1990-1995 Mazda Miata uses the stock sensors and actuators. The base map is automatically installed in the calibrations directory in the AEMPro directory on your computer. It is named 1710.V01.00.CAL.

Here you go!
[/b]

i admit, less than i thought.

here's the million dollar question (for me).

which one takes more of an investment (in both time and money) to extract 99% potential gain from? a standalone unit or a chip/reflash. start to finish, install, mapping, and tuning.

Joe Harlan

01-31-2007, 07:04 PM

i admit, less than i thought.

here's the million dollar question (for me).

which one takes more of an investment (in both time and money) to extract 99% potential gain from? a standalone unit or a chip/reflash. start to finish, install, mapping, and tuning.
[/b]

Travis, You are likely to have to have the standalone of that's the rule. It does not matter which one is likely to extract the most power because as have been stated. Once you open the rule up you raise the prep bar to that level. Flashing and chipping is a different prep level all together and it fits the philosophy of IT. AEM is probably the most bitchin ECM on the market as far as support. But I can promise you unless you are buying it from somebody that is mapping them for your specific use it is far from plug and play.

Z3_GoCar

01-31-2007, 08:27 PM

Again James, How many systems have you installed....The statement I highlighted is 100% BS and if you had actually installed anything yourself you would know it. There is no presto chango instant HP deal on the market in raw form unless somebody already is building it and marketing it for one a specific model and even then they are charging for their time to develop it. The alternate carb deal is a BS argument also because even a stock unmodified ECU can do things a thousand times better than a toilet boil with metering holes. Please stop passing off bad information.
[/b]

I didn't say it'll make instant horse power without tuning. I said it'll start and run, maybe even not very well, but it'll do well enough to start tuning. The stock unmodified ECU only works well on a stock unmodified motor. When you take out the exhaust restriction, you have to tune for more fuel, when you run WOT again, you need more fuel. The stock system is set up to keep it at stoichometric, a race motor needs more fuel to survive. I'd rather have a toilet bowl I can adjust that a high-tech black box that I have to install with someone else's one size fit's all carb-legal code that I "hope" keeps my motor safe. While the ECU that I have is ideal for an opened rule, you're wrong in thinking that I'm advocating this position because of my car. My car needs a lot more work to become an ITR car than an ECU rule change. It only took 3 hours to tune it on the dyno, that's a fact and I've got the reciets to prove it.

Joe Harlan

01-31-2007, 08:41 PM

I didn't say it'll make instant horse power without tuning. I said it'll start and run, maybe even not very well, but it'll do well enough to start tuning. The stock unmodified ECU only works well on a stock unmodified motor. When you take out the exhaust restriction, you have to tune for more fuel, when you run WOT again, you need more fuel. The stock system is set up to keep it at stoichometric, a race motor needs more fuel to survive. I'd rather have a toilet bowl I can adjust that a high-tech black box that I have to install with someone else's one size fit's all carb-legal code that I "hope" keeps my motor safe. While the ECU that I have is ideal for an opened rule, you're wrong in thinking that I'm advocating this position because of my car. My car needs a lot more work to become an ITR car than an ECU rule change. It only took 3 hours to tune it on the dyno, that's a fact and I've got the reciets to prove it.
[/b]

Again James, HOW Many have you installed? Simple question? Again you are also wrong about the stock ecu. Most systems are in basic open loop during WOT and the systems that maintain control are typically to rich at WOT. Last an ECU tuned correctly will run very close to stoich all the way through the power curve and wants to be a little rich at the top. I would suggest before offering such great advise to a whole class of cars that you invest a bit of your own money and time into the equipment you are saying is so easy to deal with.

lateapex911

02-01-2007, 10:15 AM

. Once you open the rule up you raise the prep bar to that level. Flashing and chipping is a different prep level all together and it fits the philosophy of IT. . [/b]

And what prep level is that???

(And rather than play back and forth games, the answer is obvious, we are already AT that prep level, as ECUs are open...for some, and there are many out there that spent the time and money to take advantage of that fact.)

Joe Harlan

02-01-2007, 10:26 AM

And what prep level is that???

(And rather than play back and forth games, the answer is obvious, we are already AT that prep level, as ECUs are open...for some, and there are many out there that spent the time and money to take advantage of that fact.)
[/b]

You clearly have a grip on the obvious...

JamesB

02-01-2007, 10:34 AM

Joe Harlan

02-01-2007, 10:49 AM

Joe, I think Jake makes a good point. For some that level is there. Those that can stuff an ECU today, or get a stuffed ECU are at that prep level today. Others are busy trying to figure out what it takes to stuff an ECU and others dont want to drop 5k+ on stuffing an ECU even though its possible.
[/b]

James I understand where we are today. And after 16 pages I am sure others understand that today we can stuff a box in a box. I have tried to provide good information (first hand in most cases) to point out that the open rule is not really doing anything to reduce cost because this new technology is not free is not boltin and will not better the catagory as a whole. After 16 pages of some serious bad information I didn't need reminded that the rule was poorly written several years ago and that the original intent has been exploited and now will be exploited further in an effort to "balance" the inequities of some cars...Rather than putting the correct word in the current rule to stop the exploitation. So I will stop here because clearly the adhoc will do what the adhoc wants and no amount of fact will slow this train down.

JamesB

02-01-2007, 11:15 AM

True it is not bolt in for most. But there are cars out there that do have direct plug in aftermarket ECU's or adapators to make such happen for around 12-1500. Companies like Hondata, Austronic, and the like all try to make simple ECU replacement systems for street tuners that can be used by those fortunate to have industry support. The many without still are left with splicing or piggyback.

I now understand your point also. Sadly this is a question with no difinitive answer since industry support for aftermarket ECU replacement is not that simple to start with.

dj10

02-01-2007, 11:20 AM

James I understand where we are today. And after 16 pages I am sure others understand that today we can stuff a box in a box. I have tried to provide good information (first hand in most cases) to point out that the open rule is not really doing anything to reduce cost because this new technology is not free is not boltin and will not better the catagory as a whole. After 16 pages of some serious bad information I didn't need reminded that the rule was poorly written several years ago and that the original intent has been exploited and now will be exploited further in an effort to "balance" the inequities of some cars...Rather than putting the correct word in the current rule to stop the exploitation. So I will stop here because clearly the adhoc will do what the adhoc wants and no amount of fact will slow this train down. [/b]

Joe, I agree with what you are saying here. But for the sake of arguement and the CRB does open up the ecu rule, then:

1. How do we police the EMS?

2. How are we policing the EMS now?

To keep the cost down further, should we:

1. Allow the manufactures of the EMS wiring harness?

2. Allow the manufactures of the EMS sensors or can the factory sensors be used?

If we keep the stock euc's:

How do we tell the people that have already spent 5 to 10k to install the aftermarket EMS that we just zipped up the perverbal "fly" and more than just hair got caught in it?

I think everyone understands that these EMS units, installed legally, will not give you enormous gains but only allow you to fine tune and make more efficient what your engine already has. Like you said they are not cheap to setup.If a stock euc that has been flashed properly is going to be close to what a ems will be then why not allow them. Especially when there are people with obd2's that are having problem getting their stock units flashed?

Dan

Joe Harlan

02-01-2007, 12:23 PM

Joe, I agree with what you are saying here. But for the sake of arguement and the CRB does open up the ecu rule, then:

1. How do we police the EMS?

2. How are we policing the EMS now?

To keep the cost down further, should we:

1. Allow the manufactures of the EMS wiring harness?

2. Allow the manufactures of the EMS sensors or can the factory sensors be used?

If we keep the stock euc's:

How do we tell the people that have already spent 5 to 10k to install the aftermarket EMS that we just zipped up the perverbal "fly" and more than just hair got caught in it?

I think everyone understands that these EMS units, installed legally, will not give you enormous gains but only allow you to fine tune and make more efficient what your engine already has. Like you said they are not cheap to setup.If a stock euc that has been flashed properly is going to be close to what a ems will be then why not allow them. Especially when there are people with obd2's that are having problem getting their stock units flashed?

Dan
[/b]

Dan again you are providing inaccurate information. If these ECU's didn't give enormus gains then nobody in their right mind would spend 10k to do it. The OBD2 deal has been shot down many times now and if you want the answer go abck and read this thread. A stcok ECM will never be as good as a free sytem because it is not as refined but thats not the point, Free ECM's are not part of the intent of IT. IMPROVED= rubbing on factory parts to maximize what your car came with. Does anyone think that it is easy to squeeze 200HP out of a 240z? But that is done with all factory parts. Anyway I am done you have 16 pages to get any answers you need from me cause we are just restating all the same things. I have already written letters.

Andy Bettencourt

02-01-2007, 12:44 PM

Joe,

So to summarize your platform:

- You agree that EMS's are effectively open now

- You agree that allowing stand alone EMS's will not further open up the performance envelope

- You agree that open EMS's were not within the orginal intent of IT

- You want IT to return to it's original intent by going to chipped/flashed ECU's (Improved)

Correct me if I am mistaken. You are in the camp of going backward while others are in the camp of making it easier and more accessable to do what we have now. Is this correct?

tnord

02-01-2007, 12:58 PM

Joe,

So to summarize your platform:

- You agree that EMS's are effectively open now for some vehicles

- You agree that allowing stand alone EMS's will not further open up the performance envelope for vehicles that currently are able to run standalone EMS in OEM box. for the vehicles that currently can not, performance envelope will be expanded somewhat

- You agree that open EMS's were not within the orginal intent of IT nor the original intent of the rule as written today

- You want IT to return to it's original intent by going to chipped/flashed ECU's (Improved).

-i feel that to obtain 90% performance potential, it is cheaper to attain this in terms of time and money with chipped/flashed ECUs
[/b]

close for me. i made changes in bold to reflect my position.

Banzai240

02-01-2007, 01:30 PM

Some of you need to sit back and reflect on what you are suggesting here...

If it was NOT the original intent of the ECU rule to allow "stand-alone" systems, the WHY on earth are you suggesting IT continue down that path by opening it up even further?

Sure, it might be "cheaper", and potentially "easier" for more racers to have access to this technology... Maybe... BUT is using and having access to this technology what IT is about? Is that the INTENT of the class?

Simple answer is NO, it's not... ("with limited modifications.... restricted to those useful and necessary"... notice the AND in there... sometimes, things that are "useful" are not "necessary", therefore they don't fit the intent of the class... and I don't give a rip about any of the other things in IT that could be argued against this... we're talking about ONE specifically right now that, while may be "useful", is NOT NECESSARY!)

Therefore, the logical conclusion is to STOP THE BLEEDING... Close the loopholes... reword the rule... get the intent of the rule in writing... Us as many words as you need, and NO more words than you need... Get rid of the word "replace", spell out the intent, spell out what is expressly illegal from a philisophical standpoint ("This rule is not intended to allow X, Y, or Z...", etc...), Tighen the rule down so it makes sense for IT...

You already know where you are starting from, so it's INFINATELY easier to repair the existing wording than it is to make all new wording which is intended to open things up even further... Unless, of course, you are just going to make it wide-open and just say something stupid like "engine management computers (ECUs) are free"...

Knestis

02-01-2007, 01:36 PM

We all might be thinking it but maybe it bears saying: The technological landscape has changed, even in just the few years since the current ECU allowances were made.

I'm no Luddite by any means and, back when I was planning a return to IT after a long hiatus, I didn't anticipate how important on-board data-collection, OBD scan tools, and the like would be for me in 2007. I would never have anticipated spending the dough I did on a wide-band O2 sensor for the car.

And perceptions have changed along with the technology. I don't think that it's unreasonable for someone who might have been anti-open-ECU 5 years ago to be OK with the concept now.

Further, for the millionth time, PLEASE stop and think before making your case based on cost - regardless of your position. It just doesn't bear in any way that we can rely on for policy-making.

I'm really to the point where the primary concern needs to be curent equity - does everyone have the same legal opportunity to take advantage of performance offered by tweaking their brains? And we have to think about that irrespective of cost or ease of doing so.

K

robits325is

02-01-2007, 01:37 PM

The OBD2 deal has been shot down many times now and if you want the answer go abck and read this thread. A stcok ECM will never be as good as a free sytem because it is not as refined but thats not the point, Free ECM's are not part of the intent of IT. IMPROVED= rubbing on factory parts to maximize what your car came with. Does anyone think that it is easy to squeeze 200HP out of a 240z? But that is done with all factory parts. Anyway I am done you have 16 pages to get any answers you need from me cause we are just restating all the same things. I have already written letters.
[/b]

How about this perspective: My ITS car would not even come close to the target horsepower potential that the car was classified at with the stock ECU - flash or no flash. Actually, the car would hardly run without the O2 sensors and ABS sensors. If the rule is changed back should my car or a similar car get a new weight? What if that weight can't be reached? Then what? Re-do all of the new IT weight classifications?

Knestis

02-01-2007, 01:41 PM

Oh - and thanks, Rob.

This might be a good time to revisit the ABS question as well, since the technology is so linked (physically and philosophically) with engine management.

K

dj10

02-01-2007, 01:55 PM

Can anyone answer these questions?

I agree with what you are saying here. But for the sake of arguement and the CRB does open up the ecu rule, then:

1. How do we police the EMS?

2. How are we policing the EMS now?

To keep the cost down further, should we:

1. Allow the manufactures of the EMS wiring harness?

2. Allow the manufactures of the EMS sensors or can the factory sensors be used?

If we keep the stock euc's:

How do we tell the people that have already spent 5 to 10k to install the aftermarket EMS that we just zipped up the perverbal "fly" and more than just hair got caught in it?
Dan

tnord

02-01-2007, 01:58 PM

If we keep the stock euc's:

How do we tell the people that have already spent 5 to 10k to install the aftermarket EMS that we just zipped up the perverbal "fly" and more than just hair got caught in it?
Dan
[/b]

this should not even be an issue. how do you not make a decision on what's best for the few thousand cars out there already built going forward rather than the best decision for a dozen people looking to the past?

seckerich

02-01-2007, 02:03 PM

How about this perspective: My ITS car would not even come close to the target horsepower potential that the car was classified at with the stock ECU - flash or no flash. Actually, the car would hardly run without the O2 sensors and ABS sensors. If the rule is changed back should my car or a similar car get a new weight? What if that weight can't be reached? Then what? Re-do all of the new IT weight classifications?
[/b]
I agree. Take away the ability to tune and go back to stock computer and I want the weight break the carb guys got because now I have less adjustment than them. Rob can come back and play in S and we won't even need ITR because some of them won't even get the beast to run with the ABS sensors removed. We can just run around in limp mode with a rev limit that makes racing a joke. I can buy a tuner for every diesel truck on earth and most cars with one phone call. Some of the arguements are based on outdated thinking. IT will not cave in because we allow some tuning. Lots of the loss over the past few years has been to spec miata and lots of them are already back.

Joe Harlan

02-01-2007, 02:06 PM

How about this perspective: My ITS car would not even come close to the target horsepower potential that the car was classified at with the stock ECU - flash or no flash. Actually, the car would hardly run without the O2 sensors and ABS sensors. If the rule is changed back should my car or a similar car get a new weight? What if that weight can't be reached? Then what? Re-do all of the new IT weight classifications?
[/b]

Maybe we would never have had the need to go with the SIR had your car been held inside the original intent of the rule. As far as the car not running because of the O2 sensors I am not sure it was legal to disconnect them anyway, ABS issues are a completely different animal and if you couldn't get the car to run without wheel speed sensors you were the only one I know of.

robits325is

02-01-2007, 02:33 PM

Maybe we would never have had the need to go with the SIR had your car been held inside the original intent of the rule. As far as the car not running because of the O2 sensors I am not sure it was legal to disconnect them anyway, ABS issues are a completely different animal and if you couldn't get the car to run without wheel speed sensors you were the only one I know of.
[/b]
I don't have an E-36 BMW. My car is a 99 323i E-46. It has 4 O2 sensors - all you really need is one. (Mine are all still there just wire tied up)

dj10

02-01-2007, 02:49 PM

this should not even be an issue. how do you not make a decision on what's best for the few thousand cars out there already built going forward rather than the best decision for a dozen people looking to the past?
[/b]

Would you say this if you were one of the dozen who paid all that money? Be honest. :D

tnord

02-01-2007, 02:51 PM

Would you say this if you were one of the dozen who paid all that money? Be honest. :D
[/b]

yes.

sunk cost; Business 101.

seckerich

02-01-2007, 03:10 PM

yes.

sunk cost; Business 101.
[/b]
How long have you been running IT Travis? I see SM/ITA in your post. Those who have done the work and spent the money LEGALLY have every right to want to keep it. Business 101 also. Those who have not want to stop others so they don't have to. Both sides have a valid arguement.

tnord

02-01-2007, 03:28 PM

How long have you been running IT Travis? I see SM/ITA in your post. Those who have done the work and spent the money LEGALLY have every right to want to keep it. Business 101 also. Those who have not want to stop others so they don't have to. Both sides have a valid arguement.
[/b]

SM for about 2.5yrs. IT last year after the implimentation of the spec tire rule.

sure, you have every right to want to keep it. but you also have every right to look beyond the end of your own nose and see what's good for IT as a whole instead of a dozen or two people who have spent the money on this. the only valid arguement is one that's made in support of the whole class and not themselves. if you want to argue that open ECU is the best for the class as a whole, fine. but having to answer to the people who spent the money as an arguement against going back to the ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE RULE is ludicrous.

<---work has made me short tempered today.

seckerich

02-01-2007, 03:39 PM

SM for about 2.5yrs. IT last year after the implimentation of the spec tire rule.

sure, you have every right to want to keep it. but you also have every right to look beyond the end of your own nose and see what's good for IT as a whole instead of a dozen or two people who have spent the money on this. the only valid arguement is one that's made in support of the whole class and not themselves. if you want to argue that open ECU is the best for the class as a whole, fine. but having to answer to the people who spent the money as an arguement against going back to the ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE RULE is ludicrous.

<---work has made me short tempered today.
[/b]
I see well beyond my nose and have been in this class for a long time. You are in an area where a good SM is considered a top ITA Miata and you view this from your perspective. I am in an area where 80% of the IT cars are full tilt and you will get waxed with a SM. Your few dozen number is a joke if you look at other parts of the country. I respect your opinion but I think we just see very different groups of cars to base our arguements on.

Doc Bro

02-01-2007, 03:53 PM

[quote]
, ABS issues are a completely different animal and if you couldn't get the car to run without wheel speed sensors you were the only one I know of.

Now you know 2, Joe and if I may speak for Noam, make it 3. All late model BMW's.

Joe Harlan

02-01-2007, 03:57 PM

Would you say this if you were one of the dozen who paid all that money? Be honest. :D
[/b]

Absolutely yes, If I EXPLOITED a rule that tclearly shows it's intent then I woudl expect to eat it as soon as the club figured it out. Cost of doing business period. I have done it before and will do it again. And Steve I have been involved as a driver,builder, owner and prepshop since 88, I have paid my way to an opinion. And for the record it is not an old way of thinking just because it doesn't agree with your way of thinking.

Cool Rob, How is that my problem? I bet money there is a way around it with the factory ECU. I will also bet money there is a way around the post cat O2 sensors using the factory ECU. But I am not going to go out and do the research you guys aren't willing to do. If the car can't be nade to fit the IT philosophy maybe "its not and IT car" Maybe they are outside the philosophy of what an IT car is?

tnord

02-01-2007, 04:08 PM

I see well beyond my nose and have been in this class for a long time. You are in an area where a good SM is considered a top ITA Miata and you view this from your perspective. I am in an area where 80% of the IT cars are full tilt and you will get waxed with a SM. Your few dozen number is a joke if you look at other parts of the country. I respect your opinion but I think we just see very different groups of cars to base our arguements on.
[/b]

so because i live where i do i have no ability to understand issues outside my region?

more than a few dozen? ok. how many?

seckerich

02-01-2007, 04:11 PM

Absolutely yes, If I EXPLOITED a rule that tclearly shows it's intent then I woudl expect to eat it as soon as the club figured it out. Cost of doing business period. I have done it before and will do it again. And Steve I have been involved as a driver,builder, owner and prepshop since 88, I have paid my way to an opinion. And for the record it is not an old way of thinking just because it doesn't agree with your way of thinking.
[/b]
I refer to old more for the cars classed then compared to now. ;) You have just as much right to an opinion as me if you pay your dues and race once as you do if you have raced for years. If you race you have a voice in what happens. It is just my opinion that you will have more inequity with models under your proposed rule than with an open ECU and stock wire and sensors. We will not change each others minds on that so it is a waste of time to try. Good luck with your shop and racing and hope to meet you at the track some day. Hopefully the points we bring up in these discussions make the 4000 plus viewers of the thread write a letter so we get what most want instead of the vocal few.

PS. My gcr's and pcs go back to the 80's too.

Andy Bettencourt

02-01-2007, 04:55 PM

so because i live where i do i have no ability to understand issues outside my region?

more than a few dozen? ok. how many? [/b]

I could name 8 in New England Region IT right now.

robits325is

02-01-2007, 04:56 PM

Cool Rob, How is that my problem? I bet money there is a way around it with the factory ECU. I will also bet money there is a way around the post cat O2 sensors using the factory ECU. But I am not going to go out and do the research you guys aren't willing to do. If the car can't be nade to fit the IT philosophy maybe "its not and IT car" Maybe they are outside the philosophy of what an IT car is?
[/b]

I'm sure there is a way to make it run - but just running isn't going to make the car get to its full potential. In a region where it takes an 100% effort to be at the front 'just making it run' isn't going to cut it. It was probably easier/less expensive/more productive to install a Motec using the stock harness than it would have been to create a bunch of O2 simulators and fool the wheel speed sensors.

dj10

02-01-2007, 05:13 PM

I refer to old more for the cars classed then compared to now. ;) You have just as much right to an opinion as me if you pay your dues and race once as you do if you have raced for years. If you race you have a voice in what happens. It is just my opinion that you will have more inequity with models under your proposed rule than with an open ECU and stock wire and sensors. We will not change each others minds on that so it is a waste of time to try. Good luck with your shop and racing and hope to meet you at the track some day. Hopefully the points we bring up in these discussions make the 4000 plus viewers of the thread write a letter so we get what most want instead of the vocal few.

PS. My gcr's and pcs go back to the 80's too. [/b]

Gentlemen,

It's getting to the point that we agree that we disagree on this discussion. It should not be up to us any more until the fastrack come out. I have posted some questions about "what if" and it seems like no one is willing to answer or discuss them. I can't imagine they the CRB will do anything except either, go back to stock or open the ecu's up. If they leave the rule alone, there may be many IT'ers throwing themselves in front of moving trains.

JoshS

02-01-2007, 05:14 PM

I agree. Take away the ability to tune and go back to stock computer and I want the weight break the carb guys got because now I have less adjustment than them. Rob can come back and play in S and we won't even need ITR because some of them won't even get the beast to run with the ABS sensors removed. We can just run around in limp mode with a rev limit that makes racing a joke. I can buy a tuner for every diesel truck on earth and most cars with one phone call.
[/b]
Steve,

No one is proposing making it all stock (like Showroom Stock.) That tuner that you can buy for your tow vehicle is reprogramming, reflashing, etc, which would be allowed under the most conservative of the proposals on the table.

As far as limp mode goes when removing ABS sensors, there's been a rule change to allow leaving one wheel speed sensor connected, which, at least on my car, prevents limp mode.

Joe Harlan

02-01-2007, 05:27 PM

I'm sure there is a way to make it run - but just running isn't going to make the car get to its full potential. In a region where it takes an 100% effort to be at the front 'just making it run' isn't going to cut it. It was probably easier/less expensive/more productive to install a Motec using the stock harness than it would have been to create a bunch of O2 simulators and fool the wheel speed sensors.
[/b]
That's the point Rob 17 pages later.....If they were not allowed for anyone then everyone would be in the same boat. Once you allow 1 car a motec the that is the new bar that is created. it was a mistake in the current writing of the rule that put the crack in the dam. Why blast the dam open? The only reason I can see is you feel you have a competitve advantage and could care less about the catagory as a whole.

seckerich

02-01-2007, 05:27 PM

Steve,

No one is proposing making it all stock (like Showroom Stock.) That tuner that you can buy for your tow vehicle is reprogramming, reflashing, etc, which would be allowed under the most conservative of the proposals on the table.

As far as limp mode goes when removing ABS sensors, there's been a rule change to allow leaving one wheel speed sensor connected, which, at least on my car, prevents limp mode.
[/b]
Should have put a rolling eyes after some of that, I was just making a point about the extremes. The recent leveling of the classes will be out the window if we go to a chip rule. I will play either way it goes, might even be more fun to engineer around the new rule. :026:

Andy Bettencourt

02-01-2007, 06:05 PM

That's the point Rob 17 pages later.....If they were not allowed for anyone then everyone would be in the same boat. Once you allow 1 car a motec the that is the new bar that is created. it was a mistake in the current writing of the rule that put the crack in the dam. Why blast the dam open? The only reason I can see is you feel you have a competitve advantage and could care less about the catagory as a whole. [/b]

The way I see it is that the dam is open. Has been for 5 years. The problem is that everyone wants to sail on the 'IT Lake', but right now only those who can affort yachts can get out on the water.

We either have to ban all boating or open up the access so that even guys who can only afford a dingy can test the waters if they feel like it.

If it is opened up, the water doesn't get any deeper than it is now, just more people get to play in it.

Of course, I own a boat now that can go right in...either way - dock it or rev it up, makes no matter to me. But what does the majority want? What is best for the long term health and growth of the Lake?

Eagle7

02-01-2007, 10:27 PM

so because i live where i do i have no ability to understand issues outside my region?

more than a few dozen? ok. how many? [/b]

I don't know, but I'm one. I didn't spend the money - I've got less than $300 in my ECU. I invested quite a bit of time to understand what was available and how it could work for my car - then built it myself. I learned a lot about my car in the process, too. Does that make my car any faster than other well-prepped RX-7's with stock ECUs - not a chance. Is it better than it was with the stock ECU - much, because it was really bad. Joe tried to tell me I could chip it, but nobody seems to sell one. I guess I could have put an much effort into reverse engineering the stock ECU as I put into building one, but I know that would have been much more difficult and much less fulfilling. What's the point?

I really don't get it about this not being consistent with the intent of IT. Why not? Because someone could spend $10K on an ECU. So what. He probably spent $20K on his shocks. If we're going to go back to all stock parts - bring it on. Stock shocks, stock springs, stock bars - let's even run the tires that originally came on the car. Actually, that sounds pretty sweet for the car I'm running.

erlrich

02-01-2007, 10:30 PM

But what does the majority want? What is best for the long term health and growth of the Lake? [/b] Funny, all through this thread I've been having this feeling of deja vu, and it finally occurred to me why: we've had this same debate before, and I'm sure it will surprise no one that there was about as much consensus then as there is now. In fact, we even went so far as to take a poll - the results are here (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6687).

I get the feeling this one is going to end up being decided by just a few votes (i.e. letters) one way or the other. I just hope the turnout is better than in the aforementioned poll :rolleyes:

dj10

02-02-2007, 08:31 AM

Funny, all through this thread I've been having this feeling of deja vu, and it finally occurred to me why: we've had this same debate before, and I'm sure it will surprise no one that there was about as much consensus then as there is now. In fact, we even went so far as to take a poll - the results are here (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6687).

I get the feeling this one is going to end up being decided by just a few votes (i.e. letters) one way or the other. I just hope the turnout is better than in the aforementioned poll :rolleyes:

[/b]

Earl, thanks for reminding us. I forgot about this post. I can't believe more people are not involved in the poll, #1 and #2 for the life of me I can't believe people could be content with the current rule. This is my 2nd year in organized IT racing (I don't count ITE as organized). When I saw and understood the ecu rule for the 1st time I thought it sucked but it wasn't until after the end of my 1st year did I realize how bad it really was. Honestly, I love to get a EMS so I can have better control of the engine fuctions. I think there are more pros than cons to these. If the CRB goes back to stock euc's, that's ok to. But hell will freeze over before I spend 9 to 10k to stuff a ems into my stock ecu box.

Knestis

02-02-2007, 08:34 AM

From that thread...

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

I think that goes without saying at this point. Look at it this way - if EVERYONE is pissed off, we have some kind of consensus...

:P

K

JeffYoung

02-02-2007, 08:47 AM

As we say in la-la law land -- a good settlement is one where no one is completely happy.

Maybe the existing rule without the ECU stock box requirement is the best compromise.

erlrich

02-02-2007, 08:48 AM

Look at it this way - if EVERYONE is pissed off, we have some kind of consensus...

:P

K [/b] Great point - and if the results of that poll (and this thread) are indicative, anything that happens (including nothing) will piss off 76% - 85% of the people! Hell, you ITAC guys can't loose (or win, depending on how you look at it), whatever you do you're gonna have 3/4 of the IT drivers pissed at you :D

Renaultfool

02-02-2007, 09:14 AM

Anything short of opening it up penalizes someone. If you allow many of the suggested specific modifications, only the rich can afford them. If you go back to stock you move closer to showroom stock and the modern cars now coming into IT will not be competitive or in some cases even raceable.
Daughter boards, modified chips, stock harnesses, all add to the cost of whatever you have to do to allow a car to reach it's potential. As we continue into the future the factories are going to continue to complicate the picture by ever increasingly complicated interrelated computer interfaces with all aspects of our vehicles.
The only rule that makes sense is to open it up. That way the guy who wants to tune on the cheap can put resistors in their harness, try and modify their stock ECU, or buy whatever is within their budget. The guys who are well funded will just walk up to the counter and buy their solution. No different than it is now, except it will allow the less funded participants to get a little closer. Maybe that is the real fear here.
Joe, I run a Renault, chip that sucker in an affordable way.
I ran a resistor in the wiring harness to get the mixture somewhat close, not perfection, but close, that is all I felt I needed at the time. They changed the rule so that the harness could not be modified so I spent several hundred dollars to aquire several ECUs, experiment on them, and put a couple resistors and a relay inside them just to do what the $0.15 resistor in the harness did originally. Did it effect the performance of my car at all? No, it just cost me some money to do what I had been doing all along because I couldn't "modify" the harness. Those types of roadblocks are unnessary, costly, and they will not control the advance of technology. They are not good for the SCCA and will continue to shrink the IT ranks.
The various restrictive parts of the rule being encouarged by many in this thread primarely won't effect their car. If one of those is the path we take we will have only one viable car brand in each IT class pretty soon and I don't think that would be good for the group as a whole.
The little guy with the brand X car always needs to be able to hope that someday throughout their own engineering efforts, or inheritance from the death of a well funded relative, they have a chance to be competitive. Take that away and the class dies.

Banzai240

02-02-2007, 04:23 PM

Andy Bettencourt

02-02-2007, 04:44 PM

If you guys open this up... I'd propose a new name for the class...

IMPROVED TUNER

Update the intent of the class while you're at it, because the original intent is definately a thing of the past... [/b]
How about this...

Now: IT-RGO (Improved Tuner - Rich Guy Only)

Open: IT-E (Improved Tuner - Everyone)

The intent can stay because as times change, people perception of 'inexpensive' changes. One would/could/and have argue it would get cheaper (for the masses) if it's open.

Banzai240

02-02-2007, 05:08 PM

How about this...

Now: IT-RGO (Improved Tuner - Rich Guy Only)

Open: IT-E (Improved Tuner - Everyone)

The intent can stay because as times change, people perception of 'inexpensive' changes. One would/could/and have argue it would get cheaper (for the masses) if it's open.
[/b]

The "intent" in the rulebook doesn't say anything about the "expense" of modifications.... you are taking that out of context... It says "inexpensive cars", which, you are correct, is relative to the consumer of said car... but has NOTHING to do with what is allowed to be modified on said car.

The intent says specifically that the rules are to "restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car." Open ECUs are neither "necessary to construct a safe race car", and serve no "usefulness", in constructing a safe racecar... Their modification is purely a performance related allowance. Increasing/modifying the performance of a car, or otherwords making modications "for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage", is not mentioned anywhere in the rulebook of this class as something that is within the intent of IT as a class.

So, what is being done is to take a bad rule, which essentially was outside of the intent of the class to start with, and use it as a basis to further open up the class...

And if you guys think that "Everyone" is going to gain from opening this up... you're misinformed about the tech... The "Rich Guys" are now not limited to just what they can fit into the box, so while the "Everyone" you are talking about are out buying their stuff off the shelf and trying to figure out how to make it work... those with the means will be taking the stuff off the shelf, and then spending their dough to improve on that, have experts install it, and anything else that I may not have thought of to otherwise "gain a competitive advantage".

Basically, you will have made it cost more money for EVERYONE!

And all outside of the written intent of this class...

Bill Miller

02-02-2007, 05:54 PM

Z3_GoCar

02-02-2007, 06:15 PM

The "intent" in the rulebook doesn't say anything about the "expense" of modifications.... you are taking that out of context... It says "inexpensive cars", which, you are correct, is relative to the consumer of said car... but has NOTHING to do with what is allowed to be modified on said car.

The intent says specifically that the rules are to "restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car." Open ECUs are neither "necessary to construct a safe race car", and serve no "usefulness", in constructing a safe racecar... Their modification is purely a performance related allowance. Increasing/modifying the performance of a car, or otherwords making modications "for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage", is not mentioned anywhere in the rulebook of this class as something that is within the intent of IT as a class.

So, what is being done is to take a bad rule, which essentially was outside of the intent of the class to start with, and use it as a basis to further open up the class...

And if you guys think that "Everyone" is going to gain from opening this up... you're misinformed about the tech... The "Rich Guys" are now not limited to just what they can fit into the box, so while the "Everyone" you are talking about are out buying their stuff off the shelf and trying to figure out how to make it work... those with the means will be taking the stuff off the shelf, and then spending their dough to improve on that, have experts install it, and anything else that I may not have thought of to otherwise "gain a competitive advantage".

Basically, you will have made it cost more money for EVERYONE!

And all outside of the written intent of this class...
[/b]

How about open exhaust systems, removing all the smog equiptment, alternate carburetors, alternate springs and shocks? How usefull and neccessary are they to the safety of the race car. Last I checked a pinto didn't NEED an alternate carburetor to get around a race track, a tubular header, or alternate set of springs. Why not get rid off all the performance modifications while we're at it.

If you've got to send your car to Florida to get the one person who knows how to tune your cars stock ECU, how inconvienient and expensive is that? When there are at least a dozen people that tune either Motec or Electromotive systems in L.A., and that many more for AEM's system, there's a depth of knowledge to tune these systems that far and away exceedes most of the stock systems. How are the Rich guy's, who can afford to find the one person with the knowledge to tune the un-tunable, any less of an advantage with what you propose? At least with alternate ECU's I can shop around.

Banzai240

02-02-2007, 08:07 PM

How about open exhaust systems, removing all the smog equiptment, alternate carburetors, alternate springs and shocks? How usefull and neccessary are they to the safety of the race car. Last I checked a pinto didn't NEED an alternate carburetor to get around a race track, a tubular header, or alternate set of springs. Why not get rid off all the performance modifications while we're at it.
[/b]

See... there's another example... trying to rationalize a change or allowance based on what is already allowed... WHAT is going to be next after open ECUs??? Once they are legal... what are you guys going to go after next?

You want to go National... Dump IT and just go Production racing... :rolleyes:

At least with alternate ECU's I can shop around.[/b]

Yup... and you'd better make an early appointment to make sure he can fit you into the schedule with the multitude of other IT racers who will now be forced to step up and do the same thing...

I see the flood waters approaching and the door is ajar... Personally... I'd choose to close the door to keep anymore water from coming in, but it's not my call... Looks like you are aiming to swing it wide open...

tnord

02-02-2007, 09:14 PM

you're not alone in this darin.

why do we NEED to open up ECUs? because cars in the FUTURE might not be able to race on their stock ECUs?

1) that's in the future. why don't we wait to see the lay of the land at that time before we write a solution to a problem that doesn't exist yet?
2) cars are already finding ways around their ECU issues today as joe harlan has described, why would they not be able to do the same in the future?
3) it seems as one of the main problems that MIGHT arise with future cars is the ECU going into safe mode if the ABS is disabled. why is opening up the ECU the only solution to this problem? have we even talked about other possibilities?
4) since when do you have to send the whole car to the tuner? just send the ECU and have it reflashed/rechipped.
5) you guys seriously make my head explode. yes, lets use a poorly written rule allowing modifications WAY WAY WAY outside the original intent to write yet another rule that basically is the chassis equivilent of going to tubeframe cars so long as they match the original dimensions.
:wacko:

Harvey

02-02-2007, 10:05 PM

Darin:

BRAVO

Les

Andy Bettencourt

02-02-2007, 10:27 PM

The intent says specifically that the rules are to "restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car." Open ECUs are neither "necessary to construct a safe race car", and serve no "usefulness", in constructing a safe racecar... Their modification is purely a performance related allowance. Increasing/modifying the performance of a car, or otherwords making modications "for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage", is not mentioned anywhere in the rulebook of this class as something that is within the intent of IT as a class.

[/b]

Darin,

You know I love you like a brother but this could be the single most rediculous premise for an arguement I have ever read. Almost every rule in the Engine section and Suspension section are performance related allowances. The way you have posed your arguement, we should all be in Showroom Stock. It's rediculous really.

Now having said that, I could go either way on this. I truely haven't decided what I think is better for IT, shutting it down or opening it up. I feel like I have seen good arguments on both sides. Since the most expensive brand of EMS is pretty much the only one that can be used inside of most boxes, I fail to see how allowing cheaper options does anything but allow more people access to this potentially painful technology.

But just because it's cheaper for everyone may not mean it's the best choice.

Joe Harlan

02-02-2007, 10:42 PM

Andy, you may not have made up your mind but it is clear to me that your not intersted in fixing the loophole that is allowing the stuff it in a box deal that's happening now. Darin's arguement is not stupid it does show how many times since the beinging of IT we decided a little bit would be ok. Rules creep I think is what its called. I believe you have a pretty good handle on what it will take to program ab ECU under a free ECU rule and I believe you know the gains above even a chipped ECU. I also believe that you know 85% of the IT fields will not buy into the new technology and eventually their discouragment will find them doing something else.

dj10

02-02-2007, 10:42 PM

Darin,

You know I love you like a brother but this could be the single most rediculous premise for an arguement I have ever read. Almost every rule in the Engine section and Suspension section are performance related allowances. The way you have posed your arguement, we should all be in Showroom Stock. It's rediculous really.

Now having said that, I could go either way on this. I truely haven't decided what I think is better for IT, shutting it down or opening it up. I feel like I have seen good arguments on both sides. Since the most expensive brand of EMS is pretty much the only one that can be used inside of most boxes, I fail to see how allowing cheaper options does anything but allow more people access to this potentially painful technology.

But just because it's cheaper for everyone may not mean it's the best choice.

[/b]

What I'd like for everyone to look at or think about, we've heard a lot of people gripping about obd2 factory systems correct? What will the future hold for factory ecu's and how will they, the future IT cars be configured? Are they going to have more and more sensors that are going to be harder to work around? I don't know this answer but everyone better start not just looking at the past and present but the future as well!

Joe Harlan

02-02-2007, 10:53 PM

What I'd like for everyone to look at or think about, we've heard a lot of people gripping about obd2 factory systems correct? What will the future hold for factory ecu's and how will they, the future IT cars be configured? Are they going to have more and more sensors that are going to be harder to work around? I don't know this answer but everyone better start not just looking at the past and present but the future as well!
[/b]

Nice scare tactic Dan....but it has been put up and knocked down a few times now.

Banzai240

02-02-2007, 10:56 PM

Almost every rule in the Engine section and Suspension section are performance related allowances. The way you have posed your arguement, we should all be in Showroom Stock. It's rediculous really.[/b]

I disagree... Every allowance in the book is a step away from what the class was originally created to do... which was to give ex-Showroom Stock cars a place to go when they were ineligable... and allow some additional makes/models a place to compete...

And, whether you guys think it's a rediculous argument or not doesn't take away from the point being made... EVERY time you make another allowance, you take ONE more step away from the written intent of the class. EACH time, you have to ask yourself WHY you are making the allowance. If it's for performance gains, then you are taking a step down the wrong path for the class. The ECU allowance is STRICTLY a performance allowance... the cars got to the grocery store every day for 100,000 miles with the stock ECU... Anything beyond that is a performance enhancement...

Look at how many cars benefitted in a positive way by the current allowance... E36, ITA 240SX, etc... They JUMPED to the front of the pack once they could dink with their ECUs. The 240SX was originally classified WITH the knowledge that it had a speed and rev limiter... THEN look what happened...

But this has all been hashed already... The bottom line for me is that the powers that be need to look at PLUGGING the holes in the rules, not making the openings bigger... You know exactly how I handled these things when I was in your shoes... the first question I would always ask is "IS this what the class is all about?" Everything we recommended to the best of my knowledge was done with this intent in mind... What we are talking about here is something WAY bigger... By opening this up, you widen WAY more gaps than you narrow... Between the haves and the have-nots, between the FI cars and the carb'd cars, between those with the tech skills and those without...

A much better way would be to narrow the allowance to the point where the ECU could be made more race appriate (fix rev limits, speed limits, traction control, ABS, etc..), but wouldn't change the general function or effectiveness of the stock unit... Chip and Flash... No additional circuitry beyond that. No changing from gang-fire to sequential... No Hondas able to now control ignition timing with the ECU under the "any ignition" rules.... NO BS...

And, if there are still a few with the means and were-withall to come up with something better... That's far fewer to deal with than if you open it up and every other yahoo in IT has a new stand-alone do-dad to take advantage of a loophole or allowance in the rule...

Don't break the dam...

Andy Bettencourt

02-02-2007, 10:57 PM

Andy, you may not have made up your mind but it is clear to me that your not intersted in fixing the loophole that is allowing the stuff it in a box deal that's happening now.[/b]

Joe, I am for either opening it up or shutting it down. The current rule is stupid. Not sure how that is 'not interested'.

Darin's arguement is not stupid it does show how many times since the beinging of IT we decided a little bit would be ok. Rules creep I think is what its called. I believe you have a pretty good handle on what it will take to program ab ECU under a free ECU rule and I believe you know the gains above even a chipped ECU. I also believe that you know 85% of the IT fields will not buy into the new technology and eventually their discouragment will find them doing something else. [/b]

Creep is a totally different arguement than 'anything that increases performance' is outside the philosophy of IT.

I know what it will take me...$2K for a unit, what will total $1K in dyno time, and the help of someone better than me at this stuff.

Z3_GoCar

02-02-2007, 11:04 PM

See... there's another example... trying to rationalize a change or allowance based on what is already allowed... WHAT is going to be next after open ECUs??? Once they are legal... what are you guys going to go after next?

[/b]

I'm trying to show how rediculous your presumption is that open ECU's are aginst IT philosophy. The reason I compare the ECU debate to the rules concerning carburetors is because a carburetor IS an engine management device, and alternate engine management was written in the rules of IT from the beginning. From a logical point of view, carburetors are a part of an EMS as is the electronic fuel management curve. Now if you have a carburetor you can change the fuel curve, but if you have an stock CARB legal ECU you can't. What kind of sense does that make?

Joe Harlan

02-02-2007, 11:08 PM

I'm trying to show how rediculous your presumption is that open ECU's are aginst IT philosophy. The reason I compare the ECU debate to the rules concerning carburetors is because a carburetor IS an engine management device, and alternate engine management was written in the rules of IT from the beginning. From a logical point of view, carburetors are a part of an EMS as is the electronic fuel management curve. Now if you have a carburetor you can change the fuel curve, but if you have an stock CARB legal ECU you can't. What kind of sense does that make?
[/b]

James, you cannot not make a reasoned argument that a Carb legal FI system is not 100 times more efficient than a stupid 32/26 weber replacement carb....Trying to justify your position with that kind of crap is whatis completely rediculous......Please <_<

Andy Bettencourt

02-02-2007, 11:13 PM

Banzai240

02-02-2007, 11:14 PM

From a logical point of view, carburetors are a part of an EMS as is the electronic fuel management curve. Now if you have a carburetor you can change the fuel curve, but if you have an stock CARB legal ECU you can't. What kind of sense does that make?
[/b]

Ummm... no one is saying you shouldn't be able to alter your fuel curves... That's where the "chip and flash" allowance comes in... But no one is allowing the carb guys to put on Holly 650 double pumpers... The reason for the carb allowance in the first place is because some of these cars come with UNRACABLE carbs, Unsafe carbs in racing situations, etc...

Again... you can FIX the existing rule to allow JUST ENOUGH to keep things reasonable... There is a BIG difference between altering the fuel maps (adjusting the fuel curve for those of you who are trying to relate this to carbs...), which are really nothing more than a table of values, and throwing out all the circuitry and starting over... If you do the later, you are opening the door to a completely new engine management scheme that didn't exist in the stock example of the car and WILL increase it's potential...

And you guys though PCAs were going to upset the balance of the classes? :o

But.... :dead_horse:

Andy Bettencourt

02-02-2007, 11:16 PM

If you do the later, you are opening the door to a completely new engine management scheme that didn't exist in the stock example of the car and WILL increase it's potential...

[/b]

What I don't get is why you say this like it isn't already legal and happening.

Banzai240

02-02-2007, 11:20 PM

But Joe, it's still a performance enhancement...TOTALLY against the original intent and philosophy of IT...

:blink:

[/b]

Andy, you are taking things too literally, and you've missed the part of my discussion where I said clearly that EVERY allowance that increases performance moves a step away from the intent of IT. It can be argued successfully that the suspension allowances make for a safer race car, or a VIABLE race car... They were necessary in most cases... Think of the original cars in IT... alternate carbs were necessary on many of these because the stock examples were CRAP and wouldn't make a viable race car...

It's NOT NECESSARY to alter these ECUs to the degree you guys are talking about here... My $450.00 Wolf ECU worked just fine... Had nothing more than new memory maps that allowed flashable fuel/timing tables...

FIX the existing wording to get things back to basics... The intent of this rule should be to allow the fuel maps to be optimized to work with the factory supplied fuel injection/timing scheme... not to wholesale replace it all...

Joe Harlan

02-02-2007, 11:21 PM

But Joe, it's still a performance enhancement...TOTALLY against the original intent and philosophy of IT...

:blink:

OEM carbs, OEM brains, OEM suspensions, just nice cages, seats and belts...BOOM! Improved Touring.

Bottom line, if this gets opened up, is it creep or keeping up with the times? THAT is the question we all have to answer before voting.

Creep = BAD

KUWTT = NECESSARY
[/b]

Andy, I think you are just trying be stubborn now. KUWTT is no where in the ITCS that I can find. It's kind of like I tell my younger brother that has 5 kids and can't figure out why he's broke.......Just sticking the tip in is still likely to cause you a 6th kid....YOu should have learned by now that's how you got the first 5.

Darin, the argument Andy and Jake want is that it is already legal and being done so why not just let everyone do it. That is what I meant by He is not interested in fixing the loophole in the rule. I get people have exploited the written rule and those are the exact people that in the end with the new technology will justify using traction control because it didn't require wheelspeed sensors to do it.....

Andy Bettencourt

02-02-2007, 11:26 PM

Andy, I think you are just trying be stubborn now. KUWTT is no where in the ITCS that I can find. It's kind of like I tell my younger brother that has 5 kids and can't figure out why he's broke.......Just sticking the tip in is still likely to cause you a 6th kid....YOu should have learned by now that's how you got the first 5. [/b]

Joe, you are the one who is being stubborn. If the class doesn't keep up with the times, we might as well sign it's death warrent. Just because it isn't stated in the GCR doesn't mean you can't use common sense in direction.

Last I saw IT is one of the largest sucesses in the SCCA. It's potential extinction is highly over-hyped - primarily due to what Darin started 3 years ago and what the current group continues today.

We will agree to disagree on this issue.

Joe Harlan

02-02-2007, 11:31 PM

Joe, you are the one who is being stubborn. If the class doesn't keep up with the times, we might as well sign it's death warrent. Just because it isn't stated in the GCR doesn't mean you can't use common sense in direction.

Last I saw IT is one of the largest sucesses in the SCCA. It's potential extinction is highly over-hyped - primarily due to what Darin started 3 years ago and what the current group continues today.

We will agree to disagree on this issue.
[/b]
FUnny Andy those are the EXACT words used by the Prod folks about 20 years ago....I have them in print if you need me to dig them out. Adding free ECUs is not keeping with the times my friend. We have plenty of prep levels that allow for free ECU's, Keeping with in the philosophy of IT will keep it viable for many years to come.

Banzai240

02-02-2007, 11:45 PM

What I don't get is why you say this like it isn't already legal and happening.
[/b]

No... I'm fully acknowleding that this is already happening and legal... I'm also asking you guys to FIX THAT! THAT is the core of this issue... FIX the LOOPHOLE that was created just a few years ago, then let racing continue as it has...

If people want to take it further, the CRB created D-Prepared/Production and B-Prepared/Production for these more modern style of performance mods... IT on Streroids, so to speak... They are welcome to go race there... Heck, they can even go to the Nationals and the Runoffs...

As you can note from this very thread... the level of interest in delving into this tech to the point where one can truely understand it and utilize it fully is very limited in the IT ranks... I'm not sure I fully understand it myself, and I've designed one of these systems... The KISS principle applies... Get rid of the loophole so people don't even have to conerns themselves with the possibilities...

The IT rule should be closer to SS or Touring than it is to Production or GT... Unless something has changed... the Touring rule does NOT allow a "replace" of the ECU... Put a limit on what the word "modification" refers to, and you're golden...

"Suspension may be modified, provided all modifications are done under the car."

That's is how the current ECU rule reads... :rolleyes:

tnord

02-02-2007, 11:46 PM

dj10

02-03-2007, 09:23 AM

Nice scare tactic Dan....but it has been put up and knocked down a few times now. [/b]

Joe, all I am trying to do is make sure everyone is looking at the COMPLETE PICTURE. I'm not trying to use any tactic. Like I have said before, I am running with a factory ECU in my BMW and I'll pull it out and show anyone who wants to see it. Hell, the SCCA Tech ask me to open my hood up last year to see if I was running the SIR and I was happy to cooperate! At this point, I don't give a rats ass if the CRB makes everyone go back to stock ecu's or opens the EUC rule up. I would care if they kept the existing rule as it is now because only benefits a small group of people and give them a performance advantage.

Dan

Joe Harlan

02-03-2007, 10:18 AM

Joe, all I am trying to do is make sure everyone is looking at the COMPLETE PICTURE. I'm not trying to use any tactic. Like I have said before, I am running with a factory ECU in my BMW and I'll pull it out and show anyone who wants to see it. Hell, the SCCA Tech ask me to open my hood up last year to see if I was running the SIR and I was happy to cooperate! At this point, I don't give a rats ass if the CRB makes everyone go back to stock ecu's or opens the EUC rule up. I would care if they kept the existing rule as it is now because only benefits a small group of people and give them a performance advantage.

Dan
[/b]
Sorry Dan but the fact is you are not sharing the whole picture. As stated many times over 19 pages while the OBDII stuff will get harder to decode it will get decoded (as long as there are hot rodders nothing is safe) IT has the benefit of the 5 year window to see new tech stuff coming and deal with it on a per car basis when needed. Car makers are going to be forced to extract every once of power they can from the fuel that is put in a car. Finally there will be some cars that just can't and shouldn't be classed in IT if they don't properly fit the catagory. We don't class station wagons now and I don't see us rushing out to class Turbo cars into IT, Maybe we need to start worrying about classing hybirds? Now theres a worry, We can put an SIR on the Gas side but what do we do with the electric side? SCCA will have to spec a propersized voltage dropping Diode to prevent sombody from getting more electricty to the power plant. In other words there will be lots of things to contend with down the road but I am sure they will get handled in the best way possible.

dj10

02-03-2007, 10:58 AM

Sorry Dan but the fact is you are not sharing the whole picture. As stated many times over 19 pages while the OBDII stuff will get harder to decode it will get decoded (as long as there are hot rodders nothing is safe) IT has the benefit of the 5 year window to see new tech stuff coming and deal with it on a per car basis when needed. Car makers are going to be forced to extract every once of power they can from the fuel that is put in a car. Finally there will be some cars that just can't and shouldn't be classed in IT if they don't properly fit the catagory. We don't class station wagons now and I don't see us rushing out to class Turbo cars into IT, Maybe we need to start worrying about classing hybirds? Now theres a worry, We can put an SIR on the Gas side but what do we do with the electric side? SCCA will have to spec a propersized voltage dropping Diode to prevent sombody from getting more electricty to the power plant. In other words there will be lots of things to contend with down the road but I am sure they will get handled in the best way possible. [/b]

Joe, I hope you and Darin are right. I'm sure the last thing any of us want to do is go through this again in a couple of years. :D What is will boil down to, you type your letter and I'll type mine and let the CRB decide which is the best way. If the rule is changed back to stock ecu's allowing just flashing, like Andy said it probably be implimented until 08. I can't imagine the CRB changing the rule this year, can you? I'm sure it would be a lot of time & money to remove a complete EM System from your already dialed in race car.

Andy Bettencourt

02-03-2007, 11:10 AM

i thought that's what ITR was for..... <_< [/b]

ITR is a class within a category. The rules should be the same for all IT classes.

Joe Harlan

02-03-2007, 11:18 AM

Joe, I hope you and Darin are right. I'm sure the last thing any of us want to do is go through this again in a couple of years. :D What is will boil down to, you type your letter and I'll type mine and let the CRB decide which is the best way. If the rule is changed back to stock ecu's allowing just flashing, like Andy said it probably be implimented until 08. I can't imagine the CRB changing the rule this year, can you? I'm sure it would be a lot of time & money to remove a complete EM System from your already dialed in race car.
[/b]
Dan, I agree 08 will likely be the change (what ever it is) I would just like to see it handled sooner rather than later so people don't invest into something that may go away in 08. As far as being right I know that as of today the code for the 07 cars are already being worked on by car guys all over the world as we speak. :eclipsee_steering:

Banzai240

02-03-2007, 11:29 AM

Joe, I hope you and Darin are right.
[/b]

"Hope"??? Hell... I KNOW I'm right... :P ;)

:eclipsee_steering:

tnord

02-03-2007, 11:30 AM

ITR is a class within a category. The rules should be the same for all IT classes.
[/b]

yup, they should be. my point was that i thought ITR was the answer to the issue of "keeping up with the times."

creating a class for newer cars is keeping up with the times.
going from what was intended to be simple, $500 mods to the ECU all the way out to unrestricted engine management systems costing 10x as much and at least 2x the complexity is a complete change in philosophy.

tube frames anyone?

shwah

02-03-2007, 03:39 PM

Man this thread really has legs!

Plenty of interesting arguments, some on the topic, some on the side. It seems to me that the majority of the opinions are 'close the loophole' and/or 'open up the box'. I would be OK with either, but agree that the close argument is more 'IT like'. I don't see any valid arguments for keeping the status quo.

Some comments I disagree with:
"Only the most expensive ecu fits in most boxes" - how many times will this one be trotted out, so that we can remind ourselves that the CHEAPEST (in dollars to aquire), system will fit in most boxes also - and is very configurable to run with different types of sensors. It is even available in a special super small version for motorcycles and jet-skis, etc.

"Changing ecus is like swapping stock carbs for a Holly 650" - maybe when changing ecus includes changing throttle bodies this would be true. But today it is BS. Changing ecus is like changing jets and recurving timing in a carbed car.

And to the many suggestions about going Prod racing - that is exactly where I will go when I feel like going to the runoffs. I don't thinke those classes are as crappy as many here would like to believe. The competition is good at the front, and as with any racing that would be my goal. Until then IT ain't broke, and threads like this are a good indicator of the passionate interest that competitors have in it's well being. That is a great thing to see :happy204:

bldn10

02-03-2007, 08:00 PM

"The "intent" in the rulebook doesn't say anything about the "expense" of modifications.... you are taking that out of context... It says "inexpensive cars", which, you are correct, is relative to the consumer of said car... but has NOTHING to do with what is allowed to be modified on said car.

Andy, w/ all due respect, I have to differ w/ you on this one. To say that the intent in that rule is that "inexpensive" applies only to tubs, and not mods, simply defies logic. It means that IT cars are to be (relatively) inexpensive AS RACED.

"The intent says specifically that the rules are to "restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car." Open ECUs are neither "necessary to construct a safe race car", and serve no "usefulness", in constructing a safe racecar... Their modification is purely a performance related allowance. Increasing/modifying the performance of a car, or otherwords making modications "for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage", is not mentioned anywhere in the rulebook of this class as something that is within the intent of IT as a class.

So, what is being done is to take a bad rule, which essentially was outside of the intent of the class to start with, and use it as a basis to further open up the class..."

I apologize for being preachy on this but I have said it over and over and it keeps rearing its ugly head. Previous divergences from the class philosophy should not be used to define the philosophy or serve as precedents for new divergences. The open ECU rule was a divergence. Allowing stand-alones can certainly be argued to be a divergence too. I asked a few days ago what the purpose of a new rule was and I was referred back to the start of the thread. But, either expressly or implicitly, people are still asking that question. If I were on the ITAC/CRB that would be the first thing I would want to do - define exactly what the objectives are. Then set about crafting rules that will achieve those objectives. Otherwise you are just shooting in the dark. If anyone wants to take a shot at a CONCISE set of objectives, I think it would be helpful to all.

Andy Bettencourt

02-03-2007, 08:52 PM

Andy, w/ all due respect, I have to differ w/ you on this one. To say that the intent in that rule is that "inexpensive" applies only to tubs, and not mods, simply defies logic. It means that IT cars are to be (relatively) inexpensive AS RACED.
[/b]

I think you are quoting the wrong guy.

tnord

02-03-2007, 08:56 PM

I asked a few days ago what the purpose of a new rule was and I was referred back to the start of the thread. [/b]

bill we've disagreed in the past, but i'm with you on this issue.

addressing the quoted question; the purpose of the new rule if it was opened up is to solve a problem we don't yet have. it's being justified in the name of "forward thinking" to give cars not yet eligible or not even yet mfgd a solution to any ECU problems that may come up without even exploring other possibilites. this would be done at the expense of the thousands of IT cars already built.

i just don't get it.

Knestis

02-03-2007, 09:09 PM

It increasingly seems like there are two, and only two, viable camps forming around this issue - Call them "chip/flash" (a step back?) and "open it up" (a step forward?). I don't see anyone arguing strongly for leaving things the way they are. I understand the "open it up" position better than "chip/flash," so I'll put this out as a straw-man goal:

Open it up - Establish equity, where everyone has the same opportunity to optimize their engine management.

Chip/flash supporters - What do you hope will result, if the policy shifts that way? And try not to put it in terms of why NOT to "open it up." Ignore also for a minute the issue of enforcement and the problem of writing an air-tight rule. Put your goal in terms of what will be different after the rule is changed.

K

dj10

02-03-2007, 09:25 PM

Andy Bettencourt

02-03-2007, 09:28 PM

From what I've read from Jake's post we are now waiting for some kind of response by the CRB in Fastrack by Feb. 20th. I would suggest that anyone who hasn't written to the CRB, take a stand now and get a letter off to them with your position on this matter.

[/b]

The Fastrack will ask for members comment on 3 choices to be collected by the CRB/ITAC.

Knestis

02-03-2007, 11:24 PM

My fear is that the CRB might mutate the possible options - any of which that might satisfy some portion of us - into a mess that doesn't get anything right.

K

dj10

02-04-2007, 09:54 AM

tnord

02-04-2007, 10:09 AM

I was watching the new this morning and they were doing a story on gasoline & ethanol. We have talked a lot about changes to future ecu's and much more. Has anyone thought about what if the goverment starts changing fuel formulas, possibly adding more and more ethanol?? What effect this will have on our race engines? How easy will it to make these changes with the factory ecu's vs. ems? Just something else we might have to prepare for. :D
[/b]

....and we can prepare for that when the time comes.

perhaps we should allow alternate materal body panels next year because the pacific rim countries keep buying up the world's steel and in 20yrs it will become cost prohibitive for us to use steel fenders.

shwah

02-04-2007, 10:10 AM

My fear is that the CRB might mutate the possible options - any of which that might satisfy some portion of us - into a mess that doesn't get anything right.

K
[/b]
To be honest, just knowing that Chris Albin is in that discussion on the CRB makes me much more comfortable that we will end up with something that makes sense for IT.

Here is my stab at answering your previous question:
The chip/flash camp believes that this matches the philosophy of the IT prep level moreso than aftermarket ECUs. It is in actuality improving the factory solution, rather than replacing it.

The open it up camp believes that aftermarket ECUs allow more people to reach the same prep level. I would imagine this is a bigger issue to those that have taken the leap under the current rule, and competitors in thier classes that have fallen behind as a result. The early adopters will lose an investment with the chip/flash scenario, while simply losing an advantage with the open-up scenario. Thier competitors want a way to catch up, and/or have a car that an open ECU rule will make full effort prep easier.

I can live with either, but prefer the former because the IT rules are not intended to provide total parity, ala Production or GT. The cars are given a place to race with other cars that have a similar potential performance envelope - not an equivalent performance envelope. Cars are what they are, warts and all. In reality, my own car may be a bit faster if we opened the rule up.

dj10

02-04-2007, 10:44 AM

....and we can prepare for that when the time comes.

perhaps we should allow alternate materal body panels next year because the pacific rim countries keep buying up the world's steel and in 20yrs it will become cost prohibitive for us to use steel fenders.
[/b]

What the hell does a fender have to do with a ecu? :D In 20 yrs, that will be your problem Travis, not mine, just like global warming, and I'm all for Global warming :happy204: . Fuel formulas are changing all the time, now.

Joe Harlan

02-04-2007, 11:09 AM

What the hell does a fender have to do with a ecu? :D In 20 yrs, that will be your problem Travis, not mine, just like global warming, and I'm all for Global warming :happy204: . Fuel formulas are changing all the time, now.
[/b]
Let me help you Dan the alarmist.....Ethanol won't pass out fuel test anyway so everyone will be disqualifed before the event is run. :bash_1_:

tnord

02-04-2007, 11:48 AM

What the hell does a fender have to do with a ecu? :D In 20 yrs, that will be your problem Travis, not mine, just like global warming, and I'm all for Global warming :happy204: . Fuel formulas are changing all the time, now.
[/b]

remember the ACT?

standalone ECU rule; classifying 2010 vehicles as -

a ) allowing composite material panels; prohibitive steel costs
b ) travis buying life insurace; wife and kids
c ) both a & b

mom'sZ

02-04-2007, 01:16 PM

9.1.3.B says in part 'It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car' Many people have quoted this line as a reason they feel opening up the ECU rule is outside the intent of IT. What I wonder is how is getting the engine to have the correct fuel mixture under race conditions not necessary for constructing a safe race car? Indeed the very first authorized modification listed is 9.1.3.D.1.a. 'Any carburetor jets,needles,and/or metering rods may be used in the stock or approved optional carburetor(s).Alternate needle valves are permitted. Removable jets may be replaced or resized' To me it seems resonable to consider that the original rule writers figured in order to race a production based car, it may be necessary to tune the carb to provide the correct mixture under racing conditions that were very different from what the vehicle's manufacturer set them up for. I would guess that they (the original rule writers) also considered certain carburetors to be so poorly suited for the purpose of racing that they provided an alternate carb. Why then is it unreasonable to consider giving fuel injected cars that same tunability is outside the intent of IT?
Certain already classed cars have anaolog ECUs that cannot be rechipped or reflashed. There is no chip to replace or reflash. Some ECUs may be so unsuitable for racing that they may need to be replaced.
Why is the rule as it stands now so unpopular? From my point of view it seems unpopular because some well funded teams took the allowance and used it to gain extreme control over their engine managment. They have used it to optimize the fuel curve and ignition under any possible condition. They may also be using it to contol traction. Optimizing your vehicle for the conditions it will run in (racing) is really the basis for all race prep.
So how to fix it? Here are some of the choices (there are more then three)
Stock ECUs only: Pros - no one would be able to gain an advantage that isn't available to everyone with any budget. Indeed the car comes with the stock ECU. Prepping a car would be easier Cons - cars were classed with ECU mods in mind and some would need reclassed/adjusted. Intimate knowledge of each vehicle would be required to do so. Some models may no longer be suitable to race because of rev limits or speed limits.
Rechip/reflash only: Pros - those with the knowledge to do so can 'tune' those models that have a microprocessor chip. Some models may have an 'off the shelf' replacement chip or tuning service available. Cons - Some models may not be chipable or reflashable. Some competitors may be able to do anything they are now doing under the current rule while others would be stuck using the stock ECU.
Open ECU with stock sensors and harness: Pros - any ECU can be used with out regard for the size of the stock box. Cons - some ECUs won't work with stock sensors or require more sensors.
Open ECUs with open sensors and wiring: Pros - any ECU can be used on any car. Cons - some competitors may use the ECU to control vehicle functions to gain an unintended advantage.
Leave the rule alone as is: Pros - no one losses development they invested in. Cars don't need to be reprocessed to fit the class. Cons - nothing changes, well funded teams/teams with the technical knowledge to do so can still tune to a high degree.
So which is best for IT? Which is the fairest to all competitors and all models? Which will truely do something to level the playing field? Which can truely be accomplished within the clubs current capabilities?

lateapex911

02-04-2007, 01:48 PM

There is a BIG difference between altering the fuel maps (adjusting the fuel curve for those of you who are trying to relate this to carbs...), which are really nothing more than a table of values, and throwing out all the circuitry and starting over... If you do the later, you are opening the door to a completely new engine management scheme that didn't exist in the stock example of the car and WILL increase it's potential...

[/b]

Darin, can we get specific on the "increased potential" (or performance) anticipated in your statement?

(I ask to understand better, but keep in mind the "increased performance" exists now, and has for 5 years...I think we understand and agree on that premise, right?)

You mentioned the change from batch fired injection to sequential. For the average 1.8 litre engine in IT that goes from batch to sequential injection, how much hp/tq is actually gained in the rev range from 4K to redline? What numbers are we talking about? 20HP? 2HP?

You also mentioned timing changes. How would the hardware change the result, considering the current rules? And again, what will the actual perfrmance increases be? (keep in mind that the open ECU would allow no extra sensors, just as now)

Joe Harlan

02-04-2007, 02:20 PM

Darin, can we get specific on the "increased potential" (or performance) anticipated in your statement?

(I ask to understand better, but keep in mind the "increased performance" exists now, and has for 5 years...I think we understand and agree on that premise, right?)

You mentioned the change from batch fired injection to sequential. For the average 1.8 litre engine in IT that goes from batch to sequential injection, how much hp/tq is actually gained in the rev range from 4K to redline? What numbers are we talking about? 20HP? 2HP?

You also mentioned timing changes. How would the hardware change the result, considering the current rules? And again, what will the actual perfrmance increases be? (keep in mind that the open ECU would allow no extra sensors, just as now)
[/b]

Jake, A couple of things I can help with here. We all understand what the current rule is. You need to understand that the question is not what the current rule has allowed to be exploited, it is what should it be or should it have been.

Example: Dave's honda. ECU has fuel control only. Batch fire on the injectors...Normal vacuum advance distributor. The cars was likely classed under the original no modification rule. Now with my company stuffing any current ECU in his factory box...(trust the fact there is no box I can't fit a aftermarket ECU into.) Now Daves car has full 3D control ( I believe same case for the volvos) Completely tunable sequential FI. I can now time each injector and trim the fuel delivery to each cylinder individually. It would be difficult to give you an exact number without dynoing that cars specificly. Our GT4 L16 made 188HP on carbs after the sequential EFI we made 202hp (same dyno) We did 1 dyno pass in batch fire mode for the hell of it. We made 191hp and lost torque. I know this is not an IT prepped engine but it is an actual example that can be provided.
Back to Daves car. Once it is a sequential 3d controled system is it a 2.0 liter ITB car or now a 2.0 liter ITA car.

mom'sZ

02-04-2007, 02:54 PM

Jake, my understanding of sequential fuel injection vs batch fire fuel injection is that at low RPMs and on start up, sequential fuel injection can make a difference in engine emissions, thus the factories adoption of the system of late. At mid to higher RPMs the difference is negligible. In fact, it is my understanding that at anything over low RPMs the injection systems ability to time the fuel pulse to the actual intake event becomes imposible and many sequential systems switch to batch fire at higher RPMs.

Joe, you seem to be in favor of the rechip/reflash daughterboard only option. Do you not believe that given enough time, money, and technical expertise a team would not be able to create a system under this rule that would be capable of full 3D control completely tunable sequential fuel injection? If one can replace the microprosessor chip or plug a daughterboard in it's place how would that not be possible? Is the intent of this rule to just make it harder or more expensive in the hope that most won't bother?

Joe Harlan

02-04-2007, 03:01 PM

Z3_GoCar

02-04-2007, 03:25 PM

The philosophy of the class is improved.....not replace touring. That said I normally don't respond to people without an identity.
[/b]

Then why are carburetors allowed to be replaced and not improved?

Why are springs allowed to be replaced?

Why are shocks allowed to be replaced?

Why are the complete exhaust systems, including the exhaust header allowed to be replaced?

The fact remains that if you're using a re-flash that 50-state legal, you've not changed your fuel map, and are most certainly running lean with the free flowing exhuast. Installing a standalone is not that complicated, getting it tuned is much easier that finding the single person in the nation who has the knowledge to crack and tune a stock system, if there is such a person.

tnord

02-04-2007, 03:35 PM

sometimes i want to gouge out my eyes with a rusty spoon. now is one of those times.

:bash_1_:

mom'sZ

02-04-2007, 03:40 PM

I'd also like to point out that cars can only be converted to sequential fuel injection if they are physically configured to do so. In otherwords, they must have an individual injector for each cylinder. I don't think any considered version of the rule would allow injectors to be added. To use sequential fuel injection would also require individual wires running to the controller and thus would only be possible in the open ECU, open sensor and harness version.

Joe, I guess that explains why you didn't respond to my inquiry in the other thread about untunable ECUs. I apologize for not properly introducing myself, I am Andrew Rowe, 44 years old, resident of Royal Palm Beach. Florida. Now that that is out of the way, please explain to me how headers are not outside your philosophy of the class. Also, coil over springs, camber plates ect. How are headers necessary to the construction of a safe race car? Also please explain how a competitor who chooses to use the alternate carb conforms to your philosophy of improve not replace touring? What of the inequity that a rechip/reflash only rule would create for my car? (a 1977 Datsun 280z with analog ECU)

Opps... On edit... James you seem to have took the words right out of my mouth while I was busy typing. That's why I have stayed mostly quiet on this issue, someone brighter and more articulate always seems to voice the same opinion as mine.

tnord

02-04-2007, 03:52 PM

The fact remains that if you're using a re-flash that 50-state legal, you've not changed your fuel map, and are most certainly running lean with the free flowing exhuast. Installing a standalone is not that complicated, getting it tuned is much easier that finding the single person in the nation who has the knowledge to crack and tune a stock system, if there is such a person.
[/b]

great. but why do we NEED it?

why don't we allow the removal of the washer bottle? it's not complicated. it won't change performance structure. it won't cost anyone a thing. and it would make some people very happy.

why don't we allow it? because there's no good damn reason we should. and there's no good damn reason we need to allow standalone ECU's at this time either.

mom'sZ

02-04-2007, 03:55 PM

Travis, why do carb guys need to rejet? As James says, once you install a free flowing exhuast, your fuel mixture requirments change.

JoshS

02-04-2007, 03:55 PM

Joe Harlan

02-04-2007, 04:02 PM

Nice to meet you Andrew, 21 pages later I am not going to go back and cover all the ground that has been covered. I will have to let those that were part of writing the original rules set explain carbs and headers ect.

Carbs are not EFI. We are talking a completely different situation and you will find that adjustment still only applies to a small number of IT cars listed. The 240z does not get an alternate carb. I don't believe the RX7 gets one either. Beyond that. You guys keep saying there are ECU's that are not tunable and that has been proven wrong several times now. As long as a chip can be programed and there is a desire to do so then they ALL can be programed. Sequential Fi....Yes you are right there has to be a physical set of injectors from the factory and the wiring to support it. I believe there are plenty of cars that meet this requirement and your forgeting that part of this 21 page thread has called for completely opening up to harnesses along with the ECU's. The allowances you guys are trying to trot out are not easy to answer but were apart of the original rules set. I rememeber baack to stock spring perches with coilovers sitting on them. My point has nothing to do with supporting or not supporting technology. MY point is if you want free ecu's we offer classes that already have them. If you want more cam we have a class for you. If you want 18" wheels and wings we have that also. So why push this set of rules into another level of technology that it was never meant to get to and only through a poor choice of words did we get the can of worms we are currently dealing with.

If you want some big ole modified hotrod then Production/Prepared or GT should be your next stop.

Lastly IT has always had cars with pluses and minuses if it is part of your cars ability to program Sequential EFI into the factory chip then more power to ya, If its not then look for the way to extract the most power out of what you have. I said it before does anyone think it is easy to get 200HP out of an L24 z and stay with in the rules. It takes work and creativity. Thats what racing and especially IT racing is about.

Travis, why do carb guys need to rejet? As James says, once you install a free flowing exhuast, your fuel mixture requirments change.[/b]

Thats kind of a false argument. the allowance of an adjustable fuel regulator was the compensation for fuel mixture on injected cars. There is no need to have an ecu to make a safe mixture. I will bet a thousand bucks that any OBDII system hasa a much better fuel curve and control than a 32/36 DGV ever though of having. Paper argument.

lateapex911

02-04-2007, 04:04 PM

Why do proponents of the open-it-all-up approach claim that they need it to attain equity, when there are inequities all over the rules? What is so special about ECUs? I mean, solid axle cars can't go putting in double wishbones. Sounds like a huge inequity. Why not ask for that?
[/b]

Well, for one thing, the ITAC process uses power estimates based on ECU gains, as thats what the rules allow.

But the Process does take into account basic categorical suspension design differencess, etc.

mom'sZ

02-04-2007, 04:06 PM

Josh, just to set the record straight, I am not a proponent of the open it all up version of the rule. I think allowing any sensors to be added or wiring to be added could certainly open the door for unintended consequenses. I believe the main objection to the rule as it stands is that some stock ECU boxes are very smalll. This creates an inequity between the guys that can't fit an aftermarket ECU in their box and those who can. Also, one of the better more highly configurable systems that will fit in a small box is also one of the more expensive. The in the stock box requirement seems to be the thing most don't care for.

tnord

02-04-2007, 04:06 PM

Travis, why do carb guys need to rejet? As James says, once you install a free flowing exhuast, your fuel mixture requirments change.
[/b]

carbs? phuck if i know about carbs.

"requirements" is a horrible choice of words. are you saying the car won't run unless we open it up to standalone ECU if someone puts on an exhaust? how did these other thousands of IT cars get them to run with out changing anything to the ECU? how do the SM guys do it? how do SS guys do it? how do touring guys do it? are saying that everyone of these cars has ECU mods? obviously not. so it's obviously not a requirement.

and btw.....there's more than just the ECU that can be adjusted to play with your A/F ratio. and also, a chipped ECU will do the job just fine.

anything else?

mom'sZ

02-04-2007, 05:02 PM

Travis, pulling one word out of context is sort of twisting my statement a little, no? All cars have fuel mixture requirements. No fuel -no run, to much fuel - no run, some fuel, some air - car runs - fuel mixture requirement. I never said installing a header requires a new ECU, that's silly. We all know that upping the fuel pressure (a legal mod) can correct the fuel curve on a fuel injected car. It's also legal to place a resistor between the harness and the stock sensor. In my case, there is a built in mixture adjustment in my AFM.
I take it you are a proponent of the stock ECU only rule. I could live with that if everyone else agreed to it. To me that is one change to the rule that would level the playing field somewhat. Main short coming would be that the cars were classified with the allowance in mind. They may now need rerun through the process. It took a lot of work by those fellows, but if it's best for IT and they are willing to do it... so be it. I truely want what is best for the class. And this is one option that could make a real difference. Joe's option of rechip or reflash only, to me, doesn't do so. It creates a situation were the rich and technically savvy have an advantage. (not that the rich and technically savvy aren't always going to have an advantage in racing) It does little to level the playing field.
Apparently a few years back, some folks did think it was necassary. Perhaps because a few bad apples were cheating and proving it was damn near impossible. That shouldn't be a reason to rewrite the rule though. When I raced motorcycles in the early ninties, we confronted this same issue. It was decided that the rules would require a competitor to willingly exchange his 'stock' black box for one furnished by the club. There were fewer models of bikes and so it was reasonable for the club to purchase a box for each model and they would occasionally ask a competitor to exchange his. If we adopted a stock ECU rule only, perhaps a competitor could provide a fee so the club could obtain a replacement box if he felt a competitor was cheating. Would you be willing to exchange your box under such a rule? There are issues with this form of enforcement, such as some boxes not being available anymore, but what if we trade boxes? Or if I think you're cheating you buy me one, I buy you one and we split the difference in cost. (and I certainly am not insinuating you cheat, please don;t take it that way)

seckerich

02-04-2007, 05:05 PM

seckerich

02-04-2007, 05:21 PM

carbs? phuck if i know about carbs.

"requirements" is a horrible choice of words. are you saying the car won't run unless we open it up to standalone ECU if someone puts on an exhaust? how did these other thousands of IT cars get them to run with out changing anything to the ECU? how do the SM guys do it? how do SS guys do it? how do touring guys do it? are saying that everyone of these cars has ECU mods? obviously not. so it's obviously not a requirement.

and btw.....there's more than just the ECU that can be adjusted to play with your A/F ratio. and also, a chipped ECU will do the job just fine.

anything else?
[/b]
Read the SM rules Travis, they allow you to adjust the AFM to get the desired mixture. No such allowance in IT.

JoshS

02-04-2007, 05:21 PM

When I raced motorcycles in the early ninties, we confronted this same issue. It was decided that the rules would require a competitor to willingly exchange his 'stock' black box for one furnished by the club. There were fewer models of bikes and so it was reasonable for the club to purchase a box for each model and they would occasionally ask a competitor to exchange his. If we adopted a stock ECU rule only, perhaps a competitor could provide a fee so the club could obtain a replacement box if he felt a competitor was cheating. Would you be willing to exchange your box under such a rule? There are issues with this form of enforcement, such as some boxes not being available anymore, but what if we trade boxes? Or if I think you're cheating you buy me one, I buy you one and we split the difference in cost. (and I certainly am not insinuating you cheat, please don;t take it that way)
[/b]
That has been proposed in Showroom Stock for a while now, but it doesn't work for modern cars. In many cars sold today, the ECUs are coded to the car's VIN, and they won't even crank, never mind start, with another car's ECU. We tried this in our SSC Mazdas just to prove the point.

tnord

02-04-2007, 06:00 PM

1) no i am not a proponent of stock ECU. i am a proponent of the original intent of the written rule, which was for chips/reflashes to be legal.
2) all cars were put through the process with the assumption that they could get a standalone system in the box iirc. they should not need to be reprocessed if we went to a chip/reflash rule.
3) buy 5 AFMs and pick one that gives you a good A/F mixture. you know that, you have an AFM pretty close to the same as mine. even so, chip/reflash should take care of any major A/F problems just the same as a standalone will.
4) ECU swapping for IT is not a logistically reasonable request.

pfcs49

02-04-2007, 06:58 PM

"Yes you are right there has to be a physical set of injectors from the factory and the wiring to support it. I believe there are plenty"
all OBD II (96on) sytems with multipoint injection have discrete wiring to each injector, making sequential firing a possibility. (OBD II requires the ECM to be able to located and identify an open or short circuit to each injector, hence the discrete wiring even if batch fired).

"Quick question Bill. How much money did you throw away on the blown motors because your stock ECU went crazy and leaned out the motor? A good management system would have paid for itself by now. "
mom'sZ Posted Today, 04:02 PM

WTF??!! Because the OE injection system is so unreliable that it's difficult to drive a car even 50 miles without having a problem?? wHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SMOKING? phil

seckerich

02-04-2007, 10:13 PM

[WTF??!! Because the OE injection system is so unreliable that it's difficult to drive a car even 50 miles without having a problem?? wHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SMOKING? phil
[/quote]
Dont think I know you Phil--no I'm not smoking anything--you? I simply made the point to Bill that the RX7 has a notorious problem of going into limp mode and leaning out the rear rotor. The oil metering pump goes wacky and usually takes the computer with it. The metering pump is $1200.00 last I checked and computer is usually about $200.00 used. I know him and was simply pointing this out to him. Whats it to you? Post all the facts or opinions you want but grow up with the smokin crap.

bldn10

02-05-2007, 09:56 AM

I think you are quoting the wrong guy.
[/b]

Sorry, Andy, it was Darin. Didn't think that sounded like you.

bldn10

02-05-2007, 10:27 AM

Steve, I still think I lost the last engine due to a piece of spark plug coming off in the engine. In retropsect I never had an OMP issue, but Chris (Ludwig) found that one of the rear oil injectors was bad. Also, it looks like I may have had a bad OEM fuel pressure gauge. Also, I wasn't getting enough voltage to the fuel pump. I.e. I had several issues that came together in a "perfect storm" kind of way. The best move I've made was to take the entire car to Chris and have him go through it. I'm ready to roll now.

In an earlier post I expressed approval for your proposal if we have to open it up.

My personal feelings about the issue is that I am not much concerned about the few Motec-in-a-box guys out there because they are going to out-prep and out-drive me anyway. :( I am more concerned about having to spend another $1000 minimum just to keep up w/ the average guy when we have good, competitive racing now. I don't see that as progress. When these options show up in Fastrack most IT competitors (who aren't here) aren't going to understand what it is all about or what the objectives are. So they will just "vote" in the way that is best for them, which may or may not be best for the class.

I've asked this before but don't recall an answer. If we open it up, and we all go out and spend the $1000 -$2000, are we going to be in a better place than we are today other than maybe shaving a few tenths off our times?

Knestis

02-05-2007, 10:43 AM

... I am more concerned about having to spend another $1000 minimum just to keep up w/ the average guy. ...[/b]

But the allowance of other options to the same end as provided by MIB (Motec-in-box) isn't going to automagically free up $1000 of budget in those "average guys'" budgets - which would be necessary for them to pursue the change that you worry about having to chase.

If they wanted to spend a grand trying to go faster than you, they'd be doing it now. If you wanted to spend the same amount, you'd find a way to do it regardless of the new allowance. Equally, if you think you can use the dough to go "more faster" by doing something else, that's in your power, too.

We used to have a rule when I'd run meetings - as soon as someone made the same point for a second time, we called a decision. Everyone keeps saying the same things over and over and over again on this topic...

...so I will, too! :)

It's just not possible to directly limit spending with rules. If we'd learn this, we could avoid a lot of round-and-round on some of these issues and focus on what we can control.

K

tnord

02-05-2007, 10:43 AM

oh yeah....if we go to standalone units, that just gives the people that want to group us with prod more leverage imo.

Joe Harlan

02-05-2007, 10:53 AM

It's just not possible to directly limit spending with rules. If we'd learn this, we could avoid a lot of round-and-round on some of these issues and focus on what we can control.

K
[/b]

K, Agreed it is not possible. It is possible to cap the level of prep which in turn wil directly effect the value of out spending the next guy. As a solid member of the "do more with less club" my problem is when you raise the bar you raise if for everyone. From the bottom to the top. Yes the money guy or the geek like myself will get the maximum possible out of an OE ECU and some guys will just run stock. But I would contend the Maximum from an OE unit is no where near what the maximum of a stand alone will be. So setting the limit to a modified OE unit also establishes a top level of prep and anything spent beyond the top level would either be wasting money or cheating. I learned to burn chips and program FI out of pure need and nothing more.

Andy Bettencourt

02-05-2007, 10:57 AM

Nobody want IT anywhere near prod. The best thing about IT is no comp adjustments and spec change allowances from car to car.

Kirk, what would you do with this rule?

Here is a quote from a guy (edit: a 'guy' with tons of experience who lurks but doesn't participate - probably like the majority of IT nationwide) who sent me something offline:
If you allow reflashing or chipping then anyone with enough time and resources can affect any performance gain that could be otherwise acheived via less expensive, more available options i.e. aftermarket ECU's, Piggybacks, resistors etc. Opening the ECU rule does not ergo increase the potential performance envelope over reflashing or chipping; it simply levels the playing field . Since many cars in IT can not be raced without altering the existing programs then let it go. Rules should be written as to govern results rather that methodology of acheiving such results i.e. threaded shock bodies vs threaded spring purchase sleeves.[/b]

Banzai240

02-05-2007, 11:02 AM

Sorry, Andy, it was Darin. Didn't think that sounded like you.
[/b]

Yah... and you took it completely out of context as well... and completely missed the point being made...

Luckily, there were plenty here who actually got it...

tnord

02-05-2007, 11:04 AM

aren't there members of the CRB and/or BOD that would like to see IT/Prod put together in the name of reducing classes?

If you allow reflashing or chipping then anyone with enough time and resources can affect any performance gain that could be otherwise acheived via less expensive, more available options i.e. aftermarket ECU's, Piggybacks, resistors etc. Opening the ECU rule does not ergo increase the potential performance envelope over reflashing or chipping; it simply levels the playing field . Since many cars in IT can not be raced without altering the existing programs then let it go. Rules should be written as to govern results rather that methodology of acheiving such results i.e. threaded shock bodies vs threaded spring purchase sleeves.
[/b]

that statement means nothing to me until i know who said it, and why i should believe them.

Andy Bettencourt

02-05-2007, 11:06 AM

aren't there members of the CRB and/or BOD that would like to see IT/Prod put together in the name of reducing classes?

that statement means nothing to me until i know who said it, and why i should believe them. [/b]

Not that I know of. I have NEVER heard such a sentiment. IT is completely seperate from any other category as it is not National so it isn't subject to any 'reduction' or 'consolodation' plans.

As far as who said it Trav - a racer who has multiple championships and an ARRC win. It's just an opinion based on experience...lots of it. Use it as a data point, nothing more.

Joe Harlan

02-05-2007, 11:42 AM

Not that I know of. I have NEVER heard such a sentiment. IT is completely seperate from any other category as it is not National so it isn't subject to any 'reduction' or 'consolodation' plans.

As far as who said it Trav - a racer who has multiple championships and an ARRC win. It's just an opinion based on experience...lots of it. Use it as a data point, nothing more.
[/b]

Andy, Travis is correct about your data point. It has no value without a name and qualifications put to it. Multiple ARRC championships one could assume that maybe this person has exploited the existing rule and is only interested in protecting that investment.

seckerich

02-05-2007, 12:06 PM

Watching this thread is like watching a dog chase its own tail! :026:

Andy Bettencourt

02-05-2007, 12:22 PM

Andy, Travis is correct about your data point. It has no value without a name and qualifications put to it. Multiple ARRC championships one could assume that maybe this person has exploited the existing rule and is only interested in protecting that investment. [/b]

Well it would appear to me you can't be impartial then. Just taking the comment for what it's worth and debating the merits of it isn't good enough. You need to know who they are - and when you find out who they may be, you pidgeon-hole them and discount thier opinion. Debate the validity of the comments, not the names.

(Now I am a firm believer of putting your name in posts to manifest credibility but that is in situations where someone comes in, guns blazing and rips everyone appart from an unknown grassy knoll. Never will you see anyone rip someone for having not put their name in their post or their sig when they are contribution to a reasonable discussion - see recent "Old Guy" issue)

Like Kirk said. Time to make a decision. Send in your letter when you see the Fastrack.

tnord

02-05-2007, 12:22 PM

Watching this thread is like watching a dog chase its own tail! :026:
[/b]

far less funny, and far more maddening though. :wacko:

dj10

02-05-2007, 12:41 PM

Like Kirk said. Time to make a decision. Send in your letter when you see the Fastrack.

[/b]

AMEN. Anything more and all you are doing is beating a dead person (I like animals to much to beat a dead horse). :D

tnord

02-05-2007, 12:47 PM

Joe Harlan

02-05-2007, 01:40 PM

Well it would appear to me you can't be impartial then. Just taking the comment for what it's worth and debating the merits of it isn't good enough. You need to know who they are - and when you find out who they may be, you pidgeon-hole them and discount thier opinion. Debate the validity of the comments, not the names.

(Now I am a firm believer of putting your name in posts to manifest credibility but that is in situations where someone comes in, guns blazing and rips everyone appart from an unknown grassy knoll. Never will you see anyone rip someone for having not put their name in their post or their sig when they are contribution to a reasonable discussion - see recent "Old Guy" issue)

Like Kirk said. Time to make a decision. Send in your letter when you see the Fastrack.
[/b]

Simple Debate, Prove to me that you can do everything in a stock ECU that you can do with an aftermarket! If you can then there is no need for the aftermarket unit is there? It is a point of physical hardware on the board that limits what can be programed to it.

Andy Bettencourt

02-05-2007, 02:44 PM

i just want to know why this guy is a more credible source than anyone else. i disagree with the statement that anything a standalone ECU can do a chipped ECU can do just as well. and if i am to be converted to that line of thinking, i'm going to need more than "this guy over here said so."
[/b]

Travis,

I never positioned it as anything more credible than anyone else. Please point to where I did that. All I said was that it was another opinion and to be taken as JUST ANOTHER data point. There are plenty of anonymous people on these boards who slide through without so much as a notice - as long as they agree with your (in the general sense) point.

Enough is enough. Vote with your keyboard in 15 days.

tnord

02-05-2007, 02:55 PM

Travis,

I never positioned it as anything more credible than anyone else. Please point to where I did that.
[/b]

i never said you did that. when you take the time to quote stuff from annonymous people it does carry a bit more weight than the usual mindless banter coming from people like me, whether you specifically state that it should or not.

Fastfred92

02-05-2007, 02:56 PM

I am sure I have missed this here but when will this be out for public comment?

lateapex911

02-05-2007, 03:04 PM

If the item goes through as written it will be a 602 (ack!) word preface and multiple choice item in the Feb Fastrack, due out no later than 2/20/07.

Honestly, there is probably nothing in it that hasn't been at least mentioned in passing here, but, it will (hopefully) help illustrate the issue for those who haven't stopped in here. Of course, we ITACers that post here can help to clarify items that might be unclear once you read it.

Knestis

02-05-2007, 04:00 PM

How this question relates to Production or agenda related to that category seem to me to be beside the point: If someone wants to combine IT and Prod, they are going to want that regardless of the details of this particular rule.

... Kirk, what would you do with this rule?[/b]

Since "absolutely stock" doesn't seem to be viable, I'd open it up - allowing any sensors, processors, memory devices, or wiring but requiring that the mechanical parts of the induction system (anything that touches air or fuel), remain as delivered, except for changes already allowed by other rules.

Anything in between achieves essentially the same end, but not to the same degree for all cars. We can achieve equity of opportunity but not of budget, aptitude, enthusiasm, or talent. The rule should address ONLY the former and accept that the rest are variables controlled by entrants.

K

lateapex911

02-05-2007, 04:35 PM

....... I'd open it up - allowing any sensors, processors, memory devices, or wiring but requiring that the mechanical parts of the induction system (anything that touches air or fuel), remain as delivered, except for changes already allowed by other rules.

Anything in between achieves essentially the same end, but not to the same degree for all cars. We can achieve equity of opportunity but not of budget, aptitude, enthusiasm, or talent. The rule should address ONLY the former and accept that the rest are variables controlled by entrants.

K [/b]
I boldened the phrase that was my gut driving force when I opened the first thread up, so many pages ago. Nice bit of succinct wordsmithing. I happen to agree with the statement and the concept, but I can certainly see how others might not. .

Banzai240

02-05-2007, 04:41 PM

Anything in between achieves essentially the same end, but not to the same degree for all cars. We can achieve equity of opportunity [/b]

Equity of opportunity?? :rolleyes:

I'm sure all the 240Zs and the rest of the carb'd cars are LOVING that thought...

Well guys... it was fun while it lasted...

I think it's time to separate the carb'd from the FI cars....

Improved Touring - Carb'd
Improved Tuner - FI

Equity of opportunity my A$$... You guys have NO idea the "opportunities" you are about to open up... :rolleyes:

I hope there is at least the option of "chip/reflash" for those of us in the LIMIT THE OPPORTUNIES camp... or otherwise CLOSING the loopholes and FIXING the existing rule... and trying to keep the spirit and intent of IT in check...

Equity of opportunity... that's going to be ringing in my head like a bad Prince song now for days... :blink:

Andy Bettencourt

02-05-2007, 07:42 PM

Equity of opportunity my A$$... You guys have NO idea the "opportunities" you are about to open up... :rolleyes:
[/b]

Darin, provide some value or stop posting the same thing with no data.

Chipped can do this - chipped can't do that...

Programmable can do this - Programmable can't do that

Tell us then how your conclusion differs from what we have today.

Joe Harlan

02-05-2007, 07:51 PM

Darin, provide some value or stop posting the same thing with no data.

Chipped can do this - chipped can't do that...

Programmable can do this - Programmable can't do that

Tell us then how your conclusion differs from what we have today.
[/b]

OK Andy, I will say the same thing to you. How many of these standalone or factory ECU's have you installed programmed in the past. I have not actually seen you provide any first hand data yourself. What things are you sure of as far as what a factory ECU can or can't do? I would really like to know.

Conover

02-05-2007, 07:53 PM

http://wiw.org/~jess/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/mikekaren.jpg
:dead_horse: :024: :bash_1_: :014: :( <_< :mad1: :unsure: :dead_horse:

Andy Bettencourt

02-05-2007, 08:04 PM

OK Andy, I will say the same thing to you. How many of these standalone or factory ECU's have you installed programmed in the past. I have not actually seen you provide any first hand data yourself. What things are you sure of as far as what a factory ECU can or can't do? I would really like to know.
[/b]

Well Joe, what you haven't seen me do is proclaim without a doubt, one way or the other what is the right answer. Actually, I have said I am undecided because I see both sides. THAT is the difference in what I am asking Darin.

Joe Harlan

02-05-2007, 08:14 PM

Well Joe, what you haven't seen me do is proclaim without a doubt, one way or the other what is the right answer. Actually, I have said I am undecided because I see both sides. THAT is the difference in what I am asking Darin.
[/b]

Nice, but you still did not answer? I have more concern that the folks that are writing the proposal 600+ words have NO experience with any of this technology and will present the overview from a point of little or no fact. I have asked continually who has first hand work with this stuff and have yet to get solid answers on that question. My guess is as a software engineer Darin at least has the understanding of how much can be put in the hardware.

Banzai240

02-05-2007, 08:50 PM

Darin, provide some value or stop posting the same thing with no data. [/b]

After 17 plus pages I'm not sure what more can be said...

Look at the features of a Motec system, or any other aftermarket ECU, and compare that to what your ECU does today... A "Chip and Flash" setup (i.e.: Wolfe, etc..) allows alteration of the fuel maps, timing maps, the temps at which something turns on/off, etc...

It does NOT, if the rules are written correctly, allow a gang fire injection to be changed to a sequential... does NOT allow timing control where none existed previously, etc...

What it DOES do is allow the fuel mixture any other functions that it ALREADY CONTROLS to be optimized...

That's as FAR AS IT SHOULD GO... If the circuit didn't exist previously, it still doesn't... There isn't a single chip that is made for this application that can become an "ECU on a chip"... Too much signal conditioning and other support circuitry is involved... If it was something that was possible... or feasible... Silicone space is $$$$... the less the better from a manufacturing standpoint... WHY would they not have replaced these "big" ECUs with a single chip already? This is HYPE and should be weighed as such...

Open it up, you open up what it can do... NOTHING is off limits at that point, so just use your imagination, or read any of their literature, to see what you could and CAN do...

The bottom line is that IT should involve no more than possibly allowing an additional memory chip, or whatever else might be involved in accessing and "flashing" the fuel and/or timing tables and sensor settings... Anything beyond that is allowing a COMPLETE replacement of the factory FI scheme/design and would constitute another level of prep...

IT is about optimizing the factory systems... NOT outright replacing them... The rules can be worded to limit the ECU to exactly THIS, if that is the desire... which is the key to this whole thread... IS IT??

NOT sure how much more value I can attempt to add... It's simple "logic"... punn intended...

Knestis

02-05-2007, 09:01 PM

Andy Bettencourt

02-05-2007, 09:21 PM

Nice, but you still did not answer? I have more concern that the folks that are writing the proposal 600+ words have NO experience with any of this technology and will present the overview from a point of little or no fact. I have asked continually who has first hand work with this stuff and have yet to get solid answers on that question. My guess is as a software engineer Darin at least has the understanding of how much can be put in the hardware.
[/b]

Joe, the 'proposal' is a detailed poll with 3 choices. Those 3 choices have specific GCR wording so each member has an EXACT idea what they are voting for.

I am not qualified to speak to the topic as an expert. We have people on the ITAC who have years of experience with this stuff. You and Darin come off as experts and proclaim disaster in absolutes but don't help us all understand. I don't doubt you guys have more knowledge but just don't shout from the mountain the world is coming to an end - educate the villagers so they can vote!

Bob Stretch weighed in on the last call in detail and I consider him to be an expert as he has done tons with open systems in SWC. We have also solicited opinions from people who have worked with this stuff for years to try and understand any unintended consiquenses.

Please don't avoid the question anymore. Educate or drop your pitchfork. Those of us that know you know you have great info...just let it out, it will set you free! :D

tnord

02-05-2007, 09:35 PM

...and FWIW (zero, probably) my opinion on the subject has applied the standard of a "preponderence of evidence" - just enough to tip the scales for me - rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt." If I had more confidence that a rule could be written that codifies the chip/flash philosophy and didn't just become a different set of words allowing some cars to get right back to where we are now, the scales would probably tip the other way for me.

It's a hard question. I think we make it harder with red herrings, symbolism, and even some self-interest thrown in but even absent all of that, it's a toughie.

It seems likely that, whichever way it falls out, (1) it will be better than what we have, and (2) I'll probably continue to run my sub-$100 OTS chip for a while... :)

K
[/b]

valid concern.

i think the risk/reward tips the scales the other way though. i'm willing to risk giving the rulewriters a chance to provide a rule that does exactly as its intended and nothing more. chips/flash. the reward? standalones are gone, and the bar is dropped. while it may not be any easier for everyone to jump over all 8' of bar height, it'll be easier for everyone to clear 7'10'' all the while remaining true to what i feel is the class philosophy.

what's the risk? well, the risk is we're right back where we're at today with standalones in a box at the expense of the people at the pointiest of pointy ends spending thousands and thousands of dollars to get right to where they started. it's very easy to be cavalier with other people's money; but i think that's a risk worth taking.

T.
-who is glad his car is still prepped as a SM other than the tires.

Joe Harlan

02-05-2007, 09:36 PM

Joe, the 'proposal' is a detailed poll with 3 choices. Those 3 choices have specific GCR wording so each member has an EXACT idea what they are voting for.

I am not qualified to speak to the topic as an expert. We have people on the ITAC who have years of experience with this stuff. You and Darin come off as experts and proclaim disaster in absolutes but don't help us all understand. I don't doubt you guys have more knowledge but just don't shout from the mountain the world is coming to an end - educate the villagers so they can vote!

Bob Stretch weighed in on the last call in detail and I consider him to be an expert as he has done tons with open systems in SWC. We have also solicited opinions from people who have worked with this stuff for years to try and understand any unintended consiquenses.

Please don't avoid the question anymore. Educate or drop your pitchfork. Those of us that know you know you have great info...just let it out, it will set you free! :D
[/b]

Sorry Andy, again you did not answer the question. I have no pitch fork. As a matter a fact I likely have offered more fact in 23 pages than anyone. I have provided links and information on how to DIY and were to find those things. I have personally progammed both stand alone and factory systems I have built custom harnesses I have AEM on my own car Motec and Haltech on customer cars. I have installed and programed the Electromotive tecII system. What more information can I proivide for you. I had said over and over that it is not the end of IT if this allowed. It will raise and change the bar in a way that I don't believe will be good for the catagory. You seam to think that's an extreme position and because I disagree with yourtake on this deal all the sudden I have a pitch fork ? The fact that in your words and jakes presentation I see the steam roller coming through and I feel that the regular non IT readin member will not have a solid case as to why this isn't good presented to them in the presentation. Jake has continually tried to shoot hole on any argument that goes against his clear desire to open this rule up. I find it fortunate that there are people that have been willing to argue against this technology when clearly the adhoc or at least the ones posting here have shown a bias toward it happening. No pitch forks here dude.

http://www.aempower.com/ViewTopic.aspx?TopicID=18&menu=false
http://www.aempower.com/ViewTopic.aspx?TopicID=20&menu=false
http://www.aempower.com/ViewTopic.aspx?TopicID=21&menu=false

Conover

02-05-2007, 10:05 PM

lateapex911

02-05-2007, 10:28 PM

The fact that in your words and jakes presentation I see the steam roller coming through and I feel that the regular non IT readin member will not have a solid case as to why this isn't good presented to them in the presentation. Jake has continually tried to shoot hole on any argument that goes against his clear desire to open this rule up.
[/b]

Just to set the record straight, ....

We, that is, the ITAC, work for the CRB. The CRB works for the club racing member. The CRB is desirous of knowing what the club racing meber thinks of the situation, and has chosen a method of finding out.

It is a poll of sorts that lists different options to the rule in question, and includes a preface to flesh out intent, particulars, and so on.

I had a hand in writing that, but it should be known that the entire ITAC has read it and given input input, which has been incorporated. In addition to that, the poll is the result of several con calls, independent research by ITAC members, the input and guidance by the CRB, and the input of outside vendors and technicians.

What you will read is not the work of one guy with an opinion, but something that has been hashed out by a group.

It is my hope that the members read it, discuss it, do their own due diligence, and respond.

kipv

02-05-2007, 11:13 PM

O.K. I'll bite; I don't usually get involved in these forums but this is getting crazy. First let me say that I have had cars prepped to equal states of tune using both chipping/ flashing and stand alone ECUs stuffed into existing boxes. I chipped and reflased the ECU in my BMW E36, I was able to disable the speed limiter, raise the rev limit, remap the fuel, change the ignition curve and could have even altered the timing of VANOS on/off actuation. I have programed aftermarket ECUs for an RX7, Miata ITS and Porsche 944s. The exact same results were acheived! The only difference was that it was much easier and cheaper to accomplish with the aftermarket units. The simple fact is that fuel injected cars must be allowed ECU changes in order to reliably race them just as carberated cars must be allowed rejetting in order to reliably race them. When you open up an exhaust, free up an air intake, install oversize pistons to the legal limit and pursue the other such improvements allowed under the IMPROVED Touring rules then you must provide more fuel to the motor or you will need to replace such motor on a regular basis. Given the need to allow changes to these tuning parameters then why dictate the manner in which the changes must be made. Its absurd to think that limiting ECU changes to chipping/reflashing in any way limits the performance enhancement potential for most cars; it only puts such improvements out of reach for many. Hav'nt we learned anything from the "threaded coil over sleeve". If something is allowed it should be allowed for all and we shouldn't dictate how to accomplish it; that can only serve to make it more difficult and hence expensive to achieve.

JeffYoung

02-06-2007, 02:22 AM

erlrich

02-06-2007, 07:23 AM

Bob Stretch weighed in on the last call in detail and I consider him to be an expert as he has done tons with open systems in SWC.
[/b] Andy, do you think Bob would mind you sharing his thoughts? Not that I doubt any of the opinions proffered by our resident experts, but I know Bob has a s^#t-load of first-hand experience with this stuff.

Earl, who's still leaning toward stepping back.

tnord

02-06-2007, 08:52 AM

there should be a distinction made here between the cost of being the first one to decode the OEM system and develop a chip and the cost of buying someone elses research. i would say that most of the really popular models out there already have chips developed for them, and the code has already been cracked.

will R&D for a car without any existing products out there cost you about the same as a full standalone? probably. but that's not an advantage for the standalone, it only gets it back up to level ground with the reflash/chip scenario. for the vast majority of vehicles, the cost to chip will be drastically lower, and way easier; giving it the advantage.

Joe Harlan

02-06-2007, 09:36 AM

This last post seems to make a lot of sense.

Joe/Darrin, what precisely can you do with an open ECU rule that you can't do with a stock chip/reflash rule? Specifics for a lay person would help me make my decision.
[/b]

Jeff, I posted some links to AEM features jsut cause they were easy.

1. Traction control
2. conversion to sequential injection and fine tune individual fuel trims for each injector
3. finer data points and faster processers
4. more control over cams on Vtec/Vanos type systems
5. timing control where there was none
6. bypass air to get around SIR's and MAF's
7 the ability to program a loop to allow more fuel compensation for 6

Jeff these are off the top of my head..I am off to the shop and need to ignore this board for the day..(make no money here) It also depends on how the rule is written. some of these things are being done now some could get easier and more expanded under a free rule and some could be out of control with an open harness rule added.

lateapex911

02-06-2007, 09:45 AM

..... i would say that most of the really popular models out there may already have chips developed for them, and those chips may be suitable for racing, and the changes made to that particular vehicle.

[/b]You're right about the economics of it, but lets not kid ourselves that all chips are equal. And economics might factor in, but I am more concerned with potential equity.

.....will R&D for a car without any existing products out there cost you about the same as a full standalone? probably. but that's not an advantage for the standalone, it only gets it back up to level ground with the reflash/chip scenario. for the vast majority of vehicles, the cost to chip will be drastically lower, and way easier; giving it the advantage
[/b]

I'd also like to point out the flipside...(I know, dead horse...) .if you're lucky enough to have such a car, then why wouldn't you just chip it for a hun or two? Nobodys saying that you can't, or shouldn't. If you want to talk economics, (realizing that it's impossible to control spending, of course) wouldn't most people spend $200 on a chip rather than $2000 on a standalone, (not to mention the time), if the standalone would either offer no extra, or very little extra HP? People will find the balance that suits them.

Then there are the people outside the group you consider the vast majority. Guys like Dave Gran and his Honda Prelude. He's found nothing easy for him short of becoming a chip level geek, but he HAS found piggybbacks (from my understanding of his situation, correct me if I am wrong, Dave) that he'd LOVE to buy as they are cheap and effective. But under the current rule, they are illegal. That probably makes NO sense to him. He looks around and sees guys spending boatloads of money installing standalone systems, but he can't legally plug in a piggback.

Joe Harlan

02-06-2007, 10:00 AM

[/b]You're right about the economics of it, but lets not kid ourselves that all chips are equal. And economics might factor in, but I am more concerned with potential equity.

I'd also like to point out the flipside...(I know, dead horse...) .if you're lucky enough to have such a car, then why wouldn't you just chip it for a hun or two? Nobodys saying that you can't, or shouldn't. If you want to talk economics, (realizing that it's impossible to control spending, of course) wouldn't most people spend $200 on a chip rather than $2000 on a standalone, (not to mention the time), if the standalone would either offer no extra, or very little extra HP? People will find the balance that suits them.

Then there are the people outside the group you consider the vast majority. Guys like Dave Gran and his Honda Prelude. He's found nothing easy for him short of becoming a chip level geek, but he HAS found piggybbacks (from my understanding of his situation, correct me if I am wrong, Dave) that he'd LOVE to buy as they are cheap and effective. But under the current rule, they are illegal. That probably makes NO sense to him. He looks around and sees guys spending boatloads of money installing standalone systems, but he can't legally plug in a piggback.
[/b]

As point out before Jake, Dave's car has more adjustment than a lot of cars with a curvable distributor and an adjustable fuel pressure regulator he shoudl eb able to extract as much HP from that engine as the original IT rules ever intended.
You keep saying your concern is that some can't take advantage yet that has been shot down several times. I have more concern that as an ADHOC person you are pushing a product that you have not fully researched and don't fully understand.

lateapex911

02-06-2007, 10:10 AM

Jeff, I posted some links to AEM features jsut cause they were easy.

1. Traction control
2. conversion to sequential injection and fine tune individual fuel trims for each injector
3. finer data points and faster processers
4. more control over cams on Vtec/Vanos type systems
5. timing control where there was none
6. bypass air to get around SIR's and MAF's
7 the ability to program a loop to allow more fuel compensation for 6

. [/b]

While I realize that Joes desire is to ram the Genie back in the bottle, and his list is intended to be a comparision between the common chip (as opposed to the unknown potential of a "super chip") and an open system, just for perspective, I'd like to add some comments:

!- Traction control. Already being done, and not just through chips/EMS. Legally as well. BUT...how important is it? It's a bit debatable as to whether its really useful in an IT car. Some will say, "Yea, maybe not in the dry, but what about the rain"?? Ha ha...how many IT guys have working defrosters?!?! And they are going to have instantly adjustable (from the cockpit) variable traction control settings? Uh huh...

2- Conversion from batch to sequential - A- Only on cars with discreet wiring could do this, and B- it's been possible for 5 years now ..

3- Finer data points- Again, currently being done, but also, not so much of a gain in HP, more of a gain in efficiency, and more useful for enduros.

4- VANOS control- A- As read above, thats possible with chips, and B- again, already being done.

5- Timing control- Actually, there are ways to gain timing control without using an EMS, and it's being done, but it's not too high on most folks list, as again, it's not considered critical (read back to Phils comments) . Also, many stock ECU are doing it, so there are no gains possible for those systems. And no allowance for new knock sensors means that won't happen.

6-& 7: Bypass idle air. (For those who don't know what this is, it is the reprogramming of idle air bypass valves to open at full throttle, which adds extra air going into the engine around the throttle plate, and the required extra fuel) A- this is flat illegal, and it's a red herring to use it in a discussion such as this., and B- again, it's being done, on several levels.

Now, looking at the list, I wonder if the average IT guy even knows about what is currently possible, and what is currently being done??? And, if not, have they noticed that the apocalypse has come? I doubt it.

Banzai240

02-06-2007, 10:20 AM

!- Traction control. Already being done,

2- Conversion from batch to sequential - it's been possible for 5 years now ..

3- Finer data points- Again, currently being done.

4- VANOS control- already being done.

5- Timing control- and it's being done

6-& 7: Bypass idle air. again, it's being done.

[/b]

So... there is the logic guys... We write a bad rule... let it simmer for 5-years, then justify opening it up further because "it's already being done"...

First off, a "chip and flash" is NOT going to allow these things to happen without additional circuitry, possible ONLY because of the REPLACE allowance...

Second... opening up a rule because people are exploiting the loopholes in the existing, POORLY WRITTEN rule, is rules creep in spades...

and Third... If you write the new wording correctly, you can effectively limit MOST if not all of these things...

Now, looking at the list, I wonder if the average IT guy even knows about what is currently possible, and what is currently being done??? And, if not, have they noticed that the apocalypse has come? I doubt it.
[/b]

And now you are going to open things up so that this same average guy get's to spend $2000 dollars on a system which he will have NO BETTER understanding of, and STILL won't help him to be competitive with the guys spending $5,000 on the better systems or paying Penske or ??? to install/program the system for them???

I said it before... there will be NO increased equity, not even of OPPORTUNITY, if you open this rule up... All you will do is make it take MORE resources to field a car in IT for EVERYONE.

I will also contend that cost IS a deterent. If it's going to cost someone $10,000 to develop a stand-alone system inside a box, they're a lot less likely to pursue it. That keeps costs down. But thats a whole separate discussion, and really secondary to the point that opening this rule up is counter to the intent of IT as a class...

dj10

02-06-2007, 10:23 AM

Joe Harlan

02-06-2007, 10:23 AM

While I realize that Joes desire is to ram the Genie back in the bottle, and his list is intended to be a comparision between the common chip (as opposed to the unknown potential of a "super chip") and an open system, just for perspective, I'd like to add some comments:

!- Traction control. Already being done, and not just through chips/EMS. Legally as well. BUT...how important is it? It's a bit debatable as to whether its really useful in an IT car. Some will say, "Yea, maybe not in the dry, but what about the rain"?? Ha ha...how many IT guys have working defrosters?!?! And they are going to have instantly adjustable (from the cockpit) variable traction control settings? Uh huh...

2- Conversion from batch to sequential - A- Only on cars with discreet wiring could do this, and B- it's been possible for 5 years now ..

3- Finer data points- Again, currently being done, but also, not so much of a gain in HP, more of a gain in efficiency, and more useful for enduros.

4- VANOS control- A- As read above, thats possible with chips, and B- again, already being done.

5- Timing control- Actually, there are ways to gain timing control without using an EMS, and it's being done, but it's not too high on most folks list, as again, it's not considered critical (read back to Phils comments) . Also, many stock ECU are doing it, so there are no gains possible for those systems. And no allowance for new knock sensors means that won't happen.

6-& 7: Bypass idle air. (For those who don't know what this is, it is the reprogramming of idle air bypass valves to open at full throttle, which adds extra air going into the engine around the throttle plate, and the required extra fuel) A- this is flat illegal, and it's a red herring to use it in a discussion such as this., and B- again, it's being done, on several levels.

Now, looking at the list, I wonder if the average IT guy even knows about what is currently possible, and what is currently being done??? And, if not, have they noticed that the apocalypse has come? I doubt it.
[/b]

Jake go back and read the question that was posed. You are so jacked up about being right your missing what was being answered I am begining to think your personal desire to prove me wrong is getting in the way of your being objective....If you want to be my personal stalker then maybe you should hand in your adhoc title and chase me around the web full time. We all know its being done. That was not the question posed. The question was what can a aftermarket system do that a factory system cannot...I gave basic examples of it. Show me a fatory system that can do traction control with out wheel speed sensors and is actually effective. As far as traction control that works I have used it first hand.....you?

PS> If the bypass air is a red herring but you admit it is being done and you know about it you should resign today.

lateapex911

02-06-2007, 10:48 AM

Jake go back and read the question that was posed. You are so jacked up about being right your missing what was being answered I am begining to think your personal desire to prove me wrong is getting in the way of your being objective....If you want to be my personal stalker then maybe you should hand in your adhoc title and chase me around the web full time. We all know its being done. That was not the question posed. The question was what can a aftermarket system do that a factory system cannot...I gave basic examples of it. Show me a fatory system that can do traction control with out wheel speed sensors and is actually effective. As far as traction control that works I have used it first hand.....you?

PS> If the bypass air is a red herring but you admit it is being done and you know about it you should resign today. [/b]

Joe, I am so far from a stalker it's silly. I am NOT following you around the web...sorry, it is NOT my MO, and I'm not doing it.

IF you read my comments, the FIRST item I stated was that you were indeed comparing chip vs open, but for PERSPECTIVE, I pointed out that most of the items are currently being done, in an attempt to show that the sky isn't actually falling.

As for traction control, I have about 100 lb ft of tq..what do I need TC for? LOL. And I LOVE throttle control...my best finishes are in deluge conditions. No TC for me!

I'll bow out now, as I think it's all been beaten to death, and if I'm coming across as biased, there's no point in any more typing.

You have your opinion, and thats fine, others have theirs. We've seen a lot of reasonable points of view over this thread, and it will be interesting to see what the response is from Fastrack
back to work......

(the air bypass thing is a red herring Joe, because it is, like so many things, a matter of enforcement, not of rules writing. The rule is VERY clear in that regard, and has nothing to do with ECUs)

Joe Harlan

02-06-2007, 10:59 AM

Joe, I am so far from a stalker it's silly. I am NOT following you around the web...sorry, it is NOT my MO, and I'm not doing it.

IF you read my comments, the FIRST item I stated was that you were indeed comparing chip vs open, but for PERSPECTIVE, I pointed out that most of the items are currently being done, in an attempt to show that the sky isn't actually falling.

As for traction control, I have about 100 lb ft of tq..what do I need TC for? LOL. And I LOVE throttle control...my best finishes are in deluge conditions. No TC for me!

I'll bow out now, as I think it's all been beaten to death, and if I'm coming across as biased, there's no point in any more typing.

You have your opinion, and thats fine, others have theirs. We've seen a lot of reasonable points of view over this thread, and it will be interesting to see what the response is from Fastrack
back to work......

(the air bypass thing is a red herring Joe, because it is, like so many things, a matter of enforcement, not of rules writing. The rule is VERY clear in that regard, and has nothing to do with ECUs)[/b]

This is were you show your ignorance of these systems, IT is not able to be done in a stock box and compensate for it through mixture. I understand its against the rules but without decompiling somebodies program how are you gonna inforce it? At least with a stock/modified ECU we know it is not possible to make it work through the hardware thats there.

As far as TC goes, a proper working system could make even a Senna like yourself better wet or dry.

tnord

02-06-2007, 11:06 AM

Joe Harlan

02-06-2007, 11:22 AM

thanks
joe

bldn10

02-06-2007, 12:53 PM

Sorry, Darin, looks like I may have taken your comment out of context. But I still disagree w/ your premise that "inexpensive" does not encompass both tubs and mods. I think it clearly does.

As I understand the objectives implied (though never IMO succinctly set out) in this thread I think we are on the cusp of a paradigm shift. In order to accept new cars into the class we can do one of 2 things - "penalize" the news ones w/ much more electronic managemnt by adding weight, SIRs. etc., or try to bring the old ones up to new standards by opening up the ECU rule. Apparently the wind blows in the direction of the latter. Not an easy task.

Let me clarify my personal feelings in this way: In the Midwest there are a handful of front-running ITS cars, of which I am one. To my knowledge none of them have any Motec type crap. If stand-alones are allowed, at least 1 of these guys will opt for it and he will become the top dog. The rest of the handful will HAVE to shell out that $1000+ to remain in the hunt. After all is said and done, we will be going a little faster, will be a thousand apiece poorer, and will still be racing each other just as we did before. Does that make any sense? :blink:

JoshS

02-06-2007, 12:59 PM

This last post seems to make a lot of sense.

Joe/Darrin, what precisely can you do with an open ECU rule that you can't do with a stock chip/reflash rule? Specifics for a lay person would help me make my decision.
[/b]
Just the power/speed of the processor would be one big thing.

It it "IT-like" to put a modern computer into a 25-year-old car? Or should the computer have to stay with the car? Sure, you can load new software on it, but the hardware is the hardware. The more limited proposal is like that ... you can upgrade your old Pentium 3 at home to a new version of Internet Explorer, but you can't make the processor any faster.

Eagle7

02-06-2007, 01:09 PM

So how about if we require the use of the stock harness and devices:

[quote]
1. Traction control[\quote]

Possible with a rechip with the right engineering, just a lot harder. For the vast majority of gutless IT cars it isn't an issue anyway - ITR will probably change that.

[quote]2. conversion to sequential injection and fine tune individual fuel trims for each injector[\quote]

Not possible unless the harness already supports it. If it's in the harness, maybe the stock ECU already has the hardware for sequential control, and a rechip could make it happen. In any case, I'm pretty skeptical of claims for significant gains from this.

[quote]3. finer data points and faster processers[\quote]

Why is that an issue - are we trying to cripple the tuning process? OK, carb guys - you get jet A, B, or C - nothing in between.

[quote]4. more control over cams on Vtec/Vanos type systems[\quote]

Possible with a rechip with the right engineering, just a lot harder. Is this something that needs to be outlawed? I have no idea since I'm camless.

[quote]5. timing control where there was none[\quote]

Not possible unless the harness already supports it. Is timing control a bad thing? Are we currently trying to outlaw timing control?

[quote]6. bypass air to get around SIR's and MAF's[\quote]

Bogus - the rules clearly state all air must pass through the SIR and/or MAF. The bypass just lets a small portion of that air bypass the throttle plate. I've tested my car with the bypass open and there was zero difference. All the effective restriction is in the AFM. Plus, some good rechip engineering would likely get you the same capability.

[quote]7 the ability to program a loop to allow more fuel compensation for 6[\quote]

Huh? If 6 is legal why is it a problem to tune for it? If it's not legal, then write/clarify a rule to deal with that. I personally like the bypass a lot because I can warm up and idle the car without baby-sitting it. Makes life in the paddock and the grid much less of a hassle.

Joe, I haven't heard anything of substance from you yet. Just a lot of scare tactics. You claim that rechipping prevents all the bad consequences (not true), and that allowing aftermarket ECUs allows all the bad consequences (not true). You also claim that chips are readily available for virtually all cars that we race (far from true), and if they are not, that reengineering the stock ECU to rechip it is feasible - I think that's a big stretch for some cars.

The open ECU makes so much sense to me that I have a very hard time seeing the concrete reasons why it's a problem, and I really am trying to see that side of it. All I hear is lots of screaming about gloom and doom and how it's totally contrary to the intent and philosophy of the catagory. I don't see it that way at all.

The part that makes me think twice is an allowance for non-stock devices connected to the ECU. I don't have a real handle on the consequences of that. I would personally love to attach additional devices to my ECU for logging purposes - logging is legal, right?

[Edited to clarify the quoting]

Eagle7

02-06-2007, 01:27 PM

...In the Midwest there are a handful of front-running ITS cars, of which I am one. To my knowledge none of them have any Motec type crap. If stand-alones are allowed, at least 1 of these guys will opt for it and he will become the top dog. ...[/b]

Why? What will the Motec give him that he couldn't get today? Or couldn't get with a full-blown no-holds-barred reverse-engineering of the stock ECU?

This is were you show your ignorance of these systems, IT (bypass air) is not able to be done in a stock box and compensate for it through mixture. I understand its against the rules but without decompiling somebodies program how are you gonna inforce it? At least with a stock/modified ECU we know it is not possible to make it work through the hardware thats there.[/b]

What are you smokin' Joe? I want some of that. The stock ECU already controls the bypass air. No hardware changes required. If I'm very clever in how I rechip it, I can turn on the bypass air whenever I want. It may cost me a fortune in reverse-engineering to get that advantage, but I'm quite confident I could do it.

Andy Bettencourt

02-06-2007, 02:42 PM

For the experts...what limitations would the following introduce?

Open ECU (no stock box rule) but connected to the factory wiring harness using all factory sensors.

Greg Amy

02-06-2007, 02:49 PM

For the experts...what limitations would the following introduce?[/b]
You would be limited to controlling only what the factory ECU controlled, with input from only what the factory ECU had.

What you did with the data in between is up to you.

Andy Bettencourt

02-06-2007, 02:51 PM

You would be limited to controlling only what the factory ECU controlled, with input from only what the factory ECU had.

What you did with the data in between is up to you. [/b]

Does anyone see this as a compromise between full-boat open and Chips/reflash/daughter boards?

JeffYoung

02-06-2007, 02:55 PM

Andy, I don't have the technical background to really talk about this intelligently, but what you state above is exactly what I think is the best solution.

It dispenses with the silliest part of the rule -- the stock box -- but avoids what seems dangerous to me, which is allowing new sensors.

Others, thoughts?

dj10

02-06-2007, 03:17 PM

You would be limited to controlling only what the factory ECU controlled, with input from only what the factory ECU had.

What you did with the data in between is up to you. [/b]

Why can't you do what Greg said here but also allow either or the factor harness or the wiring harness that that come with the EMS you purchase? Won't just allowing the factor harness drive the costs up? Since you can only control the same as the factory ecu, does it really matter which harness you use?

Joe Harlan

02-06-2007, 03:21 PM

Why? What will the Motec give him that he couldn't get today? Or couldn't get with a full-blown no-holds-barred reverse-engineering of the stock ECU?

What are you smokin' Joe? I want some of that. The stock ECU already controls the bypass air. No hardware changes required. If I'm very clever in how I rechip it, I can turn on the bypass air whenever I want. It may cost me a fortune in reverse-engineering to get that advantage, but I'm quite confident I could do it.
[/b]

Marty rather than trying be a jerk with the smokin comments provide me the code in a stock ECU that would let you open the bypass at WOT adn ADD extra fuel.....I don't care that the rule says its illegal it can be policed unless somebody wants to look at every program in every car with an aftermarket box....So please provide the code for your stock ecu to do that. My guess is from the post above you have little actual knowledge on what can or can't be done. And BTW do you have a converted box already?

robits325is

02-06-2007, 03:33 PM

For the experts...what limitations would the following introduce?

Open ECU (no stock box rule) but connected to the factory wiring harness using all factory sensors.
[/b]

The limitations would be determined by the make/model of the car being tuned. Whatever the factory intendeed would be the limiting factors for tuning.

Connecting a Stand Alone ECU to the factory harness isn't the hard/expensive part. The size of the box is the limitation that drives the cost and development through the roof. Square Peg in a round hole. Cramming an ECU into a stock box can cause issues with overheating and an unnecessary spider web of wires.

I agree with Andy's Open ECU/Stock harness option. If we had to vote today this would be my choice. This provides even opportunity for preperation between makes with limited unforseen loopholes.

kipv

02-06-2007, 07:13 PM

What Andy is proposing is the sensible thing to do. And where are people getting these $5000 and even $10000 prices for stand alone aftermarket boxes? Last one I used was CIVINCO for less than $1000; very user freindly and did every thing you would ever need. Heck there are great piggy back units out there for less than $500 and full blown Squirt ECUs for $700. I don't think I would ever go back to Motec.

tnord

02-06-2007, 07:19 PM

installation, testing, and tuning is not free my friend.

Joe Harlan

02-06-2007, 07:28 PM

Why can't you do what Greg said here but also allow either or the factor harness or the wiring harness that that come with the EMS you purchase? Won't just allowing the factor harness drive the costs up? Since you can only control the same as the factory ecu, does it really matter which harness you use?
[/b]

There you go, say yes to a little and they want the whole thing.......Nope the skys not falling they would never want the next step......... <_<

mom'sZ

02-06-2007, 09:34 PM

Does anyone see this as a compromise between full-boat open and Chips/reflash/daughter boards?
[/b]
Andy, not only do I think this is the best compromise, way back in post 219 on page 11 I even posted my suggestion for the wording of the rule.

Nobody paid my post much mind, but I didn't take it personal, I'm a new guy, no one's heard of me. What strikes me though is kipv's posts. Like me he's a lurker. I joined a year ago last month. Until this thread I had posted twice. He joined a couple months before me and had posted once before this thread, to ask butch krammer which direction nashville speedway runs in. Both of us have sat back for over a year and watched you guy's bicker over sometimes really idiotic stuff and never said a word. What compelled us to finally speak up? I can't speak for kipv, but for me it was the importance of this decision and the way a few members have used scare tactics, half truths and insults to further their point of views. Fellas... the club racing world is watching.

Do I want to try to use my 28 year old harness and AFM with no TPS or MAP to run an aftermarket ECU? Heck NO! It's not the best for me, but I feel it's the best for my club. My box is as big as a shoe box, I could fit anything in there, but I know alot of guy's can't. But this is the fairest thing for everyone.

Look guys, once a racer learns how to do something to go faster, you can't take that knowledge back. When F1 outlawed active suspension, the teams used what they had learned to make traditional suspensions act like active ones. When you guys took away remote reservoir shocks, the rich guys just went and bought three or four sets of shocks each with different valving. Did you slow them down... no. Did you level the playing field... no. Did you make racing cheaper... no, more expensive. You can't put the jenie back in the bottle. Rich guys will figure out how to keep their advantage with the rechip/reflash option and others will get further polarized.
sorry.... rant over

Eagle7

02-06-2007, 09:37 PM

Marty rather than trying be a jerk with the smokin comments provide me the code in a stock ECU that would let you open the bypass at WOT adn ADD extra fuel.....I don't care that the rule says its illegal it can be policed unless somebody wants to look at every program in every car with an aftermarket box....So please provide the code for your stock ecu to do that. My guess is from the post above you have little actual knowledge on what can or can't be done. And BTW do you have a converted box already? [/b]

The "smokin" comment was a feeble attempt at humor that seems to have offended you. I am sorry.

What is illegal about turning on the bypass air valve with it's stock connection to the intake snorkel (in which all the air goes through the stock AFM)? I'd appreciate chapter and verse, because I haven't found it. If I thought it was illegal I wouldn't have tested it. I did test and found no gain from it.

I've been an embedded software engineer for 35 years. Unless the ECU code is in a locked ROM, it can be disassembled, and with a lot of work, all the functions in the ECU can be reverse-engineered. Takes a lot of time but it can be done. Once you understand the code, modifying it to work your magic is not so tough. Some ECUs will make this stuff accessible, others won't. You want my code you'll have to send a very big check, because it will take a very large effort to produce it.

No, Joe, I haven't done this for my ECU nor any other because it made no sense to me to do it. It was much more straightforward to build a Megasquirt, which provides me with all the tools to tune the engine properly. I had to do some engineering to stuff it into the box and to make the stock sensors work properly, but I was lucky that my car already had everything I needed (some cars would be more of a challenge). Add a wideband O2 sensor and a PalmPilot, and test days double as tuning days. Disconnect them for race day. I've got 2 hours on the dyno. The tune isn't perfect, but much better than the factory ECU, which wouldn't run cold, wouldn't idle, and was giving me an AFR that varied from 16 to 10 and back to 14 through the racing RPM range.

But just because I haven't done it doesn't mean I couldn't do it. And you can be sure the the big-bucks teams will be doing it if you have your way. That scenario looks awfully bleak to me.

Eagle7

02-06-2007, 09:51 PM

installation, testing, and tuning is not free my friend. [/b]

So how do you tune now? And how do you tune with the rechip scenario? Do you really think some outfit on the other side of the country is going to give you a chip that is optimized to your intake, your exhaust, your .040 over pistons, your compression bump? I'd be amazed. They'll get you in the ballpark, tell you to go to the dyno and return the charts to them, and send you another chip. Then you go back to the dyno and try again. Maybe you get lucky and they hit it on the 2nd or 3rd try. Probably not, and you will never optimize your tune. And it won't be cheap. If you had a carb you could try lots of things with instant feedback. Not so lucky with your rechip ECU scenario.

Don't want to tune? Then you're not interested in a fully-prepped car. That's fine, but don't try to change the rules so it's a royal pain for those that are.

mom'sZ

02-06-2007, 09:55 PM

Marty. like you said a few posts back about the air regulator, it's still got to pass through the AFM (or MAF whatever) which is the main restriction. Just more scare tactics. Sequential injection will cause huge power gains, people will use open ECUs to implement traction control, yeah right, on low powered IT cars that makes sense.

Eagle7

02-06-2007, 10:07 PM

For the experts...what limitations would the following introduce?

Open ECU (no stock box rule) but connected to the factory wiring harness using all factory sensors. [/b]

I'm no expert, but that won't stop me. The "speed density" based ECUs (Megasquirt and others) use (or at least prefer) a MAP (manifold absolute pressure) sensor to measure engine load. If your car doesn't have one, and you don't allow a vacuum hose going to the ECU, then it is more challenging to make them work. Megasquirt can alternatively use a MAF sensor, but that's not the mainstream approach, and I don't know if just any MAF can be used.

You also need some kind of crank angle sensor. Megasquirt can work with many types, but there may be ones out there that aren't currently supported, or that just won't work.

I expect that there might be some cars out there that just can't be made to work with just the stock equipment. Maybe someone knows of examples that could be evaluated.

Joe Harlan

02-06-2007, 10:51 PM

No, Joe, I haven't done this for my ECU nor any other because it made no sense to me to do it. It was much more straightforward to build a Megasquirt, which provides me with all the tools to tune the engine properly. I had to do some engineering to stuff it into the box and to make the stock sensors work properly, but I was lucky that my car already had everything I needed (some cars would be more of a challenge). Add a wideband O2 sensor and a PalmPilot, and test days double as tuning days. [/b]

So the answer to my question was yes then you have a megasquirt stuffed in the stock box? So you are arguing from the stand point of someone that has already exploited the rule as written. I am sure there maybe a way to turn the airbypass on in a stock ECU but I am also sure nobody has done it with the software available currently to burn and prog these chips. I am also certain that none of the current factory ECU's have the hardware to handle TC of any kind internally. The current 350z uses a completely external ECU to handle is VDC and TC functions. All of this has been stated before so I will wait and get the letters written against open ECU's and Open harnesses when the time comes. I believe tuning the factory stuff is well with in the philosophy of IT and I will stick to that.

Banzai240

02-06-2007, 11:04 PM

I believe tuning the factory stuff is well with in the philosophy of IT and I will stick to that.
[/b]

You mean you actually prefer "Improved Touring" rather than "Replace-it Touring"??? ;)

mom'sZ

02-06-2007, 11:27 PM

... So you are arguing from the stand point of someone that has already exploited the rule as written.[/b] no Joe, he didn't exploit anything, the rule said he could replace the ECU within the box and he did. What was he suppose to say ' it says I can replace it, but the true spirit of IT is reflash only so... I'm not going to do what the rule book says because I don't want to pervert the possible intention of the rule'
I can hear George saying 'if it says you can... you bloody well can'

... I am sure there maybe a way to turn the airbypass on in a stock ECU but I am also sure nobody has done it with the software available currently to burn and prog these chips...[/b]
Joe, mute point... it still has to pass through the AFM or MAF

... I am also certain that none of the current factory ECU's have the hardware to handle TC of any kind internally. [/b]
Joe traction control can be done with the open ignition and a stock ECU. Why not argue for points ignition only.

Andy Bettencourt

02-06-2007, 11:50 PM

Actually, the way I read it, he said he has the knowledge to crack some codes and do a 'chip and burn' but it was faster and cheaper to do a Squirt.

I might have read between some lines... :D

This topic does have two legitimate sides IMHO.

Eagle7

02-07-2007, 06:25 AM

You mean you actually prefer "Improved Touring" rather than "Replace-it Touring"??? ;)
[/b]

OK Darin, I'm calling you out. You keep saying "replace" is totally contrary to the intent and philosopy of the catagory like everyone should inherently know that. Are you saying that you would like to outlaw all "replace" items in the current ruleset? Shocks, springs, bars, intake, exhaust, wheels, gauges, radiators, oil coolers, fuel pump, fuel pressure regulator, ignition, in some cases carburator come to mind without thinking about it. You (and some others) keep trotting the phrase out, but it makes no sense to me in light of all the other ways that we "replace" in order to "improve". If your deal is that you are dead-set against "replace", then shouldn't you be focused on some other catagory? Please enlighten me.

shwah

02-07-2007, 07:34 AM

For the experts...what limitations would the following introduce?

Open ECU (no stock box rule) but connected to the factory wiring harness using all factory sensors.
[/b]
This looks like the closest thing to common ground that I have seen in 25 pages between the two legitimate positions.

However I grow tired of this :dead_horse:
I think I will go read about insurance :snow_cool:

Banzai240

02-07-2007, 07:34 AM

Are you saying that you would like to outlaw all "replace" items in the current ruleset?
[/b]

After all the time I spent on the ITAC, and everything we got done, you'd think that some of you could give me a little more credit than that... FOCUS ON THE BALL guys!

The word "replace" should have NEVER BEEN INCLUDED in the current ECU rule... Couple that with the mentality you guys have that when something is difficult to define, just give up trying and open it up... "Heck with it... just replace the whole thing..." :rolleyes: REPLACING the ECU is NOT part of the INTENT of IT... IMPROVING on it is... People have gotten so lazy... all they want to do is bolt it on a go drive... Heck with understanding their car... the technology...

Had those words NEVER been put into the rule in the first place, this would be an entirely different discussion. Maybe not a discussion at all... You have all gotten comfortable with this allowance, and now want to push it further open "because it's already being done"... You might just as well have simply posted in Fastrack the following question:

"How many of you are in favour of HAVING to spend $1,000 more to field an IT car? It won't make you any more competitive, but will be necessary to maintain status-quo."

Opening this up will simply make EVERYONE have to spend more money to even build a BASELINE IT car...

The rules need to be more restictive, no less...

I've said enough on this... The small subset of people here fighting to move IT to Production by opening up these rules toward the higher prep level end of things can keep hashing it out... When this comes out in Fastrack and the rest of the membership sees it... the majority of which do NOT post here, I'm confortable that the right thing will be done...

seckerich

02-07-2007, 08:32 AM

[

"How many of you are in favour of HAVING to spend $1,000 more to field an IT car? It won't make you any more competitive, but will be necessary to maintain status-quo."

And here is the big hole in your arguement in your own words. It won't make you more competitive? You will HAVE to spend $1000.00 more to keep up? If it it not more competitive then your whole arguement is bogus. Spend if you like--or not. Your words.

dj10

02-07-2007, 08:40 AM

After all the time I spent on the ITAC, and everything we got done, you'd think that some of you could give me a little more credit than that... FOCUS ON THE BALL guys!

So you are responsible for the current ecu rule as written!?!? ;)

"How many of you are in favour of HAVING to spend $1,000 more to field an IT car? It won't make you any more competitive, but will be necessary to maintain status-quo."

Opening this up will simply make EVERYONE have to spend more money to even build a BASELINE IT car...

Were you not arguing that flashed ecu's will be as effective as EMS? If people have flashed ecu now and like them they won't have to change if they don't want to.

I'm confortable that the right thing will be done... [/b]

Me too.

Improve (v) advance for the better, enhance, develop, advance

Banzai240

02-07-2007, 10:00 AM

If it it not more competitive then your whole arguement is bogus. Spend if you like--or not. Your words.
[/b]

Really...??? BS.... if everyone follows the same rules, than all you are doing is maintaining staus-quo... Those with the means will have even more options available, and those who use the same tires all season will get by with a plug in chip, or some piggy back setup that's "guaranteed to make 20% more HP"...

I would even argue that the gap will get even bigger...

But you guys believe what you will... I know HISTORY doesn't mean anything, so why bother learning from it...

bldn10

02-07-2007, 10:19 AM

"How many of you are in favour of HAVING to spend $1,000 more to field an IT car? It won't make you any more competitive, but will be necessary to maintain status-quo."

"And here is the big hole in your arguement in your own words. It won't make you more competitive? You will HAVE to spend $1000.00 more to keep up? If it it not more competitive then your whole arguement is bogus. Spend if you like--or not. Your words."

Steve, I think you misunderstood what Darin is saying, which I believe is exactly what I explained from my point of view a few posts back. The problem is w/ the meaning of "competitive." To me that means that you are able to run w/ a given set of other cars - it has nothing to do w/ how fast the bunch may be going. E.g. a "competitive" ITC car is not the same as a "competitive" ITS car. What we mean is that if everyone in the bunch you run w/ upgrades to whatever the new rule will allow, the whole bunch will still be pretty much running together as they did before spending the addition $. The relative "competitiveness" will not have changed. So why bother? On the other hand, if you don't upgrade you will no longer be "competitive" w/ that bunch. So you have to spend more $ just to keep up w/ the guys who you are perfectly content racing w/ now.

BTW, Steve, isn't Andy's latest proposal pretty much the one you made some time ago? And to which I expressed preference (if we have to open it up at all? That gives at least lip service to the characteristics inherent in the various cars in the classes.