ECU Rules.....is it time? HELL YES!!!

[tnord]

Why would I want a rule that would widen the gap between the "have's and the have not's"???
[/b]


because you "have." :026:

[its66]

exactly. Unfortunately, I don't have. :(

[Banzai240]

Why would I want a rule that would widen the gap between the "have's and the have not's"???
[/b]

That's exactly my point! I would think that you would NOT want a rule that does this...

[dyoungre]

Darin,
I've typically agreed with your IT philosophy, and more importantly, your ability to take a step back and look at the big picture - and so I'm saying this from that perspective:

I think the "have and have not"s in this discussion has less to do with $$$ and more to do with expertise and the car chosen to race. If you were to go back two years and the great look at weight versus displacement, I truly believe that opening up the ECU will do more to level the playing field, make classification easier, and increase the variety of vehicles.

Think about this: If I need a reflash, which vehicles currently have chips/reflash available? What if I thought that I'd like to try racing a Kia, just because I wanted to be different, and thought there was an opportunity because of the weight? What is the market out there for Kia reflashes ???

I REALLY don't think that the opportunity of an aftermarket ECU is all that big. The opportunity is that an aftermarket ECU can adjust/be tuned to deal with IMPROVED bolt ons - headers and mufflers, clean air boxes, vane-type air meters (...and go back to the original equations for "displacement=potential"). So long as CAMS, PORTS and THROTTLE BODIES remain stock, airflow is airflow. Honestly, the biggest opportunity is SPARK TIMING !!!

(btw - guys, if you have VVT, I'll let you in on a secret: the automakers know what cam timing makes "best torque at wide open throttle... and that's what they want. The best you can do is IMPROVE based on your modifications.)

It is hardly pandora's box. Opening up the ECU rule is actually levelling the playing field. If you choose to modify the stock ECU, so be it - depending on make/model/modification, you might not be far off than the BEST a MOTEC can provide.

BTW, as far as the 'but the testing costs money' arguement: SO DOES SELECTING JETS/AIR BLEEDS. Run a $400 Innovate wide air meter (which has data collection built in), look at RPM vs. air/fuel, and make small corrections after each race.

I just wish someone had a $400 tire contact patch tool. Then I could tune my shocks too.

[dj10]

Darin,
I've typically agreed with your IT philosophy, and more importantly, your ability to take a step back and look at the big picture - and so I'm saying this from that perspective:

I think the "have and have not"s in this discussion has less to do with $$$ and more to do with expertise and the car chosen to race. If you were to go back two years and the great look at weight versus displacement, I truly believe that opening up the ECU will do more to level the playing field, make classification easier, and increase the variety of vehicles.

Think about this: If I need a reflash, which vehicles currently have chips/reflash available? What if I thought that I'd like to try racing a Kia, just because I wanted to be different, and thought there was an opportunity because of the weight? What is the market out there for Kia reflashes ???

I REALLY don't think that the opportunity of an aftermarket ECU is all that big. The opportunity is that an aftermarket ECU can adjust/be tuned to deal with IMPROVED bolt ons - headers and mufflers, clean air boxes, vane-type air meters (...and go back to the original equations for "displacement=potential"). So long as CAMS, PORTS and THROTTLE BODIES remain stock, airflow is airflow. Honestly, the biggest opportunity is SPARK TIMING !!!

(btw - guys, if you have VVT, I'll let you in on a secret: the automakers know what cam timing makes "best torque at wide open throttle... and that's what they want. The best you can do is IMPROVE based on your modifications.)

It is hardly pandora's box. Opening up the ECU rule is actually levelling the playing field. If you choose to modify the stock ECU, so be it - depending on make/model/modification, you might not be far off than the BEST a MOTEC can provide.

BTW, as far as the 'but the testing costs money' arguement: SO DOES SELECTING JETS/AIR BLEEDS. Run a $400 Innovate wide air meter (which has data collection built in), look at RPM vs. air/fuel, and make small corrections after each race.

I just wish someone had a $400 tire contact patch tool. Then I could tune my shocks too. [/b]



Dave, make sure you let the CRB know how feel too. Email them at [email protected]

[greendot]

:o :014: :bash_1_: :wacko:

let's :eclipsee_steering: :happy204:

[greendot]

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

From way back on page 19! :026:
It's hard to catch up with this thread. :D

Maybe the way to KUWTT is to rethink that. Think outside the box!
How many new cars will fall into ITS or ITA, let alone ITB and ITC? Going back to what I see as the intent of the previous ECU rule change is also what I read as the intent of the category.
compete in low cost cars with limited modifications,

Actually, wasn't that change justified by "can't police it" problems? Other than that, we raced fine with stock ECU's.

These new cars with so much interactive stuff obviously create a problem. I have not (yet) read any concerns about Tire Pressure Monitor systems. Guarantee you they will come.

If chip/reflash is reasonable then that intent could be achieved with an Apexi piggyback fuel control at a one time cost and easy tuneability. How about that? Oops, bet that's not one of the 3 choices coming. Or is this what might be called a "daughter board"? This apparently would not be legal even with Open ECU (no stock box rule) but connected to the factory wiring harness using all factory sensors if it taps into the harness proir to the connector to the factory ECU.
Another rule working problem. :o

Other than that, all I know about electric stuff is that when you let the smoke out you've got a problem. I like the fuel pressure regulator to improve my a/f ratio.

Regarding the argument about the unique cars

Entrants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car,

When you chose your weapon you knew you were bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Back to my reading at page 20 :rolleyes:

Bruce Wentzel
used to be ITS #36 before the mayhem in Atlanta

[dj10]

:026: Oh boy Oh boy!!!!! We sure learned a lot from the Feburary Fastrack!!!!!!!!!! Damn subjuect wasn't even mentioned!

[shwah]

Dang! Now we get another month of this :dead_horse:

I wonder if they can fix the mistake, as it sounded like everything was written up and ready to drop into Fast Track weeks ago.

A real shame as I look at the questionable condition of the fuel injector lines in my GTI before installing a fresh motor. Do I spend the $$ and time to find/make replacements? Do I spend the time and $$ to convert to California Digifant? Do I spend the $$ on Megasquirt or SDS, some connectors and a MAP sensor?

It looks like I will be replacing the copper seal rings in the system, and hoping that is just surface rust on all of the fittings in the short term.

[erlrich]

Dan, I think you're looking for the March Fastrack; should be posted sometime today :D

[dj10]

Dan, I think you're looking for the March Fastrack; should be posted sometime today :D [/b]

Hmmm I guess it's on logical that Feburary's fasttrack should be posted in Jan and March's in Feburary. :D Thanks for clearing that up. :023:

[88YB1]

The March fast trac is up. It would appear thet alternatr ECM has been shot down.

Chuck

[shwah]

That's not what I read. Give page 13 a read one more time.

Thank you ITAC :happy204:

[dj10]

That's not what I read. Give page 13 a read one more time.

Thank you ITAC :happy204: [/b]



Ladies & Gentlemen..............start your LETTERS! My letter is over 2 months old, wonder if I should type them a new letter? :D

[lateapex911]

Ladies & Gentlemen..............start your LETTERS! My letter is over 2 months old, wonder if I should type them a new letter? :D

[/b]

Sure, why not. The CRB is requesting feedback. To my eye, it's not a pure vote, but a request to understand what the membership thinks. To that end, brief letters discussing the proposed options, and the "whys" behind the writers opinion would carry more weight than a simple "A" or a "Nope, it's gonna hurt me", kind of response.

In an attempt to illicit response, the, dare I say it, "intent" of the choices, along with the actual proposed wording have been printed. It's everynes hope to get feedback, and hopefully well informed feedback.

[Joe Harlan]

Significantly, all cars in IT are classed using a process that includes presumed gains from the ECU change. As not all cars can affect
those changes, competition inequities result.[/b]

Not sure this statement is exactly true...is it. You have run every FI car through the new process based on gains from ECU replacement?

[Bill Miller]

Significantly, all cars in IT are classed using a process that includes presumed gains from the ECU change. As not all cars can affect those changes, competition inequities result[/b]

I'm actually surprised that our resident policy guru has not chimed in on the implications of this statement.

[Joe Harlan]

resident policy guru?

These are exactly the kind of misleading words that I was concerned about...

[shwah]

I sent in my feedback. It was not a simple 'box check'. I explained what I liked or didn't about each option in detail. I hope that the rest of you do the same.

I feel like we will end up with a better rule than when we started, which regardless of what went on in this long a$$ thread, is good for everyone.

cheers,

[Knestis]

I'm actually surprised that our resident policy guru has not chimed in on the implications of this statement.
[/b]
Me, too. If you see him around, let him know about this stuff.

K

[lateapex911]

Just an update...

So far we've gotten a dozen letters (that I have seen posted, there may be more in process) and I'm pleased to say that they are mostly well written and have adressed the reasons behind the writers opinion.

...keep it coming!!!

The CRB will, I think, be pleased with the response and the nature of it.

(Interestingly, people are suggesting directions that are not merely self serving, which has got to make us IT guys look like stars compared to a lot of the letters they get from..."other " categories. ;) )

[tnord]

mine is in for door #2 please.

jake wasn't there something about the ITAC holding letters written on this topic from the past month so that they could all be submitted at once? how many letters on the subject total over the last 45 days or so?

[lateapex911]

Travis, I just looked back to September and saw only one, and that person has resubmitted with the current batch. There MAY be more that I have missed. IF anyone here submitted one before this request was published, please respond here with your name so I can dig further, OR, if it was electronic, just resumbit a copy. If you think of it, indicate that you are sending in a copy of a previous letter for inclusion in the ECU input request. That way we'll be sure to not double count it, but it's not like we have a couple hundred letters, so we'd probably spot the redundant ones.

[dj10]

Just an update...

So far we've gotten a dozen letters (that I have seen posted, there may be more in process) and I'm pleased to say that they are mostly well written and have adressed the reasons behind the writers opinion.

...keep it coming!!!

The CRB will, I think, be pleased with the response and the nature of it.

(Interestingly, people are suggesting directions that are not merely self serving, which has got to make us IT guys look like stars compared to a lot of the letters they get from..."other " categories. ;) )
[/b]



It's good to know that this forum CAN be used as a viable tool.

[dj10]

Has anyone heard anything about the NEW ECU rule? Does anyone know which way the CRB is leaning?

[lateapex911]

Has anyone heard anything about the NEW ECU rule? Does anyone know which way the CRB is leaning?



[/b]

Yes...but but, it's not yet finalized.

I can say this. The CRB went out of it's way to give huge props to the IT guys who have responded so far. First, response has been pretty good. we're up to 37 letters so far, and as these things go, thats a very very good showing. But more importantly, the CRB is impressed with two other items: the relative depth of the responses, and the fact that many responders commented on the fact that they were thirilled with the CRBs approach.

As this is an ITAC initiated item, we will reprint the request for input again. I know this might seem redundant, but it has been pointed out that there are some racers who do not eat sleep and breath on their computer, and with the recent conversion of Fastrack from paper to digital media, it is important to try to reach all interested parties.

So, if you know anyone who doens't hang here, or has an opinion, they need to get out their pens...we'll even take (gasp!) written repsonses!

And thanks guys, you've made us look good....heck, at this rate, the CRB will make us a National class! kidding....kinda.

[88YB1]

Jake, Thanks for keeping us up to date. No matter what is decided I apreciate the way it has been handled. :happy204:

Chuck
ITA Pontiac Fiero #34

[tdw6974]

Anyone shed some light on the Availabilty of " A Number of inexpensive EMS" I'm always interested in "inexpensive" items for racing. T Weaver :eclipsee_steering:

[dj10]

Jake, Thanks for keeping us up to date. No matter what is decided I apreciate the way it has been handled. :happy204:

Chuck
ITA Pontiac Fiero #34 [/b]

To all the good people that have written letters to the CRB and have been objective. :023: to the ITAC for helping us to keep objective and to the CRB who I would think, appriciates the objectivity of the letters. I certaintly have learned a lot from all the discussions, about the people and the subject.

[dj10]

CRB who I would think, appriciates the objectivity of the letters. [/b]



APRIL FASTRACK

"THANK YOU FOR YOUR INPUT" !?!?



CRB who I would think, appriciates the objectivity of the letters.

Now if they can find time to do something with the info they got.???

[Joe Harlan]

APRIL FASTRACK

"THANK YOU FOR YOUR INPUT" !?!?



CRB who I would think, appriciates the objectivity of the letters.

Now if they can find time to do something with the info they got.???
[/b]


Dan, this is something that has to be right. I raised the issue of people not even knowing that this is going on. I e-mailed 10 of my customers that don't go to the website and have not seen the fastrack... I also raised the issue of the choices not being exactly fair and balanced in the way they were presented. I hope the CRB takes what ever time is needed to get it right. You should contact John Norris and ask him how to make your BMW fast cause he has a full handle it.

[dj10]

Dan, this is something that has to be right. I raised the issue of people not even knowing that this is going on. I e-mailed 10 of my customers that don't go to the website and have not seen the fastrack... I also raised the issue of the choices not being exactly fair and balanced in the way they were presented. I hope the CRB takes what ever time is needed to get it right. You should contact John Norris and ask him how to make your BMW fast cause he has a full handle it. [/b]



Do you realize that on June 11th 1776 Thomas Jefferson was asked to draft what is now our "Declaration of Independence", and late on July 4th it was going to the printers after the revisions have been made? On August 2nd 1776 the document was being signed. That was ONLY 52 days.

[Joe Harlan]

Do you realize that on June 11th 1776 Thomas Jefferson was asked to draft what is now our "Declaration of Independence", and late on July 4th it was going to the printers after the revisions have been made? On August 2nd 1776 the document was being signed. That was 52 days.
[/b]


And yor point is? Ever give any thought to the idea that after all this they may change nothing? Ever give any thought to the idea that the CRB or the ITAC is not the final word on this deal? What ever rule comes out of this most of the membership need to support it or in the end IT will end up with a fw guys and their laptops tunning to their hearts desire while 100's of other competitors build another set of IT style classes that are absed more on what we have now than we we will become. The Fastrack should have never been removed from the sportscar magazine as that was the only way to be sure ALL of your driving members got it.

[tnord]

Do you realize that on June 11th 1776 Thomas Jefferson was asked to draft what is now our "Declaration of Independence", and late on July 4th it was going to the printers after the revisions have been made? On August 2nd 1776 the document was being signed. That was 52 days.
[/b]


do you realize how not hard it is to say "screw you guys."

[dj10]

do you realize how not hard it is to say "screw you guys." [/b]

Anyone have any updates?

[tdw6974]

Anyone shed some light on the Availabilty of " A Number of inexpensive EMS" I'm always interested in "inexpensive" items for racing. T Weaver :eclipsee_steering:
[/b]
Inexpensive EMS???????

[Andy Bettencourt]

Dan,

This isn't something that is going through this year. As a major change within the rules, the CRB will take their desire to the BoD for approval. It would be for 2008.

HST, this months FT should have an additional request for member comment, this time with only two options: Chips/daughterboards and reflashes only - or opening it up by removing the 'in the stock box' rule. See FT for exact wording.

[lateapex911]

Inexpensive EMS??????? [/b]

Everything is relative.....;)

[Eagle7]

Inexpensive EMS??????? [/b]

Megasquirt kit < $200

Megasquirt fully assembled < $500

Chris Ludwig S5 RX-7 Plug-n-Play = $500

I haven&#39;t paid any attention to other options.

[dj10]

Another month pass! Oh they did say they got 35 letters, then adjourned. All that work must have tired them out. :D I&#39;m not getting any younger.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Another month pass! Oh they did say they got 35 letters, then adjourned. All that work must have tired them out. :D I&#39;m not getting any younger.

[/b]

2008. Didn&#39;t we say that?

[mlytle]

yo dj,
if yer holding your breath, you will be blue or dead before anything is finalized. we are going out for more member input on some changed options. reality is we have only heard from an extremely small segment of the IT racers. the itac talks a bit about this topic every month, but there is no clear way ahead yet. there will not be a change to the rules in this area this year. if we do anyting it will be for 2008.

marshall

ps - order some dang rain tires and git yur butt down to summit thursday night! :)

[lateapex911]

This is one of those deals where some think the "right way" is clear as day, others think it&#39;s clear as mud, LOL.

We ARE getting GREAT input...probably the best by far that I&#39;ve seen since I&#39;ve been on the ITAC, but the CRB isn&#39;t going to make such a large sweeping change without being very certain of the facts etc. and they feel time is needed to do so, as does the ITAC.

One thing seems to be working in the ITACs favor is the relative current success that IT seems t be enjoying from early race reports. We have reports of full fields, lots of diversity, and some cars thought to have been relegated to also ran status are poking their heads out, so whatever changes that have been made seem to be working. That will give the CRB and the BoD some confidence in listening to what the ITAC proposes when the time comes.

But remember, the ITAC makes the proposal and does the research, hands that over to the CRB with an opinion, the CRB goes to the BoD with a recommendation and the BoD makes the actual call.

So...if you know a CRB member, or a BoD guy, bend their ear at the next race!

[shwah]

I&#39;m just really glad that we are as informed of this potential change as we are. We are completing a &#39;total build&#39; IT motor right now, and may have made engine management changes as well if we did not know this discussion was happening. As it is, we will just perform some maintenance on the current system, tune it and go racing, secure in the knowledge that by next offseason we will know what our options are.

So just get something to the BoD in time for an October decision :026:

[dj10]

yo dj,
if yer holding your breath, you will be dead before anything is finalized. marshall
ps - order some dang rain tires and git yur butt down to summit thursday night! :) [/b]

You may be right on this Marshall.






This is one of those deals where some think the "right way" is clear as day, others think it&#39;s clear as mud, LOL.

We ARE getting GREAT input...probably the best by far that I&#39;ve seen since I&#39;ve been on the ITAC, but the CRB isn&#39;t going to make such a large sweeping change without being very certain of the facts etc. and they feel time is needed to do so, as does the ITAC.

One thing seems to be working in the ITACs favor is the relative current success that IT seems t be enjoying from early race reports. We have reports of full fields, lots of diversity, and some cars thought to have been relegated to also ran status are poking their heads out, so whatever changes that have been made seem to be working. That will give the CRB and the BoD some confidence in listening to what the ITAC proposes when the time comes.

But remember, the ITAC makes the proposal and does the research, hands that over to the CRB with an opinion, the CRB goes to the BoD with a recommendation and the BoD makes the actual call.

So...if you know a CRB member, or a BoD guy, bend their ear at the next race!
[/b]



You guys know what&#39;s going on with this. We don&#39;t, unless someone informs us.

[tnord]

we know no changes will take effect until 08.

[lateapex911]

You guys know what&#39;s going on with this. We don&#39;t, unless someone informs us.

[/b]

I&#39;m not sure I follow.

So let me be completely upfront.

We, (the ITAC/CRB) got a internal item requireing discussion. We discussed it, and put it out for member input.

We have gotten great input. ANd continue to do so, including yours, Dan.

The ITAC will at the end of the input period, discuss it again, taking into account the comments we&#39;ve gotten. The CRB willbe in on those discussions.

At the end of those discussions, a direction will be decided, and sent to the entire CRB for their discussion.

THat much is clear. Now, at that point, the CRB could:
Bounce it back for adjustment, rewording or..
Reject it completley, or...
Overrule and change it, or...
Accept it and put it on the agenda for their meeting with the BoD.

If it&#39;s anything but the second choice, it goes to the BoD in some form, and the BoD either accepts it or rejects it.

If they accept it, it goes on the books for 08, if they reject it, it comes back and gets either reworked, and put on the agenda for the next BoD meeting, or dropped.

So, what I was trying to suggest was, that the direction is undecided at this point. You have given your input, but there are many up the line who will have influence over the final direction. And the REAL point was that, it is in your best interests to have your "people" (anyone you know thats on the CRB or the BoD) to know where YOU stand on the issue.

And, to give an example, lets say we (ITAC) say to the CRB, "Option 3" and the CRB says, OK! Now, you (Dan Jones) have gone to your BoD guy and said "Vote YES if they give you a proposal for option 3", Well, your director now has further reason to approve the proposal. Same goes for the opposite. Basically, let those you know know where you stand. You might be surprised what you can get done, or can learn about the club.