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

[dj10]

:mad1: Fastrack is out and as you can see the CRB hasn't even acknowledged see any letters written about the ECU rule or gave noindication that the ECU rule was even discussed!!! As I've indicated before, we might as well be trying to put this throught the US Congress or Senate. This is a important matter and some DAMN body in the CRB should at least acknowledge that the subject exists. WHAT A CROCK!! :mad1:

[lateapex911]

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

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

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

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

Your patience is appreciated.

[dj10]

Your patience is appreciated. [/b]



One Valture looked at the other Valture and said, "Patience hell, let's go kill something". :birra: The clock is ticking.

[tnord]

the clock really isn't ticking. it's not like any changes are going to be made for this season, so there's still plenty of time to get it in fastrack, submit feedback, make changes, and get it in the 08 GCR.

i really don't see the rush, and i'm actually glad they're taking their sweet time on this.

[gran racing]

I thought based on previous discussions it could impact the 2007 season.

[dj10]

the clock really isn't ticking. it's not like any changes are going to be made for this season, so there's still plenty of time to get it in fastrack, submit feedback, make changes, and get it in the 08 GCR.

i really don't see the rush, and i'm actually glad they're taking their sweet time on this. [/b]



They slammed us and implimented the SIR awful fast last year, there is absoultly no reason we can't enjoy the many benefits of a EMS this year (2007). A week is a rush, the've had this on there plates for going on months now, that is anything but a rush.

[lateapex911]

One Valture looked at the other Valture and said, "Patience hell, let's go kill something". :birra: The clock is ticking.

[/b]

Be careful what you ask for...

If this had to meet a deadline, the answer was..."leave it as it it is..."

More time has changed that attitude.

Not sure what else to tell you....... :unsure:

[pfcs49]

You bet this possible change must wait til 08!!
This is a possibly HUGE philosophical change to our rules.
It needs and DEMANDS a long gestation period of civil, sensible, intelligent, thoughtful conversation about it for the ultimate good of the class. Be careful what you pray for. Phil

[tnord]

They slammed us and implimented the SIR awful fast last year, there is absoultly no reason we can't enjoy the many benefits of a EMS this year (2007). A week is a rush, the've had this on there plates for going on months now, that is anything but a rush.
[/b]

right, because you can compare something that takes 10min to plop inline with your intake piping with something that could require an entirely new wiring harness, sensors, EMS, and hours and hours of dyno tuning.

also, those two rule changes have totally different intentions. the SIR was used to bring the performance of the BMW back to the intended top performance level of all ITS cars, the ECU change is intended to make it easier for everyone to get to that top performance level.

[Andy Bettencourt]

We haven't received any letters regarding "EUC's". :P

Seriously, the issue is that we don't want to EXPAND the performance envelope by accidentally allowing something that would throw the intent of this out the window. ECU's now are effectively open, just difficult and expensive to do. We are trying our best to allow the right stuff to facilitate inexpensive, but complete ECU changes - without opening up any more doors that are curently open.

One of the other reasons you haven't heard much on this is that this is a proactive project by the ITAC so all the FOR letter and all the AGAINST letters (that were generated by this website BTW) are in a holding pattern until we put the wording out for comment.

[dj10]

We haven't received any letters regarding "EUC's". :P

Seriously, the issue is that we don't want to EXPAND the performance envelope by accidentally allowing something that would throw the intent of this out the window. ECU's now are effectively open, just difficult and expensive to do. We are trying our best to allow the right stuff to facilitate inexpensive, but complete ECU changes - without opening up any more doors that are curently open.

One of the other reasons you haven't heard much on this is that this is a proactive project by the ITAC so all the FOR letter and all the AGAINST letters (that were generated by this website BTW) are in a holding pattern until we put the wording out for comment. [/b]



"ECU's now are effectively open, just difficult and expensive to do."

You already have expanded the performance envelope, only a few people with monetary means can take advantage of it. I believe we are trying to accomplish here is to level the playing field. We already know it does not product amazing hp gains by itself but will make what you have more efficient. From talking to the Pro Tuners, I just feel that everyone is making this more complicated than it is. Granted I don't have access to Jakes or anyones written draft for rule and this may be what is complicating the process, I just don't know, which is probably my problem. B)

[JeffYoung]

I agree with Dan. Right now, all we are doing is making it more expensive to get the performance advantage, not limiting the actual advantage in any way.

Just do away with teh silly "in the stock box rule" and keep everything else.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I agree with Dan. Right now, all we are doing is making it more expensive to get the performance advantage, not limiting the actual advantage in any way.

Just do away with teh silly "in the stock box rule" and keep everything else. [/b]

Short sighted. Without allowing the addition of some sensors or wiring, you still have the exact same 'expense' and 'capability' needed in order to make it work. We are working on the specific allowances to allow these lower end units work - while being careful that those allowances don't create any problems. If we don't do the proper legwork, we could end up in a situation we don't want.

Sorry if it's taking too long for some. This is light years ahead of anything in the past...and we are trying to correct the 'past', in which none of the current ITAC was serving when that ECU rule was put in place.

[JeffYoung]

Are added sensors NECESSARY to make a nonstock ECU work? If so, ok, I agree, take your time. But if not, then the answer is simple: no added sensors.

And by "work" I mean run, dont' mean "I don't get all of the advantage of system Y".

Irony or ironies, back to working on my drum brakes.....

[Z3_GoCar]

This is why I realized that the ECU rule will be a tough one. Some aftermarket ECU's require the sensors be changed. This changed sensor then needs to be wired to the new ECU, which uses a differend type of connector than the stock connector. In the end you'll have lots of new wires added. So, the real question is how to do this on multiple different makes with different systems and different ECU's without unintended consequences. I'd love to see my system made legal, but I'm not holding out hope that it will at this point as it's an odd-ball, antiquated, and superceeded by the manufacturer. The newer systems that are being made all have the potential to cause the unintended consequences, as they have the potential to do much more than the basic fuel, spark, and cam timming that mine does. With increased sophistication comes an increased likely hood for unintended consequences, and I don't think my system should be allowed if it cracks open Pandora's box. Now if there were a way to reduce the allowed inputs and outputs to only what's required for fuel, spark, and basic engine function. Then I'd be for a rule that makes the ECU be either stock or outside the box and open to visual inspection.

James

[dj10]

This is why I realized that the ECU rule will be a tough one. Some aftermarket ECU's require the sensors be changed. This changed sensor then needs to be wired to the new ECU, which uses a differend type of connector than the stock connector. In the end you'll have lots of new wires added. So, the real question is how to do this on multiple different makes with different systems and different ECU's without unintended consequences. I'd love to see my system made legal, but I'm not holding out hope that it will at this point as it's an odd-ball, antiquated, and superceeded by the manufacturer. The newer systems that are being made all have the potential to cause the unintended consequences, as they have the potential to do much more than the basic fuel, spark, and cam timming that mine does. With increased sophistication comes an increased likely hood for unintended consequences, and I don't think my system should be allowed if it cracks open Pandora's box. Now if there were a way to reduce the allowed inputs and outputs to only what's required for fuel, spark, and basic engine function. Then I'd be for a rule that makes the ECU be either stock or outside the box and open to visual inspection.

James [/b]

"The newer systems that are being made all have the potential to cause the unintended consequences, as they have the potential to do much more than the basic fuel, spark, and cam timming that mine does."



James please give me an example. No matter what they do, they are limited by the LEGAL build & the mechanical porperties of the engine. Anything illegal, will not be allowed a sensor. Correct? Am I missing something? The EMS should be allowed to control no more than what the stock ECU controls now. The only thing you can do is fine tune what your engine puts out now.

[Ron Earp]

James please give me an example. No matter what they do, they are limited by the LEGAL build & the mechanical porperties of the engine. Anything illegal, will not be allowed a sensor. Correct? Am I missing something? The EMS should be allowed to control no more than what the stock ECU controls now. The only thing you can do is fine tune what your engine puts out now.
[/b]

Amen. Said the same thing some months ago on this discussion. The engine is an air pump pure and simple. It is mechnically limited, you'll just be able to harness it a bit better.

Ron

[Greg Amy]

For the vast majority of the aftermarket ECU systems, the only sensors that will probably need to be added (generally speaking here, kids) is MAP and TPS.

A couple of points to that issue:

- I'd wager there are very few cars which can take advantage of an aftermarket ECU that don't have a TPS to tap into, and
- A baro sensor is legal to install now under "auxiliary gauges" (I'd install a manifold pressure gauge on my dashboard and tap into that for my ECU input).
- Hell, for that matter, if my car didn't have a TPS I'd install a "TPS gauge" on my dashboard and tap into that for my aftermarket ECU.
- FOr those cars that already have the neccesary inputs from the factory (the 2nd-gen MR2, for example, has a MAP/TPS system) it's an easy matter of programming the ECU to accept those inputs from their existing wiring harness pins.

Whatever sensor you could POSSIBLY want to put into your aftermarket ECU can be justified with the open gauges rule (O2 output gauge, MAF airflow gauge, MAP, TPS, whatever senso...uh, gauge you could possibly want). Then, I'd just find a way to tap that into the factory harness OR tap it directly into the board bypassing the factory wiring harness. The only thing keeping me from doing that now is the inability to get that intput into the aftermarket board through the unmodified ECU housing and/or via the unmodified factory wiring harness.

Your (ITAC "your") only concern here should be to fully vet it to the world and have them find a loophole that you/I/they have not yet thought of...

[pfcs49]

I'd need to monitor front and rear vehicle speeds using existing ABS sensors and harness-traction control anyone? Of course, this is nonsensical. Even with the possibility of a now legal modified EFI harness, any bozzo in tech could discover the two illegal patches into the EFI harness, har har! phil
(But I don't know when he or anyone else would get the opportunity to look for it.)

[shwah]

Take your time. Get it right. Haste is what effed this up in the first place.

My car is one that could benefit from having ability to add TPS and MAP sensors. It would be a bunch easier to change over to programable ECU. Most systems have the map sensor located in the box, and just need a vacuum hose for that, but if there was not one headed to the ECU before, I don't think I am able to add one today. The alternative is to obtain a complete CA emissions ECU/Harness/FI system that does have a factory MAP sensor and the needed vacuum path (and if it was automatic TPS I think). The TPS is easier but is not required to make the system I would like to use fuction.

Greg - since allowed modifications cannot perform disallowed functions, I don't buy those hypothetical work-arounds.

[Greg Amy]

Greg - since allowed modifications cannot perform disallowed functions, I don't buy those hypothetical work-arounds.[/b]

It's not an illegal function. Even ex-Rules Nerd Greg doesn't see a problem with this, and I'm not being facetious (really!). Remember, we're talking about a hypothetical situation here where the current ECU housing rule doesn't exist. Thus,

- I can put in, for example, a TPS position sensor and gauge in my car, correct? Gauges are free; show me where it says I cannot do put in a TPS gauge. And,
- Since ECUs are free and there's no longer any housing situation problem, and one of my inputs to the computer is TPS, I can tap into the wiring of that allowed TPS gauge to wire that input to my ECU. Same goes for MAP sensor (MAP pressure gauge) and whatever else I can dream up.

The only thing keeping me/you/him from doing that now is the housing rule. Short of not installing one of the case screws (hardware is free, and we all agree air is a material) there's no way to get that wire into the ECU without modifying the factory wiring harness and plug.

It's really that simple. There's really not much that I can think of that you can't almost do now...and if you're clever (see removed screw above) you probably can.

[dj10]

Take your time. Get it right. Haste is what effed this up in the first place.
[/b]



Are you absolutely sure about this statement, or is it possible someone dropped the ball and didn't get the correct information from a Professional Tuner before writting the rule? I am sure this would not happen now with all the very good sources for information that are available. By now the ITAC & CRB have had a chance to talk to many tuners and will concur that the current ECU rule MUST be changed ASAP.

[shwah]

It depends a lot on how the wording turns out. Your hypothetical could fit, but if the stock sensors/harness requirement remains it would not, as that would preclude bringing any additional wires/signals to the new ECU. Just because you can put in an ECU and put in a gauge, does not allow you to send any signal from the gauge to the ECU, unless it says you can. This very discussion is a great example of why it is good to take the time to get it right.



Are you absolutely sure about this statement, or is it possible someone dropped the ball and didn't get the correct information from a Professional Tuner before writting the rule? I am sure this would not happen now with all the very good sources for information that are available. By now the ITAC & CRB have had a chance to talk to many tuners and will concur that the current ECU rule MUST be changed ASAP.
[/b]

That would be a good example of how taking additional time to make sure we got it right the first time could have been done.

Pretty much supports my argument to make sure we get it right this time rather than rush through a change. This will not be a rule that makes existing cars illegal, but it should make it easier for cars that have not taken the plunge to aftermarket ECU technology to do so. I guess I don't see why this suddenly needs to be a fire drill, when the very issue we are hoping gets 'fixed' is a great example of what not getting it right does for us.

[Greg Amy]

Just because you can put in an ECU and put in a gauge, does not allow you to send any signal from the gauge to the ECU, unless it says you can.[/b]

Well, there's two tangos to that song.

The first is what I call "implied consent". For example, the gauge rule states "[g]auges and instruments may be added, replaced, or removed." Nowhere does it state that wiring can be added or modified, nor does it state that sensors can be modified or added. Taken to the extreme letter of the rules, we can add gauges but we can only use factory sensors and wiring, all unmodified. We, of course, infer the implication that we can add sensors and wiring appropriate to the gauges we choose to use.

The other is the "prohibited function clause." So, what's the 'allowed function' of a gauge package? To provide information, correct? Are there any restrictions as to 'how' or 'to whom or what' that information is provided? Is the intended function of the gauge clause to provide only visual information only real-time and only to the driver, thereby making our data aquisition packages illegal? There is nothing in the rules that defines- or even implies - what the intended function of a gauge package is, and there is specifically no restriction to what you can gage, should you choose to.

Therefore, if there is no restriction as to whom, what, or when information is provided by the gauge package, how is it that providing that information to a data aq or ECU - which is specifically allowed - is prohibited? We're back to the George Roffe theorem: "...you bloody well can." Gauging TPS is unorthodox, but it's allowed and, more importantly, unrestricted.

The ECU is open, but currently only within the factory housing and unmodifed wiring harness; gauges that provide information are unrestricted, as are their sensors and wiring; ergo, there are currently no restrictions to wiring that information into the ECU as long as the wiring harness and ECU housing is unmodified. Opening up the housing rule only makes it easier and cheaper to do so.


This very discussion is a great example of why it is good to take the time to get it right.[/b]
No argument there!

On edit:
Remember, the whole reason we're back at this argument after 4 (5?) years is because of unintended consequences. When the ECU rule was opened up 4 (5?) years ago, the intent was to allow re-soldered chips and flash changes. Instead of simply stating that, we tried to get clever and "open" the rule then attempt to restrict it with specifics. I knew the intent, you knew the intent, but the wording of the rule caused it to be doomed from the beginning. I remember when I first heard about "Motec in a box": while standing in pit lane at LRP. Andy told me that the Bimmers were doing this and I was FLOORED. Impressed, but floored.

Look, we've debated this ad nausea for years now, and I think everyone agrees there are two courses of action here: ban modified ECUs, something that virtually everyone agrees is unenforceable, or open 'em up. No matter what you (ITAC "you) work to come up with, the box is already open; you have to recognize that no matter what clever wording you come up with you can't control it. So, Greg's suggestion is to ask the world "if we opened up this rule, what could people do" and see what happens. I think you'll find that there's really nothing that someone can do with an open rule that they cannot do now, yet cheaper and easier. Traction control? Being done. Full engine control mapping, totally ignoring factory inputs such as the MAF sensor? Already there.

So exactly what is it you're trying to stop? Nothing that I can think of right off hand. But, no matter what you do, someone will find a way around it. Time to just open the gates and let the floodwaters in.

[tnord]

out of curiosity....how is traction control being implimented without the use of the ABS system?

or is it some lawyer like clever cirlce logic to disable the ABS control unit, but leaving the wheel-speed sensors and using the same "guage" argument to reroute that information to the ECU.

<---not good at justifying these things, but good a copying everyone else.

[Greg Amy]

out of curiosity....how is traction control being implimented without the use of the ABS system?[/b]

Easy: you program the ECU to recognize out-of-range engine RPM acceleration rates and cut out ignition selectively to control it to within that range...

[Knestis]

I don&#39;t know HOW it might be getting done but I know how it COULD be done. Inductive wheel speed sensors are readily available and I could easily plumb them to my DAq system, then through an additional digital guage to a soft-touch rev limiter (since we have a lot of lattitude in ignition systems). As long as the gauge has the smarts to look at the differential between wheel speed and GPS speed (another signal from the DL1),

A few questions, that I may have actually floated previously: Under the current rules...

** If I can add a gauge (my wideband O2 sensor), can I add a driver control to adjust fuel pressure? How about spark timing? Injector pulse time or timing?

** Can I tap into the stock harness for a signal from the stock temperature/pressure/revs signal? If not, can I run a circuit completely in parallel to existing wires? Is it required that the stock wires actually work (ie. what if one is busted, a la a worn out stock bushing?)

** Can I remove the stock guages to put in aftermarket ones? If so, can I remove the entire integrated dash "cluster" (ie, to install something like the Dash 2)? Can I still do that if the cluster "talks" to the ECU? If the stock cluster sends signals to the ECU, can the replacement dash unit? How about if the OE unit was not "active" in that sense?

** Can I make my own guages? :)

K

[Bill Miller]

Greg,

While I agree that gauges are open, I don&#39;t see where that allows you to run the output to the ECU (if you can&#39;t get it there through the stock harness). The way I read the ECU rule, you can&#39;t get anything to it that can&#39;t come through the stock harness, and doesn&#39;t require any additional (or disallowed, ala ABS) sensors.


You already have expanded the performance envelope, only a few people with monetary means can take advantage of it. [/b]

And then there&#39;s that whole group of FI cars that can&#39;t take advantage of it.

[Greg Amy]

Bill, remember we&#39;re talking "what if" the rule was changed. I&#39;m getting the impression the ITAC is flumoxed by how to address the desire to allow aftermarket ECUs - and sensors - without opening the door to unintended consequences.

Thus, that question remains: what possible unintended consequences of allowing open aftermarket ECUs are there?

Now to Kirk&#39;s brain-teasers.

>>> ...look at the differential between wheel speed and GPS speed...

...or a map of gear selected and detected RPM - thus knowing the expected speed - compared to GPS. All child&#39;s play.

>>> ...can I add a driver control to adjust fuel pressure?

Yup. "[a]n external fuel pump pressure regulator may be installed" with no further restrictions specified. It&#39;s wide open.

>>> How about spark timing?

"Any ignition system" with some restrictions is allowed and "[i]gnition timing is unrestricted." So, again, yup.

>>> Injector pulse time or timing?

That one would be tough with the current rules. But then again, if you&#39;re manually adjusting fuel pressure, ignition timing, and injector pusle widths while driving, you&#39;re going too damn slow! Let the ECU do it all.

>>> Can I tap into the stock harness for a signal from the stock temperature/pressure/revs signal? If not, can I run a circuit completely in parallel to existing wires? Is it required that the stock wires actually work (ie. what if one is busted, a la a worn out stock bushing?)

I assume you&#39;re referring to engine control/ECU rather than gauges? Today, you can&#39;t. With an open ECU, wiring, and sensors, you could. And, the stock wires can all be ignored.

>>> Can I remove the stock guages to put in aftermarket ones? If so, can I remove the entire integrated dash "cluster" (ie, to install something like the Dash 2)?

Absolutely. The rule is clear on this. I do it with my Stack.

>>> Can I still do that if the cluster "talks" to the ECU? If the stock cluster sends signals to the ECU, can the replacement dash unit?

"...or replaced...", implying they can do the same function as the original.

>>> Can I make my own guages? :)

Absolutely. Send me pics and a price sheet... - GA

[Conover]

http://www.bsrproducts.com/product_info.ph...products_id=543 (http://www.bsrproducts.com/product_info.php?cPath=38&products_id=543)

best part, they are "driver removable"

[Knestis]

"Add to cart - $3,395.00"

LMAO :lol:

K

[bldn10]

So, I can add ANY gauge? I think I&#39;ll add a turbo boost gauge. So I need a turbo boost sensor. So I need a turbo! There HAS to be a limit to how far you can bootstrap otherwise illegal components in under the gauge rule. Not to mention somehow wiring them into the ECU. Obviously, any new ECU rule HAS to clearly say what can be added and what can&#39;t.

[Z3_GoCar]

James please give me an example. No matter what they do, they are limited by the LEGAL build & the mechanical porperties of the engine. Anything illegal, will not be allowed a sensor. Correct? Am I missing something? The EMS should be allowed to control no more than what the stock ECU controls now. The only thing you can do is fine tune what your engine puts out now.
[/b]

Hey Dan,

There&#39;s been several examples given where a maximum accelleration rate of the crankshaft is specified, maybe it&#39;s even linked to a gear indicator, or a couple of wheel speed sensors. We&#39;re allowed to keep wheel speed sensors to keep the stock ECU&#39;s happy. I know that traction control is a non-legal function, but how do we assure that it doesn&#39;t creep in. I&#39;m especially worried about cars with drive by wire throttle&#39;s, where throttle actuation isn&#39;t directly driver controlled. Currently WC makes these cars switch to manual throttle&#39;s, and I&#39;d think this would be a good place to add a spec item.

James

[zracre]

If you have DA that taps into the ecu and it controls ANYTHING it now became a piggyback unit... :018: Guages are free but if they do a prohibited function in the ECU they too are piggyback sensors :018: If you can do it without modifying the stock harness and plug connector using wires that go into the stock harness at the sensors they are still not legal guages as they are no longer guages, they are ecu inputs.

[Greg Amy]

So, I can add ANY gauge? I think I&#39;ll add a turbo boost gauge. So I need a turbo [...][/b]
Illogical argument. Adding a turbo is an illegal function, whereas adding an aftermarket ECU is not. What you are describing is using one unrestricted mod to justify an illegal mod. Obviously not legal. However, using one unrestricted mod to assist another unrestricted mod does not mean that its use is illegal (assuming of course it&#39;s not further restricted).

It is in fact allowed, &#39;cause once something&#39;s unrestricted, it&#39;s unrestricted.


I know that traction control is a non-legal function...[/b]
Whoa, whoa, chief: where is traction control made non-legal? ECUs are currently unrestricted insofar as what you can do inside the stock ECU housing with the stock wiring harness/sensors; where does one now assume that the functions of that completely-legal device are further restricted? Engine management systems are wide open (current restrictions noted); outside of that you can do whatever you want.

So, you&#39;re calling it a "prohibited function"? Well, the purpose of an ECU is to Electronically Control the engine, and that&#39;s exactly what it&#39;s doing with traction control. Are you implying that we&#39;re going to get into exactly how the heretofore unrestricted ECUs actually do their work? Are we going to list for each vehicle exactly what functions each OE ECU does and limit it to that? Or are we going to simply allow someone to do with it whatever they can, under strict specified physical limitations?

We may not WANT traction control, but it&#39;s way legal. Remember, "if it says you can, you bloody well can!"

Aside from the fact how TOTALLY impossible this would be to enforce...


...they are no longer guages, they are ecu inputs.[/b]
I agree, Evan, which is why my scenario relates not to now, but to the proposal to allow other inputs with an open ECU.

[zracre]

adding sensors to the ECU is essentially illegal. How can you add sensors to control individual wheel speed with the stock harness/connector without changing the function of another input? DA can get info from its own sensors but tapping the stock harness is not legal. Adding wires to the stock ECU box is not legal either. I am not saying it can&#39;t be done, just not legally. If someone wants to spend the money like that they are trying too hard to find ways to cheat for IT anyways.

edit I see your point on adding sensors...should not be allowed.

[lateapex911]

I think you&#39;ll find that there&#39;s really nothing that someone can do with an open rule that they cannot do now, yet cheaper and easier. Traction control? Being done. Full engine control mapping, totally ignoring factory inputs such as the MAF sensor? Already there.

So exactly what is it you&#39;re trying to stop? Nothing that I can think of right off hand. . [/b]

Right folks, thats the crux of it. Lets lay some foundations to help us see the big picture:

1- The ITAC uses a process to set weights, and in that process, there is something I&#39;ll call "process power". That&#39;s the number the ITAC uses to punch in the process with the other inputs, and it assumes that the ECU is fully tuned. Now, some cars can, and other cars can not hit that number.

2- Some cars can hit that number...and do..right now. And, some do while ignoring the stock sensors...the new EMS uses what the tuner chooses, and in some cases the original sensor package is sufficient to give the tuner a choice. So, while we all think that the Borgward Special is using it&#39;s airflow meter to provide the signal, we&#39;d be wrong...and we&#39;d all watch in amazement as the pug was pulled on a dyno, and the thing kept running just fine, as it was actually using the MAP sensor the manufacturer so kindly provided. Remember, this is happening right now....and it&#39;s 100% legal. But it can cost nearly $10,000. Not kidding.

3- So, what to do. Certain cars are making process power, but at great expense, and they aren&#39;t even using the stock architecture to get there. Sensors are like languages. Think of a Motec. It&#39;s the all language speaking genious. It can talk to any language speaking sensor out there. And it&#39;s small, so it can fit lots of places. So it gets used, but at great expense, Now, think of the opposite end of the spectrum, say Megaquirt. It&#39;s not as bright..it can only speak english. Too bad your air metering device speaks Japanese. Oh well, no Megaquirt for you. Or maybe you can get a translator and install that along with megasquirt and use the air metering sensor for your signal. Kinda defeats the purpose of a rule thats supposed to make it simpler and easier. Or, we can allow you to add an English speaking version called a MAP sensor, Some cars already have them. Now you can eliminate the expense and confusion of a translator, and just keep it all in English. Result? Performance is the same, and the process power hasn&#39;t been breached. It&#39;s just cheaper and easier.

[Tristan Smith]

Hey Dan,

I&#39;m especially worried about cars with drive by wire throttle&#39;s, where throttle actuation isn&#39;t directly driver controlled. Currently WC makes these cars switch to manual throttle&#39;s, and I&#39;d think this would be a good place to add a spec item.

James
[/b]

There already is a car that has been listed in the GCR with a drive by wire throttle. So that would open yet another can of worms, wouldn&#39;t it?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Whoa, whoa, chief: where is traction control made non-legal?
We may not WANT traction control, but it&#39;s way legal. Remember, "if it says you can, you bloody well can!"

[/b]

From the ITCS: So cars with TC have to disable it, but cars without it can add it? Guess the GCR gets thicker next year.</span>

[Greg Amy]

So cars with TC have to disable it, but cars without it can add it? Guess the GCR gets thicker next year.[/b]
Nope. Cars with factory TC have to disable it, and ALL cars with programmable ECUs can add it. If wheel speed sensors are disconnected, and the ECU programming is free, it ain&#39;t illegal. And you, of all people, know it&#39;s being done now, so don&#39;t feel all insulted...

"Unintended consequences."

What&#39;s next: trying to specify exactly what the engine management software/programming CAN or CANNOT do? Don&#39;t even bother trying to write in something as silly as "traction control via yada-yada-yada is illegal"; you&#39;ll just be spinning your wheels (har-de-har!)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Seems simple to me. "Traction control is not permitted. Cars that it was available on must disconnect the system by removing the wheel speed sensors".

Nobody wants the ITCS to include stuff you can&#39;t do but if it is inherent to the capabilities of an allowance, you do need to have some limitations, no?

[Greg Amy]

Problem is, the rule does NOT state that traction control is illegal. It implies that FACTORY traction control is illegal; what it states is that factory traction control must be disabled.

Regardless, like balanced and blueprinted Spec Miata engines, it&#39;s neither detectable nor preventable nor enforceable.

Just like a myriad of other things over the last two decades, traction control via ECU programming was never thought of when the rules were written. Well, it&#39;s happening. Today. Time to just let it go so we can all do it (although I don&#39;t have enough power to worry about it, myself...)

[lateapex911]

Well, certain TYPES of TC are currently being done, and are 100% legal.

But I&#39;d hate to see the allowance of all 4 wheel speed sensors and full blown TC.

F1 struggled with this mightily IIRC. ;)

[tnord]

i&#39;m bigger and younger than most other racers. this provides me the decisive advantage when i find out someone is using TC and i kick them square in the nuts and force them to wear a pink tu-tu all weekend around the paddock.

:bash_1_:

[shwah]

3- So, what to do. Certain cars are making process power, but at great expense, and they aren&#39;t even using the stock architecture to get there. Sensors are like languages. Think of a Motec. It&#39;s the all language speaking genious. It can talk to any language speaking sensor out there. And it&#39;s small, so it can fit lots of places. So it gets used, but at great expense, Now, think of the opposite end of the spectrum, say Megaquirt. It&#39;s not as bright..it can only speak english. Too bad your air metering device speaks Japanese. Oh well, no Megaquirt for you. Or maybe you can get a translator and install that along with megasquirt and use the air metering sensor for your signal. Kinda defeats the purpose of a rule thats supposed to make it simpler and easier. Or, we can allow you to add an English speaking version called a MAP sensor, Some cars already have them. Now you can eliminate the expense and confusion of a translator, and just keep it all in English. Result? Performance is the same, and the process power hasn&#39;t been breached. It&#39;s just cheaper and easier.
[/b]

I get the point your making, but FWIW this analogy refers to the lower end &#39;off the shelf&#39; systems such as SDS. The Megasquirt is fully configurable to any sensor set you choose, or air measurement method you have available - Mass Flow or Speed Density. It is the most customizable system available, but requires a great deal of knowledge up front, and learning along the way to make it work well.

I lean towards leaving the stock harness and sensor set intact, but understand the point of equalizing the level of difficulty. It just gets back to the oft quoted no guarantee clause and picking the right car to race. This is the kind of thing that I have a preference on, but can see the other side clearly enough to accept it if the rule comes out that way.

[dj10]

To hell with it all! Stock ECU and burn a chip, that&#39;s the way to go. ;)

[Andy Bettencourt]

OK: How about if this were added to the rules

Traction Control is illegal. Traction Control, defined for the purposes of the ITCS, is electronic accelleration control, anti-lock brakes and vehicle stability control. Cars that come stock with any of these must be fully disabled.

[Greg Amy]

Regardless, like balanced and blueprinted Spec Miata engines, it&#39;s neither detectable nor preventable nor enforceable.[/b]

Andy&#39;s not paying attention... You make the problem worse with these constant attempts to tilt windmills.

But, if you still wish to draw your sword and attack the beast, then just add the first sentence; remember that every time you try to work the minutae it bites you in the ass (witness: current ECU rule).

But, it&#39;s still a windmill.

[dj10]

OK: How about if this were added to the rules

Traction Control is illegal. Traction Control, defined for the purposes of the ITCS, is electronic accelleration control, anti-lock brakes and vehicle stability control. Cars that come stock with any of these must be fully disabled.

[/b]

Are you telling me that this isn&#39;t included the the NEW ECU RULE as you (plural) wrote it?!? :)

[Banzai240]

Just another example of "Allow it and they will come"... :018:



http://www.markmallett.com/blog/wp-images/Dam_Break.jpg



The next big discussion is going to be how best to combine IT and Prod... :wacko:

[tnord]

OK: How about if this were added to the rules

Traction Control is illegal..
[/b]

fixed it.

seriously, if it&#39;s going to be this difficult, go back to stock ECU. no flashes, no chips, nothing. of course then the process weights are all off.

:mad1:

one of those days at work too.

[pfcs49]

You want to know what&#39;s REALLY driving this quest? Most late model ECMs come in really small cases and I&#39;d guess they&#39;re too small to install alternate ECUs in. LET THEM EAT CAKE!!! Chip the stockMF! YEAH
Oh, I almost forgot, "civil, reasoned, rational..." phil

[lateapex911]

Guys, we&#39;ve been over this bridge before, but, look at all sides of the issue.

We are a CLUB...made of MEMBERS, and run mostly by members striving to create fair and equitable racing for members...

While the "Tough shit" rule exists, it is NOT supposed to be used as a trump car every time the rules writing and equity situation gets tough.

And, lets also keep in mind that this ECU rule has existed for nearly a decade....rescinding it is highly unfair to those wha have spent big money, and lots of time to abide by it. If, two years ago, you had written a check for $9,000 how would you like to throw that away? As is, loosening it is not entirely fair to those guys, but the nature of technology and the racing game conspire to make fairness a tough target to hit.

But that doen&#39;t mean we shouldn&#39;t try......

[dj10]

Andy&#39;s not paying attention... You make the problem worse with these constant attempts to tilt windmills.

But, if you still wish to draw your sword and attack the beast, then just add the first sentence; remember that every time you try to work the minutae it bites you in the ass (witness: current ECU rule).

But, it&#39;s still a windmill.
[/b]

Greg, just so you know, I&#39;m not trying to be a smart ass when I ask you, how would you write the new ECU rule if it were up to you? I would like to see your version, please. If I&#39;m correct on your way of thinking it should not be to long of a rule and would address only the necessary items. I&#39;m actually dying to see Jake&#39;s or others too. :D

Dan

[dj10]

Guys, we&#39;ve been over this bridge before, but, look at all sides of the issue.

We are a CLUB...made of MEMBERS, and run mostly by members striving to create fair and equitable racing for members...

While the "Tough shit" rule exists, it is NOT supposed to be used as a trump car every time the rules writing and equity situation gets tough.

And, lets also keep in mind that this ECU rule has existed for nearly a decade....rescinding it is highly unfair to those wha have spent big money, and lots of time to abide by it. If, two years ago, you had written a check for $9,000 how would you like to throw that away? As is, loosening it is not entirely fair to those guys, but the nature of technology and the racing game conspire to make fairness a tough target to hit.

But that doen&#39;t mean we shouldn&#39;t try......
[/b]



Jake, not to be a smart ass, again, did anyone feel this bad when they rescinded the shock with the reservoir? If nothing else, this will make you think about writing a rule correctly. So you keep if fair for a few or write a new rule for the many?

[Knestis]

1- The ITAC uses a process to set weights, and in that process, there is something I&#39;ll call "process power". That&#39;s the number the ITAC uses to punch in the process with the other inputs, and it assumes that the ECU is fully tuned. Now, some cars can, and other cars can not hit that number. ...[/b]

It&#39;s a sidebar but I&#39;m going to throw a flag on this one. It&#39;s become accepted practice for the "process power" to be established based on WHAT some cars can hit, rather than regardless of WHETHER they can hit it. That&#39;s the basis of the "some cars gain more in IT trim" rationale. Assuming I&#39;m following correctly.

Back to our regularly scheduled difficult policy issue... :026:

K

[pfcs49]

And what cars can hit depends hugely on how conservatively/aggresively a manufacturer rates his engine.
Take my new street car, a direct injection 2L Turbo GTI; VW rates it at 200hp; most people say it makes over that from the showroom (210??). And Andy, can you definetively explain to me how you can judge the net results of whatever ECM tuning is being done as its applied to your magic formula?? Sorry to call a spade a spade, but it seems like bullcrap to me! If some cars can&#39;t hit the numbers, I don&#39;t think you can blame yhe ECM. phil

[Joe Harlan]

Seems simple to me. "Traction control is not permitted. Cars that it was available on must disconnect the system by removing the wheel speed sensors".

Nobody wants the ITCS to include stuff you can&#39;t do but if it is inherent to the capabilities of an allowance, you do need to have some limitations, no?
[/b]


So my current system uses an algorithm in the software based on gear selection and RPM rising rate to control wheel spin. How you gonna stop that? No Sensors needed and no tire spin!!!!!

[shwah]

seriously, if it&#39;s going to be this difficult, go back to stock ECU. no flashes, no chips, nothing. of course then the process weights are all off.
[/b]

Man I would like that option. It sure seems like this actually fits the philosophy of IT more than where we are headed. Even stock ECUs, allow reflashes of stock chips, if car requires the chip itself ONLY can be replaced rather than flashed. Where we are headed we are ending up closer to World Challenge spec, than to Showroom Stock spec in this area.

However, it just wouldn&#39;t be fair. While the rule never ever should have been made to begin with, once it was some racers found ways to make great strides in their car because of it. While I think the rule change was a shame, I don&#39;t like taking something away from someone just because they had the time, money or smarts that I didn&#39;t have to get something done within the rules.

[Joe Harlan]

Man I would like that option. It sure seems like this actually fits the philosophy of IT more than where we are headed. Even stock ECUs, allow reflashes of stock chips, if car requires the chip itself ONLY can be replaced rather than flashed. Where we are headed we are ending up closer to World Challenge spec, than to Showroom Stock spec in this area.

However, it just wouldn&#39;t be fair. While the rule never ever should have been made to begin with, once it was some racers found ways to make great strides in their car because of it. While I think the rule change was a shame, I don&#39;t like taking something away from someone just because they had the time, money or smarts that I didn&#39;t have to get something done within the rules.
[/b]

Bad reason not to fix a bad rule......

[pfcs49]

Joe-I agree strongly. Not to be an old fart, but let&#39;s get our class back! This class is headed down the SCCA superhighway to Hell just like production did so many years ago (remember? IT is 1963 production rules-and, yeah, I know they didin&#39;t have ECMs in 63) phil

[Joe Harlan]

Phil,
I was only 1 at that time but I agree. Chipping, Flashing, and making a argument to help an single car that can&#39;t do these things is where we should be. Stuffing Motec&#39;s in stock boxes is an unreasonable level of prep for a mid to entry levelo class. IT for as long as I can remember has been the only reason this club gets new members. IT has always been in my way of thinking the starting point and the staying point for the largest group of people in this club. Even when I was pitching Club touring to emulate World Challenge i asked for IT level engine prep rules to keep it close for more people. Instead we got DP and BP? Improved to me would be improving something that was stock. What we have now is replacement. Guess what&#39;s next? Since now we can cotrol fuel and timing curves so much better our fuel injectors will be suspect when it comes to making power so we will need to replace those because they are at 110% duty cycle even with the fuel pressure turned up 25lbs. I am seriously laughing about all this as I dig up a copy of the 1989 IT rules to propose another set of classes that we can call touring or BT for short....I think we will start with a new set of class alphanumerals and call it BTA1 thru BTZ26...:)

[Greg Amy]

And, lets also keep in mind that this ECU rule has existed for nearly a decade....[/b]

That&#39;s not true, Jake. 2002 GCR states, "...computer shall remain unaltered." That&#39;s when we allowed resistors on the input wires. 2003 is when the altered ECUs with unmodified housing" was first allowed.



...how would you write the new ECU rule...?[/b]
In regards to traction control? I wouldn&#39;t even address it. It&#39;s TOTALLY unenforceable, so leave it open.

If additional sensors are allowed with an open ECU, then simply something like "use of additional wheel sensors for the purpose of traction control is prohibited."

[Andy Bettencourt]

And Andy, can you definetively explain to me how you can judge the net results of whatever ECM tuning is being done as its applied to your magic formula?? Sorry to call a spade a spade, but it seems like bullcrap to me! If some cars can&#39;t hit the numbers, I don&#39;t think you can blame yhe ECM. phil
[/b]

We use a 25% estimate. Most cars need ECU tuning to hit that number. Some claim they can&#39;t, some go above it. The 25% is just an estimate (albiet an educated one). Never been touted as anything more. It HAS however, been fairly accurate and IT has never seen more cars being competitive.

[Conover]

From my point of view, a lot of this conversation is neglecting the time five or six years from today when 2007/2008 cars are coming into IT, and they have Government Mandated traction control integrated into the very being of the AI that runs everything. OBD2 is intended to be "tamperproof" well it&#39;s not yet, but it will be. And if the spirit of the rule set is to provide a class for limited prep production vehicles to race, in an economical way, then we can&#39;t go on willy nilly banning things that we don&#39;t fully understand. Current production cars already have multiple drive train computer modules, this is something that the rules are going to have to cope with. It will, in the future, cost tens of thousands of dollars to work around traction control. If things continue on the path they are on, traction control isn&#39;t going to be limited to wheelspeed sensors and an ABS module, it will be integrated into the thought processes of every control module on the car, redesigning that is going to be nearly impossible. Let&#39;s not exclude the future in these conversations, and be very careful about the assumptions you make when thinking about these problems.

In my opinion it would behoove us to embrace the technology, there are folks who intentionally try and fool the computer, or force it to deal with limited input information by disabling a sensor or two, I think that the only thing you are fooling is yourself. The computer is trying to accommodate your needs, so you handicap it and expect some stellar results?

[pfcs49]

Thanks for the validation Joe. Since we are considering such a major rush fowards, let&#39;s consider the radical possibility of moving the opposite direction before we really screw this up!
The class is zooming upwards at a rate that would have left me still racing with
EMRA if it wasn&#39;t for the original IT philosphy. What I propose is making engine management and preparation much simpler and hugely cheaper: limited prep IT-No aftermarket ECMs, No overbores, no +.5 CR, maybe even stock exh manifolds (headers are a pain in the ass, and we wizards can get a leg up on the GP with educated design-not too fair for a cheap/entry class). The modest needs for increased fueling could be trimmed w/fuel pressure if you&#39;re not ready to edit chips, but changing rev limit would require it.
What you&#39;d get would be stone reliable motors w/15% less power that are sublimely cheap/reliable/available.
A good used motor would be quite competitive-holy cow! With the shortage of slower canidates for B&C, this would open up the list of possibilities nicely. Why swim upstream when sensible options abound?
And yeah! if you stuffed a motec into an IT computerbox, you can afford to take it out; sorry, just another opportunity for growth. phil

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hey Phil, what I fail to see is why you think this is such a major rush forward. Right now, &#39;MoTec in a box&#39; is currently legal. How is the allowance for cheaper units with the same functionality a move in any direction?

[pfcs49]

Andy-if you use 25% for all cars, then how can it be relevant? I assume you&#39;re correcting advertised/factory horsepower with it. If thats the case, then its proportionally irrelevant and washes out of the comparison.
And, my experience is that your number is too high. I know of just about every well prpared ITB Volvo.
They&#39;re 130hp factory, and most Volvo guys would kill to see 150 on an honest (engine) dyno.
ITB VW? 108 factory/105 at the wheels of racecar: great. Phil

[Joe Harlan]

From my point of view, a lot of this conversation is neglecting the time five or six years from today when 2007/2008 cars are coming into IT, and they have Government Mandated traction control integrated into the very being of the AI that runs everything. OBD2 is intended to be "tamperproof" well it&#39;s not yet, but it will be. And if the spirit of the rule set is to provide a class for limited prep production vehicles to race, in an economical way, then we can&#39;t go on willy nilly banning things that we don&#39;t fully understand. Current production cars already have multiple drive train computer modules, this is something that the rules are going to have to cope with. It will, in the future, cost tens of thousands of dollars to work around traction control. If things continue on the path they are on, traction control isn&#39;t going to be limited to wheelspeed sensors and an ABS module, it will be integrated into the thought processes of every control module on the car, redesigning that is going to be nearly impossible. Let&#39;s not exclude the future in these conversations, and be very careful about the assumptions you make when thinking about these problems.

In my opinion it would behoove us to embrace the technology, there are folks who intentionally try and fool the computer, or force it to deal with limited input information by disabling a sensor or two, I think that the only thing you are fooling is yourself. The computer is trying to accommodate your needs, so you handicap it and expect some stellar results?
[/b]

I have to say I have lots of time with the 350 and the vds system and it is not designed to be a benefit to performance. The Traction control systems on street cars take away throttle and use the brakes to regain control in a wheel spin or slide situation. It will be actually more of a problem to blend those cars into IT if we allow more technology to get around these deals. On the 350z project we worked with a tuner and had the OE boxed cracked and flashed before the first race in 03. Anything can be done of you want it done. For those that think it will even the playing field your wrong unless you want to hire somebody to do the dyno work and write the fuel and timing maps. It would be far better to real it back rather than let it out for this class.

Edit:

Phil, I would not try to do no-overbores or take awy headers or things like that These are old cars lseeving a block is cost prohibitive and braken manifolds ect. Thr recipe was doing quite well until the introduction of a few over dogs by selfserving Adhocs and CRB folks of long past. The current recipe has a chance except it appears we have an adhoc that is pushing the catagory a little faster than it should be. We have had some very major changes in the last 3 years with reclassifications and a minor philosophy change which is a good thing if you allow the current and future competitors to catch their breath before thrying to make further large changes. I think we just need to take a couple of seasons and see how we shake out before any more major adjustment happen to the catagory.

[pfcs49]

Its a rush foward because it institutionalizes a pretty technical area of preparation that until now only a few big spenders have tread on, in an entry level class that&#39;s supposed to be cheap and simple. Don&#39;t you understand? The people coming in to this class haven&#39;t had the years of (technical) imerssion you and I have. I enjoy the challenges of doing stuff like replacing an engine mangement sytem and the intricacies of creating a nicely modified wiring harness, adding a MAP sensor, fabricating a TPS, and changing to a speed/density system; tuning on a dynamometer, or using data aquisition and a wideband Lambda meter to edit load tables. I don&#39;t think people in this great entry level class should have to.
The revolution will not be televised!!! Take IT back!!! phil

Re: limited prep-Joe, I&#39;d never want to do that retroactively, but it might work great for newer homologations.
PS: regarding overbores/sleeving-if you can&#39;t find a good late model candidate that won&#39;t clean up including thrust face/top of bore w/>.0005" pressure honing, you&#39;re fishing in a toxic pool! In my experience, everything since about 1990 will have vitually no bore wear or ridge w/100K+ on it.

[tnord]

first off, just how people are using the ECU rule, and how to write a new and effective rule is way beyond me. i&#39;d just like to admit that before i open my mouth. given my ignorance, i usually don&#39;t debate such topics, but i&#39;ve had a rather frustrating day and feel like being onry.



rescinding it is highly unfair to those wha have spent big money, and lots of time to abide by it. If, two years ago, you had written a check for $9,000 how would you like to throw that away? As is, loosening it is not entirely fair to those guys, but the nature of technology and the racing game conspire to make fairness a tough target to hit.
[/b]

i disagree jake. the old rule, and money spent yesterday should have no bearing on a new rule. we can reference an old rule to learn how to write a better new one, but just because we screwed up yesterday doesn&#39;t mean we need to wait 5yrs to fix it. the attitude should be to do what&#39;s best for the majority of IT racers going forward, not what&#39;s best for what happened to the minority in the past.



So my current system uses an algorithm in the software based on gear selection and RPM rising rate to control wheel spin. How you gonna stop that? No Sensors needed and no tire spin!!!!!
[/b]

i already covered this. whoever i find out has TC i&#39;m going to kick them square in the nuts, make them wear a pink tu-tu, and call them princess. i don&#39;t know why, but the TC thing really grinds my gears.



I don&#39;t like taking something away from someone just because they had the time, money or smarts that I didn&#39;t have to get something done within the rules.
[/b]

same thing as with jake, this is improper thinking. what other people invested and how we screwed up in the past are already sunk costs and shouldn&#39;t influence our decisions moving forward. General Business 101.



OBD2 is intended to be "tamperproof" well it&#39;s not yet, but it will be. And if the spirit of the rule set is to provide a class for limited prep production vehicles to race, in an economical way, then we can&#39;t go on willy nilly banning things that we don&#39;t fully understand. Current production cars already have multiple drive train computer modules, this is something that the rules are going to have to cope with. It will, in the future, cost tens of thousands of dollars to work around traction control. If things continue on the path they are on, traction control isn&#39;t going to be limited to wheelspeed sensors and an ABS module, it will be integrated into the thought processes of every control module on the car, redesigning that is going to be nearly impossible. Let&#39;s not exclude the future in these conversations, and be very careful about the assumptions you make when thinking about these problems.

In my opinion it would behoove us to embrace the technology, there are folks who intentionally try and fool the computer, or force it to deal with limited input information by disabling a sensor or two, I think that the only thing you are fooling is yourself. The computer is trying to accommodate your needs, so you handicap it and expect some stellar results?
[/b]

10pts for recognizing future issues cameron, but i disagree on how to deal with them. when this ECU rewrite issue came up a couple months ago i was 90% in support of it because of the ever increasing control OEM ECU&#39;s have over our vehicles. I want to open up the rule so that we can ELIMINATE traction control and all the other bullshit. i can forsee us all having to remove the complete factory wiring harness and ECU as a part of typical car prep just like we install a cage today.

we&#39;ll all be running basically a more user friendly megasquirt. we&#39;ll install a half-dozen basic sensors and plug them into our pre-programmed but fully adjustable standalone ECU. that&#39;s the future i see. people are smart and will figure it out.



....alright, i feel a little better now. :035:

[Conover]

You will lose driveability and performance. The high efficiency engines of today won&#39;t survive on limited sensors and some OTS standalone. Show me a Megasquirt smart enough to control direct injection. I&#39;m just saying, don&#39;t oversimplify it. It&#39;s not going to be that easy.

[shwah]

I don&#39;t see why a programable ECU could not control any engine you want. I don&#39;t see why Megasquirt could not control a DI engine - someone will write the code to do this for their street car. The WC guys are running stand alone today with &#39;modern&#39; engines, and it works out just fine.

On the surface a rule that stipulates stock ECU with chip/flash change only, or an optional &#39;standard&#39; IT spec standalone ECU/harness/sensor set sounds interesting. Of course the real cost will be in dyno/development time, not in buying the stuff. If they specify the right one, the SCCA could require datalogging that they have access to, should they have the need to verify traction control (driven/undriven wheel speed, throttle plate position, throttle pedal position (on drive by wire), ignition timing, injector duty cycle). That same datalogging could allow boosted cars with a max boost allowance that could be verified to compete fairly. Not cheap stuff, but it could open up a host of other potentially good and potentially bad issues.

All more good reasons not to rush into a change to open up further. Lets see the proposed wording, and let our fellow club members have a chance to provide their input.

As far as my feelings about taking away allowances at the drop of a hat - this might not be the best topic for me to make that case on, since I DO feel that the rule change in &#39;02 that allowed anything in the box sucked, and wish we all had to run stock boxes. However there is just such a bent on this site to &#39;close the loophole&#39; on every good idea that someone comes up with, it bothers me. We compete in a few arenas; driving, enigneering, preparation. It seems there are folks that feel the field should be totally leveled in the former two (or at least the engineering), and I just don&#39;t agree. If you want that go see SRF class.

[Bill Miller]

I have to agree w/ Cameron, how we address the electronics of today&#39;s (my &#39;07) and the ones of the next five years is going to be tough. How you integrate these cars in w/ the IT cars of today is no easy task, given that you want to keep things balanced.

[pfcs49]

"You will lose driveability and performance. The high efficiency engines of today won&#39;t survive on limited sensors and some OTS standalone. Show me a Megasquirt smart enough to control direct injection. I&#39;m just saying, don&#39;t oversimplify it. It&#39;s not going to be that easy."
You&#39;re absolutely right! Put your megasquirt over next to your 2bbl Weber 32DGV, time is moving faster than most realize. The way to keep it simple is to keep it simple. phil

[spnkzss]

ECU Rule:

ECU is unrestricted. Stock wiring harness must remain unmodified. Addition/Replacement of stock sensors is prohibited.

You are not going to be able to prevent non-ABS based TC. If someone wanted it, they could have it now as the rule is written.

I&#39;d really like to see what other people have in mind for the rule. There are enough people on this list that could read a rule and find a hole. Lets see the thought process written out in "final" form.

[gran racing]

Using stock ECUs would be ideal in the perfect world, but it&#39;s just not something realistic for our given situation. Besides, it&#39;s much more difficult to take away stuff than to give people new (less expensive) alternatives.

[Andy Bettencourt]

However there is just such a bent on this site to &#39;close the loophole&#39; on every good idea that someone comes up with, it bothers me. We compete in a few arenas; driving, enigneering, preparation. It seems there are folks that feel the field should be totally leveled in the former two (or at least the engineering), and I just don&#39;t agree. If you want that go see SRF class. [/b]

Chris,

I disagree. What you see on this site IMHO is people taking to task the tortured interpretations of the written rule. See the &#39;traction bar&#39; thread. NEVER was it the intent to have a traction bar be anything but a longitudinal, drive-axle locating device. The new &#39;lawering&#39; of the ancient glossery has produced creep - and we need to squash it before it becomes status quo - ie: Suspension bushings.

Building a better moustrap is fine, but do so within the spirit and intent of the rule - or expect to get your investment &#39;clarified&#39; out of existance - and that happens in EVERY form of racing, from Can Am &#39;sucker&#39; cars to NASCAR and the Superbird.

************************************************** *****************************************
How about this for a new ECU rule:

Stock ECU&#39;s must be retained. Removable chips may be substituted. OBD cars may be re-flashed. No other modification to the OEM housing or circut board is permitted.

(BTW: I have over $3K and a years development into a programmable unit that has yet to see the track in my car)

[gran racing]

So you&#39;d require people that spent $$$$ on Motecs or other similar types of ECUs to ditch them? I like the idea of allowing people to use piggy back ECU systems.

[pfcs49]

Ahmen Andy!! You&#39;ve got it!

[Knestis]

The 600-lb gorilla on this subject is enforcement. Kirk&#39;s emerging Laws of IT Rules Enforcement, for consideration...

1. It is not possible to write a rule that enforces itself

2. We have to be willing to enforce what we put in the rulebook (Corollary - Any rule that isn&#39;t enforced, might as well not be a rule)

3. If we dink around with rule wording in an attempt to get around the First Law, living with the Second Law gets awfully difficult

Pragmatically, this issue approaches the point where there are really only two options that are amenable to enforcement - "you can&#39;t do anything" or "you can do anything." Of course, I don&#39;t have the generalized fear of technology that some do (e.g., ABS brakes turning everyone into Randy Pobst).


ECU is unrestricted. Stock wiring harness must remain unmodified. Addition/Replacement of stock sensors is prohibited.[/b]
So if my stock throttle position sensor dies, I can&#39;t replace it with a new one? :)

K

On EDIT...


Stock ECU&#39;s must be retained. Removable chips may be substituted. OBD cars may be re-flashed. No other modification to the OEM housing or circut board is permitted.[/b]

Please, please, please resist the temptation to toss "not allowed" language into the mix, all willy-nilly! "You didn&#39;t say I couldn&#39;t modify the connector that snaps into the ECU - so there."

[Greg Amy]

How about this for a new ECU rule:[/b]

We had this debate several years ago; maybe back when the rule change was proposed? I remember going back and forth, trying to come up with verbiage that would meet this intent but still include everyone&#39;s individual issues, and there was ALWAYS an exception that had to be made. This resulted in the current rule which, obviously, didn&#39;t work as intended.

Here&#39;s your first exception to your VERY good stab at the rule: the Nissan. Because of the design of the EEPROM, you can&#39;t simply desolder the PROM, solder in a socket, and plug in a replacement EEPROM. To accomplish this, a daughterboard has to be built to host the EEPROM. The original PROM is desoldered and a socket mounted there, and this daughterboard then plugs into the socket. This second board is then mounted on screws and posts on the original motherboard.

So, we&#39;re now down the secular road of incrementalism: do we try to come up with some words to allow this mod, or do we tell the Nissan boys they&#39;re SOL on being able to run aftermarket ECU programming? And, if you choose to allow it, how are you going to word it without opening the box for more than intended? Remember, the more words you put in there, the more there are to twist (Deja vu! I remember having this same conversation with George "back then"...head rush...)

This is but one example of the problems we had "back then" on trying to come up with suitable language. Man, I wish I had the motivation to find that original thread...anyone else?

[tnord]

i didn&#39;t mean we will be specifically using megasquirt as it exists now. we&#39;ll be using a more modern version of the megasquirt product. it&#39;ll be some generic EMS with a board and a half dozen sensors to run the car. before the product is shipped to us they will throw a baseline flash onto the ECU and the rest is up to us.


andy -

if we go to "chipped only" ECU&#39;s, doesn&#39;t that just force people to see how much shit they can pack into a chip instead of inside the stock box?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Kirk - I see your point in the additional language and I agree.

Greg - If you can&#39;t take advantge, then you can&#39;t take advantage.

Trav - Yes.

[Conover]

You guys do what ever you want, for me, for the future, I&#39;ll use the stock ECU&#39;s and reflash them to adjust the parameters and take away or modify the TC as the rules dictate.


Have fun at the Dyno, we&#39;ll be on the race track. . . :eclipsee_steering:

[lateapex911]

Man, I wish I had the motivation to find that original thread...anyone else? [/b]

You&#39;ll never find it....because there have been a half dozen threads like this!

So we&#39;re at a crossroads. We can:

A-Stay the same. $10,000 Motecs (not kidding) stuffed into boxes that can hold them.

B- Go back. Reflash, new chips if you can, everyone else pounds sand, so sorry, and those who have spent money on "A" can mount it on a pedestal and display it.

C- Open the parameters up so that more subscribers can do what those lucky (?) few are doing already.


A sucks, because there is no equity.
B sucks becuase it wastes collossal amounts of time for some folk, and because it won&#39;t be equitable either, as Greg points out, not to mention the possible future issues.
C has issues with perceptions. It will be perceived that an EMS will be a absolute "Must have" if you want to run at the front. It is now in certain classes, but the air is pretty stratified, and the masses haven&#39;t discovered that yet. So they will perceive that the cost of racing went up with the advent of "affordable" EMS and the allownace to use them. But...the level of performace available won&#39;t change, so the reality won&#39;t match the perception.

So, A? B? or C??

[tnord]

Greg - If you can&#39;t take advantge, then you can&#39;t take advantage.
[/b]

:happy204: for this approach.



Trav - Yes.
[/b]

then that wouldn&#39;t really serve the purpose this current proposed rule change is intended to. i thought we were trying to make it less cost prohibitive to reach max prep levels? cramming a bunch of stuff into a little chip seems like it would cost MORE than it does now. or maybe that&#39;s the point? basic tuing is super easy and super cheap, but the fancy stuff will cost you well over 10k?

the wind is starting to blow me back in favor of stock ECU/wiring harness with NO modifications. can&#39;t police it? i know, but at least you have that on your conscious.

[Greg Amy]

Greg - If you can&#39;t take advantge, then you can&#39;t take advantage.[/b]

OK, so because you&#39;re adjusting weights on expected horsepower increases due to aftermarket ECUs, how much of a weight break are all the Nissans going to get as a result of being unable to "take advantage"?

And, if none, why...?

(And although I recognize this is a purely hypothetical discussion from one person, hypothetically with that statement the ITAC has just lost all support from me on this issue...either we can all do it, or no one can do it... - GA)

[Andy Bettencourt]

the wind is starting to blow me back in favor of stock ECU/wiring harness with NO modifications. can&#39;t police it? i know, but at least you have that on your conscious.
[/b]

Having a rule you can not police is not a rule at all.

[tnord]

Having a rule you can not police is not a rule at all.
[/b]

in many ways yes. but i&#39;m starting to lean this way as the lesser of two evils. my thought was to bring a box of stock ECU&#39;s to the ARRC and make "everyone" swap. they did it at the runoffs for SM.



greg -

you&#39;re never going to find a solution that satisfies everyone.

[spnkzss]

So if my stock throttle position sensor dies, I can&#39;t replace it with a new one? :)

K
[/b]

I thought about that after I hit send.


ECU is unrestricted. Stock wiring harness must remain unmodified. All sensors must remain stock, in the stock location. Additional Inputs/Outputs are prohibited.

Define an Input and an Output in the glossary as having to do with the ECU.

That should stop someone from putting a "T" in between the sensor and the wiring harness also.

[Conover]

I think you should open it up, and in the spirit of making things equal and economic, if your going to open it up, open it all the way up, sensors wiring everything. For example, most affordable stand-alone units use the Mass density approach to Fuel metering, well, that leaves anything that doesn&#39;t have a MAP sensor out in the cold, Miata, VW, etc. so it will be cheaper and easier to allow them to add the MAP sensor.

I worry about the approach of limiting Traction Control or ABS or anything of that sort, because we do not really know what&#39;s coming in the future of these things, and while the technology of today may suck, the traction control of the future may not, and it may cost a bunch of cash to get around them, so let&#39;s not estrange our future generation of racing cars.

[Greg Amy]

you&#39;re never going to find a solution that satisfies everyone.[/b]

Travis, it&#39;s not about "satisfaction", it&#39;s about "parity". Any rule that automatically excludes a large number of competitors, and potentially places them at a competitive disadvantage, should never be considered.

Everyone should have the opportunity to take advantage of a potential competion modification, or no one should. It&#39;s as simple as that.

[pfcs49]

Greg-you&#39;re absolutely right and reasonable in that regard. E-prom replacement to the unmodified motherboard should be allowed, whether by direct replacement, resoldering, or installing a socket board.
This is standard chip-tuner practice; reminds me of the "standard machine shop practice" argument for installing sleeves, etc when there was no mention in rulebook or mfg manual. phil

[Andy Bettencourt]

Travis, it&#39;s not about "satisfaction", it&#39;s about "parity". Any rule that automatically excludes a large number of competitors, and potentially places them at a competitive disadvantage, should never be considered.

Everyone should have the opportunity to take advantage of a potential competion modification, or no one should. It&#39;s as simple as that. [/b]

You mean like camber plates, exhaust porting, ECU stuff now for carbed guys, CAI, etc. There are plenty of car-specific limitations as is.

Sometimes what you drive just is what it is.

[Joe Harlan]

Stuff it back in and address special needs cars as a single issue.

[Knestis]

The problem there, Cameron is that some folks have a huge philosophical disagreement with the idea of "taking control out of the driver&#39;s hands (and feet)" - exactly the opposite of the direction that manufacturers are going with their technology. We WILL have this clash of cultures in club racing, the only question being when.

Jake - I&#39;d respectfully add that most of your choices consider costs, and that until/unless we are willing to use "claim" rules, there is absolutely NO way to legislate what people will spend in attempts to be competitive. We can try to diddle at the margins, in terms of potentially reducing returns but the rules are weak tools for influencing spending.

How about this consideration: As technology progresses and engines get inherently more efficient power-wise, the potential benefit of fuel/air management changes should decrease. Does this serve as any kind of disincentive to spending $$ on aftermarket systems, that would likely get more and more expensive as the technology comes online?

K

[Greg Amy]

There are plenty of car-specific limitations as is.[/b]

That exclude entire marques of cars because of an inherent design? Name one.


We could leave it alone...[/b]
The real core of the issue here is yet another attempt to swat a fly. The number of people spending $10,000 on a Motec system? Probably count them on one hand, I&#39;d guess. You got yer ass handed to you by a bunch of clever guys that found a way around the wording, and now you&#39;re starting to head towards a train wreck to try and "fix" it.

Andy, you and I had a conversation about this long ago, where I attempted to tell you that no matter how hard you try, no matter how hard you work, no matter what you do, there will always be someone that figures it out, that spends more money, that gets the technology heads and shoulders above everyone else. As Kirk has repeatedly tried to point out, you cannot legislate the amount of money people spend on their race cars. If someone wants to spend $100,000 building an ITS BMW or RX-7, there are no number of rules that can stop it, no more than you can stop someone from cheating if they truly want to.

I don&#39;t like the idea of Motec any more than the next guy. While I was impressed at the technology and ideas, I was DEpressed that someone did it for IT. However, if your reaction to this is going to be something that causes a lot of grief for a lot of people - and if you think this specific point is isolated to Nissans, you&#39;re sadly mistaken - then the resolution is truly worse than the problem.

And if any of you think that I have a conflict of interest in this game, consider this: I&#39;ve been running a dead-stock ECU for two years now, all year in 2006 and when I won the ARRC. I have nothing to lose (and a lot to gain) at this point with having everyone go back to stock ECUs... - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Lots of philisophical grandstanding. I ask you all: WHAT would YOU do. Joe did. Trav did. Who else wants to go on record? Kirk? Greg? Solutions people.

[tnord]

Travis, it&#39;s not about "satisfaction", it&#39;s about "parity". Any rule that automatically excludes a large number of competitors, and potentially places them at a competitive disadvantage, should never be considered.

[/b]


;)

too many cars from too many decades with too many forms of technology to even consider "parity." never happen. it can be held within reason with weights, but that&#39;s pie-in-the-sky thinking if you ask me.

[Joe Harlan]

;)

too many cars from too many decades with too many forms of technology to even consider "parity." never happen. it can be held within reason with weights, but that&#39;s pie-in-the-sky thinking if you ask me.
[/b]

Parity? There in past history has never been any attempt in IT to create parity. Recently a system of classification has come about in IT and the GOAL as I understand it was to get cars CLOSER than they have ever been before. I believe the NO GAURANTEE of being competitive clause still stands. Parity will never happen until we have Senna and Shumaucher as test pilots on the chassis dyno for ever car classified. Then and only then will we get any closer other than certains cars will still have strengths on long track and others will have it on short tracks. Parity is something you get in SRF. Close is what can be done in IT. Anytime we open up rules we reduce the chance that a system will keep cars close. Just like the 32/36 weber deal. The weber deal helped some cars more than others and to this date I am still not sure it was a good deal for the class. The best fix it to address severe issues on an individual basis and leave the catagory closer to SS than to Prod.

[bldn10]

"Problem is, the rule does NOT state that traction control is illegal. It implies that FACTORY traction control is illegal; what it states is that factory traction control must be disabled."

Now who&#39;s being illogical?

I know you guys have a problem w/ intent but that, like it or not, is what statutory interpretation is all about. To even suggest that cars that came w/ TC have to disable it but cars that did not come w/ it can add it is patently absurd. Clever maybe, but absurd nevertheless. Any interpretation that leads to an absurdity is incorrect when there is another interpretation that makes sense. And indeed, doesn&#39;t the other way around actually make more sense - factory TC can be retained and will be taken into account in classing and setting weight? Is there any doubt in anyone&#39;s mind that the intent at the time the TC rule was enacted was to ban TC, period? Is there any doubt that you could not retain it even if you could find a way to do it w/o using the wheel sensors? Sure, the rule needs clarification but we all know what it means.

I have always said that the problem w/ the "new" ECU rule was the 2 words "or replace." Take those out and you can mod the stock ECU all you can as long as you do it in the box, don&#39;t mod the harness, and retain whatever we define the essence of the ECU to be. E.g. motherboard. Any car that can&#39;t take advantage of that rule should be given consideration in class and weight. If that had been the rule all along would we be having this discussion today? If the driving force behind this need to change the rule is not to level the playing field vs. unintended Motec-in-a-box, etc., what is it? There is nothing to be gained by simply making everyone a little bit faster. So, to be devil&#39;s advocate, what exactly is/are the objective(s) of any ECU rule change?

[lateapex911]

Travis, it&#39;s not about "satisfaction", it&#39;s about "parity". Any rule that automatically excludes a large number of competitors, and potentially places them at a competitive disadvantage, should never be considered.

Everyone should have the opportunity to take advantage of a potential competion modification, or no one should. It&#39;s as simple as that. [/b]

This is very true. True parity doesn&#39;t exist in even the most spec of spec classes, but it can be aimed for. To those who advocate that it will never be, so why bother, I think you&#39;re missing the point.

Nobody thinks any solution is perfect. But, if we can open the situation up so that more subscribers have the CHANCE to get on a more equal footing, then thats HUGE. It&#39;s not just about the money...it&#39;s about the box.

[Joe Harlan]

This is very true. True parity doesn&#39;t exist in even the most spec of spec classes, but it can be aimed for. To those who advocate that it will never be, so why bother, I think you&#39;re missing the point.

Nobody thinks any solution is perfect. But, if we can open the situation up so that more subscribers have the CHANCE to get on a more equal footing, then thats HUGE. It&#39;s not just about the money...it&#39;s about the box.
[/b]
Actually Jake you reduce the number of people that are willing to try by adding cost to the bottom line of building an entry level car. If my IT car starts to cost as much as a GT car to construct Then I may as well buld a GT car. Bill actually has it right remove the word replace and you fix a large part of that rule.

[spnkzss]

...it&#39;s about the box.
[/b]

I proceed the following statement with an apology................ isn&#39;t everything in this world somehow always about "the box"?

[lateapex911]

Actually Jake you reduce the number of people that are willing to try by adding cost to the bottom line of building an entry level car. If my IT car starts to cost as much as a GT car to construct Then I may as well buld a GT car. Bill actually has it right remove the word replace and you fix a large part of that rule. [/b]

Huh?? THis is not a rule that would say you HAVE to do your ECU....just that you CAN...unlike now, when many CAN NOT, at any price....

The thinking person might decide that the ECU is going to add too little power to really worry about it...it&#39;s entry level, remember? We have guys in entry level cars on basic or even stock shocks...yet ALL levels of shock are allowed. But nobody has decided NOT to race because they know there are $6000 Moton packages in the paddock on ITA cars, do they?

No. But they might leap at the chance to get a $1000 dollar package that offered the same basic parameters but was understandibly going to come up a bit shy in performance. But, for the vast many, getting 90% of the way there for 30% of the money is a good option.

I can&#39;t see how opening options up makes it less friendly for entry level racers.

[cmaclean]

As a newcomer to IT I have to ask the obvious question.

What is the INTENT of the ECU rule as written now and to be written? All discussion of the rule should come from there.

Just because people are getting around the current (not so well written) rule by putting a Motec in a box, only means the cat is out of the bag IF the intent of the rule was to allow open ECU development within the stock housing. If the intent was to restrict development and allow only STOCK ECU flashing, reprogramming etc. then those guys who have spent $$$ to build a Motec in a box are SOL. If you build outside the intent you have to expect that the loophole will eventually be closed. Case in point, the clutch rule in SM. The intent was to use cheap clutches, the loophole allowed expensive ones. The loophole was quickly closed, lots of guys lost $$$ on clutches but the end result was a better class for everyone.

So what&#39;s the intent of the ECU rule?

[tnord]

As a newcomer to IT I have to ask the obvious question.

What is the INTENT of the ECU rule as written now and to be written? All discussion of the rule should come from there.

Just because people are getting around the current (not so well written) rule by putting a Motec in a box, only means the cat is out of the bag IF the intent of the rule was to allow open ECU development within the stock housing. If the intent was to restrict development and allow only STOCK ECU flashing, reprogramming etc. then those guys who have spent $$$ to build a Motec in a box are SOL. If you build outside the intent you have to expect that the loophole will eventually be closed. Case in point, the clutch rule in SM. The intent was to use cheap clutches, the loophole allowed expensive ones. The loophole was quickly closed, lots of guys lost $$$ on clutches but the end result was a better class for everyone.

So what&#39;s the intent of the ECU rule?
[/b]

perfect. :happy204:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well, the SM clutch rule is not apples to apples. Clutches and PP&#39;s in SM - like IT - are/were open. Always were. I would hardly call that a loophole. What actually happened is SMer&#39;s had no idea what COULD happen if something like that was open in a low-hp spec class. The shock was ignorance really.

As far as the original intent of the ECU rule - I don&#39;t know 100% but I am 99.9% sure it was to allow flashes and chips. The CRB at the time decided to get &#39;smart&#39; 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.

[Z3_GoCar]

.... ECU stuff now for carbed guys,....

[/b]

The carbureted guy&#39;s, really analog tuned barral induction, already have a choice of analog engine management systems. Furthermore, if they want they can add a cdi package to their distributor system and turn it into a low voltage spark timing system. They get a full analog ecu change! Why? Because in their infinite wisdom and in an effort to keep people like us from messing with their design&#39;s and comply with smog laws, auto makers made these things non-adjustable. The pattern is clear, if the carb guy&#39;s get alternate carbs, why can&#39;t we get alternate engine management systems. If the ECU on your car&#39;s an odd ball that no one deals with why not just circular file it, and put on a tunable one? The carbureted guys can! We know why, because of unintended consequences is why. Grand Am has a spec alternate ECU that they use for this season, it&#39;s either stock or the alternate programable Bosh system, why can&#39;t IT have an alternate ECU, it&#39;d have x-allowed inputs and y-allowed outputs. Up to this point a lot of guys are riding a manufactures that are lax in making their system unaccessible, but believe me with the way our world is turning, I&#39;d expect the EPA to get their real teeth back in the next few years. You can&#39;t just dump the cat and bolt on a header without changing the fuel curve, otherwise you&#39;ll run real lean and burn stuff up. If you want to take away ECU&#39;s take everything away. Make everyone run all the smog stuff that came on the car, egr, smog pumps, cats and all. So what if the old car&#39;s have to deal with cracked crappy cast-iron, carbs that can&#39;t be adjusted, or a mase of vaccume lines. They ran good enough to get them off the showroom floor! Why not around the track! Do I think this is the direction we should go? No!

Rest assured I think ECU replacement will go through, just think hard and carefully about it, examine all angles and keep the unintended consequenses to a minimum.

James

[tnord]

the point is that the intent did not meet the application of the rule. for that part of it the comparison is legitimate.


the ignorance for the SM clutch rule is the same as the ingorance that got us motec in a box.

as of right now, i&#39;m voting for "back in the bottle." call me Mr. Willow Tree.

[Joe Harlan]

Huh?? THis is not a rule that would say you HAVE to do your ECU....just that you CAN...unlike now, when many CAN NOT, at any price....

The thinking person might decide that the ECU is going to add too little power to really worry about it...it&#39;s entry level, remember? We have guys in entry level cars on basic or even stock shocks...yet ALL levels of shock are allowed. But nobody has decided NOT to race because they know there are $6000 Moton packages in the paddock on ITA cars, do they?

No. But they might leap at the chance to get a $1000 dollar package that offered the same basic parameters but was understandibly going to come up a bit shy in performance. But, for the vast many, getting 90% of the way there for 30% of the money is a good option.

I can&#39;t see how opening options up makes it less friendly for entry level racers.
[/b]

JAke it is basic, Any time you make the distance from the top to the bottom bigger you make it less desirable for the entry level folks to join in. Want proof! look at the E36 and the damage it created in ITS. Once it was felt you needed a car like that ot compete then the average racer found something else to do. You are not doing anyone a favor by making them spend more money. You say they don&#39;t have to but the truth is they do cause once it is an option then it has to be done to compete.

[Knestis]

Lots of philisophical grandstanding. I ask you all: WHAT would YOU do. Joe did. Trav did. Who else wants to go on record? Kirk? Greg? Solutions people.
[/b]
WWKD?

Having thought about it seven ways from Heck, for a long time now, I would open it up much like the current ignition system rules - with a couple of constraints or choke points on the system:

"For cars so equipped, engine and drivetrain management system hardware and software may be freely modified or replaced, as long as manifolds, throttle bodies, fuel injectors, fuel lines, and any other device which acts to physically limit the amount of air or fuel entering the engine remain as delivered."

This reflects the "it&#39;s just an air pump" mode of thinking. I&#39;d set free any hope of controlling or limiting functions within this framework (e.g., traction control).

K

[Doc Bro]

So, to gain understanding about the ramifications of our actions. What happens if we go crazy and open it ALL up...the whole shooting match.

ECU free, Sensors free, wiring harness free, heck even location free. Then what?

What is the harm? Will some cars see such a huge gain that the class becomes skewed? I think that some of the other IT rules (cams, valve springs and port/polish in particular)help to limit the observable gains that a totally free ECU rule would achieve.

Some cars are able to appreciate all of these unintended consequences as the rule is currently written anyway.

I&#39;m by no stretch saying I advocate this approach, I&#39;m just trying to understand.

R

[tnord]

JAke it is basic, Any time you make the distance from the top to the bottom bigger you make it less desirable for the entry level folks to join in.
[/b]

the perception might be that the distance has changed, but the reality is that it hasn&#39;t. as has been said eleventy billion times, people already effectively run an open ECU rule with their motec in a box. this is the top. if we open up the ECU rule, will these people already with motec have anything to gain? if the answer is no, then the bar has not been raised.

[Joe Harlan]

the perception might be that the distance has changed, but the reality is that it hasn&#39;t. as has been said eleventy billion times, people already effectively run an open ECU rule with their motec in a box. this is the top. if we open up the ECU rule, will these people already with motec have anything to gain? if the answer is no, then the bar has not been raised.
[/b]
Travis, thats why I am for putting the plug back in the bottle.

[shwah]

"For cars so equipped, engine and drivetrain management system hardware and software may be freely modified or replaced, as long as manifolds, throttle bodies, fuel injectors, fuel lines, and any other device which acts to physically limit the amount of air or fuel entering the engine remain as delivered."

This reflects the "it&#39;s just an air pump" mode of thinking. I&#39;d set free any hope of controlling or limiting functions within this framework (e.g., traction control).

K
[/b]

So CIS cars have to leave the now non-functional airflow plate in that rule? That will have the washerbottle guys all wound up! :happy204:

Oh and between those choices - back in the bottle for me. Sucks for those taking advantage now, but the rule was a mistake. Cheaters will still cheat, and won&#39;t necessarily be winners.

[lateapex911]

JAke it is basic, Any time you make the distance from the top to the bottom bigger you make it less desirable for the entry ........... You say they don&#39;t have to but the truth is they do cause once it is an option then it has to be done to compete.
[/b]

But Joe, it IS an option! HAS been.for years! It&#39;s happening RIGHT NOW! I could name 3 cars of different manufacturers in the front of ITS at the ARRC that had Motec in a box right off the top of my head.....

Of course, not ALL cars can fit it....so it&#39;s a option to some, but not all. And a real bear for those who CAN fit it....

But, if you want to be at the front of ITS at the ARRCs, it could be argued that the perception is that you *need* a $multi thousand, (depending on vendor and model) Motec system...

To me, THAT is a BIG gulf between the top and the bottom, and the guy looking in with his XXX car might find that he can&#39;t get one at any price. Unobtanium is even worse, in my book.

Right now, the options are: You can fit one, but can&#39;t afford the price of entry at however many thou.
You can&#39;t fit it, oh well.
You can fit it, and you can afford it.
So we have a range of little or nothing spent to massive amounts spent, but very little in between.

Now, if systems were optional and affordable, then I can not see how you can say that that is a real barrier to entry, or increases the gulf from the top to the bottom.

You&#39;re right...I must not "get it".........







So CIS cars have to leave the now non-functional airflow plate in that rule? That will have the washerbottle guys all wound up! :happy204:
[/b]

Rest assured guys any rule allowing open EMSs will NOT include verbage allowing the removal of air metering devices, etc.

Yes, it will remain as delivered, and even if you think it&#39;s "doing nothing", you&#39;d be wrong, in certain instances, it&#39;s doing just what is needed. ;)

[Conover]

WWKD?

Having thought about it seven ways from Heck, for a long time now, I would open it up much like the current ignition system rules - with a couple of constraints or choke points on the system:

"For cars so equipped, engine and drivetrain management system hardware and software may be freely modified or replaced, as long as manifolds, throttle bodies, fuel injectors, fuel lines, and any other device which acts to physically limit the amount of air or fuel entering the engine remain as delivered."

This reflects the "it&#39;s just an air pump" mode of thinking. I&#39;d set free any hope of controlling or limiting functions within this framework (e.g., traction control).

K
[/b]
I like this approach, however I think maybe we should just allow the stock throttlebody diameter and configuration be the limiting factor. Set the Cis meters and Digfant style flapper boxes free in favor of modern air flow meters or mass density set-ups. This would help the older inefficient cars get up to par with the modern fuel delivery systems. Do we specify that injectors must remain stock as well? That would force the mechanical guys to use that old mechanical meter, while allowing the motronic/flapper box people to remove it.
So open sensors and injectors too. Just limit air by saying that the stock intake manifold and throttle body remain in place.

So I&#39;d say Do This: :024:

Electronic Fuel injection systems are open to include processors input and output devices. All intake air must pass through the stock throttelbody and intake manifold.

[Joe Harlan]

Slowly for my friend Jake, Put the plug back in the bottle. Take away the wording that allows them to MOTEC in a box and mandate all mods must happen to the stock box as was the intent. I cannot make it any clearer than that. I am all for taking a step backwards. The rule was EXPLOITED by a few and the balance of the class is paying for it. EXPLOITED Key word there. The Crappy written rule that is there could be fixed to fix the problem of EXPLOITATION. I understand there are folks that have the investment and if they are unhappy they can always take that investment to Prod,DP,BP,or GT where that kind of EXPLOITATION belongs. IT was and always has been an ENTRY level set of classes that because of the simplistic set of rules and reasonable aproach to prep level could be the stable of this club for many many years. The more we push the envelope the sooner we become the next "used to be a neat place to race" set of classes. Stop the bleeding by sewing up the wound not cutting a artery.

[Banzai240]

I ask you all: WHAT would YOU do. Joe did. Trav did. Who else wants to go on record? Kirk? Greg? Solutions people.
[/b]



I have always said that the problem w/ the "new" ECU rule was the 2 words "or replace." Take those out and you can mod the stock ECU all you can as long as you do it in the box, don&#39;t mod the harness, and retain whatever we define the essence of the ECU to be. E.g. motherboard. Any car that can&#39;t take advantage of that rule should be given consideration in class and weight. [/b]

THAT is what I&#39;d do... Take out those two words, then "define the essence of an ECU"... Deal with oddballs on the spec line... I might take it one step further and require that the factory main-board to connector pinouts remain unmodified.

The idea is to allow programable chips on the stock unit, like Wolf or ?? provides. NOT to allow the guts to be replaced or modified to the point where they might as well have been replaced...

[lateapex911]

I like this approach, however I think maybe we should just allow the stock throttlebody diameter and configuration be the limiting factor. Set the Cis meters and Digfant style flapper boxes free in favor of modern air flow meters or mass density set-ups. This would help the older inefficient cars get up to par with the modern fuel delivery systems. Do we specify that injectors must remain stock as well? That would force the mechanical guys to use that old mechanical meter, while allowing the motronic/flapper box people to remove it.
So open sensors and injectors too. Just limit air by saying that the stock intake manifold and throttle body remain in place.

So I&#39;d say Do This: :024:

Electronic Fuel injection systems are open to include processors input and output devices. All intake air must pass through the stock throttelbody and intake manifold. [/b]

THIS is where we get in big trouble, and fast.

First, each car is different..in some the airflow metering device is the limiting factor, in others, it isn&#39;t. Any monkeying around with the physical properties will end up as a post classification comp adjustment. Bad...

[Joe Harlan]

I like this approach, however I think maybe we should just allow the stock throttlebody diameter and configuration be the limiting factor. Set the Cis meters and Digfant style flapper boxes free in favor of modern air flow meters or mass density set-ups. This would help the older inefficient cars get up to par with the modern fuel delivery systems. Do we specify that injectors must remain stock as well? That would force the mechanical guys to use that old mechanical meter, while allowing the motronic/flapper box people to remove it.
So open sensors and injectors too. Just limit air by saying that the stock intake manifold and throttle body remain in place.

So I&#39;d say Do This: :024:

Electronic Fuel injection systems are open to include processors input and output devices. All intake air must pass through the stock throttelbody and intake manifold.
[/b]

Hell lets just add SIRs so we can be sure the HP limit is not pushed over the top.

[Conover]

It seems like a lot of the anti "open rule" comments assume that spending a ton of money on hardware and development will become to only way to compete, and I&#39;m just not convinced that is the case. I feel like it will prove to be far more effective and economical to work with the stock system then to replace it. The manufacturers paid some bright young gifted engineer to get it right and make it efficient, because both the consumer and the government are watching their every move. Let them spend their resources on development of engine management and the privateer can wisely spend his time and spend the wear on the engine developing driving skills and car set up. I&#39;m not convinced you&#39;ll have any advantage over your stock system with an aftermarket system, So if someone chooses to spend his resources in that manner, I will be happy to assist them, and happy to compete with them. The tradition of auto racing in general includes the competition between pieces of hardware and the men who care for them, it does not include any promise that one chassis suitability or the other will be equalized.

That&#39;s my take. Like this:
Electronic Fuel injection systems are open to include processors input and output devices. All intake air must pass through the stock throttelbody and intake manifold.

[tnord]

That&#39;s my take. Like this:
Electronic Fuel injection systems are open to include processors input and output devices. All intake air must pass through the stock throttelbody and intake manifold.
[/b]

this all is sounding way too much like the "P" classes for me. :wacko:

[Conover]

The way I see it, you either do that or you have to limit it to chips/flash stock box. You can&#39;t open it half way, if you do, the demons will just rush out, remember Pandora?

[timelapseracing]

Nice thread - a couple thoughts not yet seen.

1. How many prospective kids are there with an import on the street that already have tossed the stock boxes. This is a relatively inexpensive way to work and tune a motor - given that you aren&#39;t constrained by the &#39;stock box&#39; rule. I.e. changing this rule may actually attract new young racers.

2. What is the real cost - as the rule sits I can already call out and get a programed ecu for my Nissan for 500. Now if you change this rule - I can look at the 1200 units which I can actually tune with my laptop. BTW - I have that 1200 dollars spent so many different ways - my spherical bearings, a Data Aq system with GPS, starting a new motor build... In the end someone will have to decide how much they have and if they get more from data about their driving from the GPS, better tuned engines with ecu, or more stable suspension with bearings... I can&#39;t buy it all...

3. Going back to put everything back to stock will be an impossible enforcement task - and btw how will you know that I don&#39;t have a stock ecu from an automatic in my car... Let the protests start flyin.

4. If this really has become an intractable problem - do like F1 or Nascar, seal the boxes and pass them out each weekend - these can be one brand custom box everyone has to wire for, or there are boxes of honda ecus, nissan ecus, etc. If there is a custom box, then all those carburated cars or mechanical FI cars can&#39;t race.

I agree with openning up the rule on the box - but like I said if you leave it the way it is, I&#39;ll buy the bearings or the GPS.


Jason.

[pfcs49]

Joe Harlan-I never thought you could be SO eloquent AND logical at the same time. For once, I&#39;m finding it comfortable to be in your corner! It&#39;s intersting to see that those demonstrating the least understanding of the problem are the most disposed to opening it up. Magic thinking! Send them to a 12 step program, they&#39;re delusional.

[cmaclean]

As far as the original intent of the ECU rule - I don&#39;t know 100% but I am 99.9% sure it was to allow flashes and chips. The CRB at the time decided to get &#39;smart&#39; 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]

Thanks Andy, makes sense. If that&#39;s the case then I can see no reason why ECU&#39;s should be allowed to remain essentially &#39;open&#39; (within a small box). I vote for back in the bottle. Change the rule to prevent the very thing that has caused this controversy to begin with; REPLACEMENT ECU.

[tnord]

Thanks Andy, makes sense. If that&#39;s the case then I can see no reason why ECU&#39;s should be allowed to remain essentially &#39;open&#39; (within a small box). I vote for back in the bottle. Change the rule to prevent the very thing that has caused this controversy to begin with; REPLACEMENT ECU.
[/b]

the next question then should be....what are the unintended consequences of going back to chipped/reflashed pieces?

are we going to end up at the same place with $5000 chips providing ignition/gear/acceleration based TC and all sorts of garbage?

[Knestis]

... It&#39;s intersting to see that those demonstrating the least understanding of the problem are the most disposed to opening it up. ...[/b]

Oooh. By inference then, those most disposed to opening it up seem to have the least understanding of the problem? TWEET! Personal foul while shooting - two shots from the line!

:OLA::OLA:
:OLA::OLA:
:OLA::OLA:
:OLA::OLA:

Here&#39;s the current (and ever-growing) rule from the ITCS:

Fuel injected cars may alter or replace the engine management computer, or ECU, provided that all modifications are done within the original OEM ECU housing. Only the stock (unmodified) OEM ECU connection to the wiring harness may be used. The allowance to modify the ECU in no way permits the addition of wiring, sensors, or piggybacked computers outside of the OEM ECU housing. The stock (unmodified) wiring harness must be used. The installation of a resistor is allowed between the sensor and the OEM wiring harness. Adjustable fuel pressure regulators are permitted.

I got news for y&#39;all - if you simply take out "or replace," you&#39;ve done absolutely nothing to materially change the rule. I can "alter" the stock board and other bits right the hell out of there, and "alter" my Magic (er, Motec) parts right in...

K

Edit - can i, under the current rules, connect a guage to that allowed adjustable FPR? :026:

[cmaclean]

I got news for y&#39;all - if you simply take out "or replace," you&#39;ve done absolutely nothing to materially change the rule. I can "alter" the stock board and other bits right the hell out of there, and "alter" my Magic (er, Motec) parts right in...
[/b]

Edit, I agree.

Wording needs to be added to specifically allow those &#39;mods&#39; such as flashing the ECU and/or replacing the PROM. All other components must remain unmodified etc.

[seckerich]

A low end ECU working through the stock, unmodified harness will be just as cheap as the "chip of the week" that you need to spend hours getting right on the dyno. You will never be able to enforce the stock ecu rule as tech has no clue what stock is. Every 16 year old kid with a honda can do the base tune needed with the add-on boxes available today. What is cheaper, a blown $4500.00 motor for lack of adjustment or a $1000.00 ecu that plugs into the stock harness? When you add all the legal exhaust and intake mods to an IT car the fuel and timing curve will need to be adjusted. If the car came with factory electronic injection all the sensors NEEDED are already there. Give adjustment without any new inputs and you keep balance without a huge investment. Open the wire and sensors and you might as well give us the slicks too--we will already be there.

[erlrich]

I would be all for putting the genie back in the bottle, but for one problem: how do you handle the cars that came programmed with rev/speed limiters? Show me a work-around for that one issue and I&#39;ll jump on the stock-ecu bandwagon in a heartbeat.

And I have to agree with Kirk et al, just deleting the "or replace" language from the rule isn&#39;t going to make any difference. The guys with enough money will just find a way to "alter" the ECU to work exactly like a Motec.

If though, as it would seem, the idea is to allow everyone to have the same advantages as some do now under the current rule, then make ECUs open. Period. No extra wiring, harnesses, sensors, etc., just open up the ECU, and allow an adapter to be used to attach your stock wiring harness. Let me ask this; are there cars in IT right now that could not use any of the aftermarket ECUs out there? If there are, I&#39;ll bet they are few and far between, and could probably be dealt with on a case by case basis with very little effort. So, to answer Andy&#39;s question; "Fuel injected cars may alter or replace the engine management computer, or ECU. Only the stock (unmodified) OEM ECU connection and wiring harness may be used. The installation of a resistor...".

[dj10]

A low end ECU working through the stock, unmodified harness will be just as cheap as the "chip of the week" that you need to spend hours getting right on the dyno. You will never be able to enforce the stock ecu rule as tech has no clue what stock is. Every 16 year old kid with a honda can do the base tune needed with the add-on boxes available today. What is cheaper, a blown $4500.00 motor for lack of adjustment or a $1000.00 ecu that plugs into the stock harness? When you add all the legal exhaust and intake mods to an IT car the fuel and timing curve will need to be adjusted. If the car came with factory electronic injection all the sensors NEEDED are already there. Give adjustment without any new inputs and you keep balance without a huge investment. Open the wire and sensors and you might as well give us the slicks too--we will already be there. [/b]



I agree with Steve with the exception of "Open the wire and sensors and you might as well give us the slicks too--we will already be there." These wires and sensors will not produce any major gains as long as they are not allowed to be hooked up to traction control, which IMO should be illegal as well as abs brakes. That said, as long as we retain stock MAF, TB and such there could not be any major gains due the stock components and the engines builds, assuming that everything is legal. Why shouldn&#39;t we use as an example, a Haltech wiring harness with Haltech system, or a Motec wiring harness with a Motec System? By doing this we will all benefit by not paying as much for the systems, no matter who&#39;s we choose to use.



BTW, ITAC, aren&#39;t you glad I started this one? :bash_1_: :D

[Joe Harlan]

I agree with Steve with the exception of "Open the wire and sensors and you might as well give us the slicks too--we will already be there." These wires and sensors will not produce any major gains as long as they are not allowed to be hooked up to traction control, which IMO should be illegal as well as abs brakes. That said, as long as we retain stock MAF, TB and such there could not be any major gains due the stock components and the engines builds, assuming that everything is legal. Why shouldn&#39;t we use as an example, a Haltech wiring harness with Haltech system, or a Motec wiring harness with a Motec System? By doing this we will all benefit by not paying as much for the systems, no matter who&#39;s we choose to use.



BTW, ITAC, aren&#39;t you glad I started this one? :bash_1_: :D
[/b]
Really, How much FI experience do you have? How about cold air bypass that most if not all EFI systems use during warmup? How are you gonna prevent me from opening this valve and adding fuel through the 3d map and creating 15 more HP because of the additional air? There are lots of gain for those that want to be creative and they will be impossible to polic with a free system. As stated earlier my current systemn in my RS car has traction control (effective) with out any additional sensor wires. No wheel speed inputs to the ecu.

[pfcs49]

"I would be all for putting the genie back in the bottle, but for one problem: how do you handle the cars that came programmed with rev/speed limiters? Show me a work-around for that one issue and I&#39;ll jump on the stock-ecu bandwagon in a heartbeat"

Chip tuning (reprograming or reprogramed e-prom)

Edit: PLEASE jump on the stock ECU bandwagon! This may be your last chance to save this class. phil

[pfcs49]

Andy B:
"How about this for a new ECU rule:

Stock ECU&#39;s must be retained. Removable chips may be substituted. OBD cars may be re-flashed. No other modification to the OEM housing or circut board is permitted.

(BTW: I have over $3K and a years development into a programmable unit that has yet to see the track in my car)"

Andy, let me acknowlege you for that. That position takes great integrity and willingness to put the good of this class ahead of your own intersts. I am glad you bring more than just an opinion to the table.
Cheers, phil

[mlytle]

BTW, ITAC, aren&#39;t you glad I started this one? :bash_1_: :D
[/b]

yes, thank you dan...nothing like a major controversy to kick start the itac newbies like me...

marshall

[seckerich]

I agree with Steve with the exception of "Open the wire and sensors and you might as well give us the slicks too--we will already be there." These wires and sensors will not produce any major gains as long as they are not allowed to be hooked up to traction control, which IMO should be illegal as well as abs brakes. That said, as long as we retain stock MAF, TB and such there could not be any major gains due the stock components and the engines builds, assuming that everything is legal. Why shouldn&#39;t we use as an example, a Haltech wiring harness with Haltech system, or a Motec wiring harness with a Motec System? By doing this we will all benefit by not paying as much for the systems, no matter who&#39;s we choose to use.



BTW, ITAC, aren&#39;t you glad I started this one? :bash_1_: :D
[/b]
Be careful. Some cars this is true, but with others you open the door for some very creative work with cams, valves, and aux devices. If the car ran stock with the sensors it comes with it will run fine with those same sensors fed into a new ecu. Doesn&#39;t take much to pull the signal from the stock harness.

Joe, I just wish I had the torque to care about traction control. :lol:

[Joe Harlan]

Be careful. Some cars this is true, but with others you open the door for some very creative work with cams, valves, and aux devices. If the car ran stock with the sensors it comes with it will run fine with those same sensors fed into a new ecu. Doesn&#39;t take much to pull the signal from the stock harness.

Joe, I just wish I had the torque to care about traction control. :lol:[/b]

I wish I could believe you can&#39;t spin the tires....but I don&#39;t... :eclipsee_steering:

[Knestis]

My personal perspective, as a case study of sorts...?

We&#39;re running an off-the-shelf chip from Tectonics - less than $100. It seems, based on our wideband O2 sensor input, to be putting the AFR in a happy place. It has more ignition advance, in sooner than stock and takes the rev limit to a place where it only gets used when the car owner goes through Oak Tree at VIR in 2nd instead of 3rd on one lap, because of backed-up traffic, then forgets to upshift. The mixture map is richer to deal with increased gas flow of the header and short pipe, so we don&#39;t lean out at WOT for longer periods of time.

The rest of our system is stock, minus the cat now. The check engine light is off and the entire engine management world is at peace with itself.

I am TOTALLY fine with this state of affairs. We have some other tuning options but we haven&#39;t pursued them primarily because of the time required to get them right. They also require defeating some stock inputs, which throws the system out of whack. I wholeheartedly agree with Cameron that sometimes racer hubris kicks in and we think we can engineer some clever stuff in our garage on a long Saturday in January, and do a better job than a million dollars worth of German engineers.

I am NOT a 10/10ths car kind of guy, primarily because I recognize the limitations imposed by being an 8/10ths kind of talent, so take this for what it&#39;s worth: If I had the opportunity to build a standalone system to replace what we&#39;re currently using, I probably wouldn&#39;t. Could we make a few more ponies with one of Bildon&#39;s trick tunes and some dyno time? I imagine so. But there&#39;s plenty of things slowing me down more than that missing power.

A "chip tune only" rule would only help me, relative to the potential that exists to get the last few percent out of this - or my competitors&#39; - engine. It MIGHT be possible to write this rule in a sensible way, but at the end of the day we&#39;re still at the mercy of enforcement.

K

EDIT - we also get in a bind because the rule has to fit so many different designs. How can the spirit of the chip-tune-only approach be preserved for all makes (see Greg&#39;s example with the Nissans)? Both OBDI and OBDII Golf III&#39;s are socketed and there are options from multiple sources, even if the market doesn&#39;t make real "race" tunes readily available right now.

EDIT EDIT - we ALSO have to be attentive to the language we choose when we tackle something like this. It has to be precise, descriptive, and avoid lingo. Terms like "chip" and "reflashed" might seem simple but they can create problems if we just assume that "everyone knows what they mean."

[dj10]

Really, How much FI experience do you have? How about cold air bypass that most if not all EFI systems use during warmup? How are you gonna prevent me from opening this valve and adding fuel through the 3d map and creating 15 more HP because of the additional air? There are lots of gain for those that want to be creative and they will be impossible to polic with a free system. As stated earlier my current systemn in my RS car has traction control (effective) with out any additional sensor wires. No wheel speed inputs to the ecu. [/b]



Joe, can this be accomplished with stock sensors and wiring harness too?





Be careful. Some cars this is true, but with others you open the door for some very creative work with cams, valves, and aux devices. If the car ran stock with the sensors it comes with it will run fine with those same sensors fed into a new ecu. Doesn&#39;t take much to pull the signal from the stock harness.

Joe, I just wish I had the torque to care about traction control. :lol: [/b]



Steve, and you wondered how the Sunbelt 325 could pull you 6 cars @ the back straight @ VIR? :D






yes, thank you dan...nothing like a major controversy to kick start the itac newbies like me...

marshall
[/b]



Welcome to the jungle :D

[Joe Harlan]

Joe, can this be accomplished with stock sensors and wiring harness too?
[/b]


Not with an OE ecu. and not likely with out modifing the stock harness even with an aftermarket ecu.

[dj10]

Not with an OE ecu. and not likely with out modifing the stock harness even with an aftermarket ecu. [/b]



If this is the case, we either go back in time with the stock ecu&#39;s or go forward, allowing aftermarket ecu&#39;s and stay with the stock wiring harness. The current ecu rule should definately be shit canned.

[pfcs49]

why aren&#39;t you watching the state of the union? where ARE your priorities?

[Joe Harlan]

why aren&#39;t you watching the state of the union? where ARE your priorities?
[/b]
Multi tasking......Andwho wants to watch a group of 3rd graders try to out rude each other...

[seckerich]

Steve, and you wondered how the Sunbelt 325 could pull you 6 cars @ the back straight @ VIR? :D


I know exactly how and why it pulled me!! :D

My letter will support the open ECU through the unmodified stock harness with stock sensors. No additional inputs allowed.
PS. Still looking for this mythical $10,000 Motec. I will sell you one for a lot less. :rolleyes:

State of BS is more like it--Everything for everyone with our money--again.

[biovic]

I am in either of these two camps:
Back to completely stock ECU, no extra wires or sensors. I ran a stock ECU up until last year (when I installed a crappy JET chip), and I did pretty well stock for 4 years.
The other option is replace the EPROM chip or reflash the existing ECU. I can see this option for the speed governer problem, however, I never hit a speed cap (governer) in my Integra (could go 125mph), and I dealt with the 7100rpm rev limiter. Yeah, that sucked sometimes, but I dealt with it.

Either of these should be easy to enforce, just open the box and look for chip or extra wires, etc.
This way, we limit the money spent, back to &#39;cheap&#39; racing.
just my .02

Victor
03 ITA Integra

[dj10]

Steve, and you wondered how the Sunbelt 325 could pull you 6 cars @ the back straight @ VIR? :D


I know exactly how and why it pulled me!! :D

My letter will support the open ECU through the unmodified stock harness with stock sensors. No additional inputs allowed.
PS. Still looking for this mythical $10,000 Motec. I will sell you one for a lot less. :rolleyes:

State of BS is more like it--Everything for everyone with our money--again. [/b]



"PS. Still looking for this mythical $10,000 Motec."

Steve, this is a honest number that was being charged by shops to install the motec into the stock BMW ecu box and wire the internals of the motec ecu to the stock harness. I don&#39;t know what the Madza&#39;s guys were paying.

[pfcs49]

"PS. Still looking for this mythical $10,000 Motec."

Steve, this is a honest number that was being charged by shops to install the motec into the stock BMW ecu box and wire the internals of the motec ecu to the stock harness. I don&#39;t know what the Madza&#39;s guys were paying.

These cars must be the ones that arrive at the ARRC in 40ft NASCAR style trailers (there are many, if you&#39;ve never been) My response to them is the same as what we used to see in fastrack: "Request denied, not in the spirit of club racing"! In 94 I drove my car to the ARRC. In 04 I flat towed. The revolution will not be televised! phil (watchin Bush radicalized me again)

[lateapex911]

My letter will support the open ECU through the unmodified stock harness with stock sensors. No additional inputs allowed.
PS. Still looking for this mythical $10,000 Motec. I will sell you one for a lot less. :rolleyes:

State of BS is more like it--Everything for everyone with our money--again. [/b]

Steve, that is an exagerated number...the number I Was quoted was $9,950.00 . I rounded up...

And thats a real number that reflects what clients have paid for their ECU systems. Now, I also know guys who have done it for less, as they happen to be code writing engineers. As I was considering building the same car, I engaged that owner in some discussion about how to make the power, and the costs associated. The total number for that build was quated as "approaching $30K." Seperately, I spoke with the builder of that engine, who quoted his "basic" builds go out for $15K, and the full builds (not inclusive of the electronics) are "Just over $20K". Simple math tells me that theres about $7K in the ECU on that car.

But again, money isn&#39;t the ONLY issue. Parity is a goal as well. And the "in the box" clause has created huge inequities.

Phil (pfcs49) wants us all to go back to driving our car to the event and running stock or chipped ECUs, but what he isn&#39;t interested in is the fact that many examples won&#39;t support that concept. As pointed out, some cars aren&#39;t chippable, or flashable, without serious modifications. If you allow modification to the board to install non stock chips, exactly how do you draw the line????? Do yo say that you can add an auxiliary board as long as it fits in the box?? Ummmm thats where we are now........ And, what about functions that are currently illegal, but are fully entrenched in the ECU? Stability, ABS, TC, etc, etc. What about guys who spend a year driving in limp mode waiting for the ITAC/CRB to rewrite rules so that they can hook up ONE ABS sensor??

Each scenario comes back to the same conclusion: Stock ECus are becoming more and more intrusive, and if you want "club racing" to remain "Club" then allowing inexpensive open architecture electronics is really more in the original spirit than any other option.





These cars must be the ones that arrive at the ARRC in 40ft NASCAR style trailers (there are many, if you&#39;ve never been) My response to them is the same as what we used to see in fastrack: "Request denied, not in the spirit of club racing"! In 94 I drove my car to the ARRC. In 04 I flat towed. The revolution will not be televised! phil (watchin Bush radicalized me again) [/b]

But....thats the point!!!!!!! Right now these guys are perfectly legal! Running whatever sensor (BTW) they can get in the stock box, and going to town with full MOTEC.

By allowing inexpensive versions, and removig the "in the box rule", we allow kids with laptops to drive to the event and compete fairly....I would think you&#39;d see THAT as a strike against the elite......




Really, How much FI experience do you have? How about cold air bypass that most if not all EFI systems use during warmup? How are you gonna prevent me from opening this valve and adding fuel through the 3d map and creating 15 more HP because of the additional air? There are lots of gain for those that want to be creative and they will be impossible to polic with a free system.. [/b]

But Joe, thats being done NOW.

And if it happens downstream of the throttle plate, it&#39;s flat illegal.

How do we police ANYTHING?? We protest...we use our brains. But we rarely do. Thats our fault, and thats a seperate discussion.

[Joe Harlan]

Jake, It concerns me that you are in a position of decission making and seam to be pushing an agenda that will bring IT closer and closer to production type technology. You will not ever be able to justify the number of folks that you will loose by opening up these rules even further than they are. The loophole in the rule needs to be fixed and lets get back to realistic racing. I am not trying to take us back to driving old SS cars to the track but I am trying to make sure that we could if we wanted to. The push to bring more and more addons to IT will eventually have IT dieing the same miserable Production has for years. I would suggest that if you personally want a full on ECU and all the goodies that go with it then you should join me in the Prepared classes and leave IT at a level that allows a greater number of people a place to play at a much more resonable level of prep and expense. I would suggest to other Adhoc folks that you look seriously at closing up the loop holes that allow Motec in the box and look for solutions to the other issues on a model by model basis. We were told by Nissan that we would never crack the 350z codes when I started the T2 program and with in a month we reflashed,dynoed and reflashed again. That same program can be purchased from motorsports for about 500 bucks. Anything can be done if someone makes the effort. Just because it looks easier doesn&#39;t make it right.

[dj10]

Steve, that is an exagerated number...the number I Was quoted was $9,950.00 . I rounded up...

And thats a real number that reflects what clients have paid for their ECU systems. Now, I also know guys who have done it for less, as they happen to be code writing engineers. As I was considering building the same car, I engaged that owner in some discussion about how to make the power, and the costs associated. The total number for that build was quated as "approaching $30K." Seperately, I spoke with the builder of that engine, who quoted his "basic" builds go out for $15K, and the full builds (not inclusive of the electronics) are "Just over $20K". Simple math tells me that theres about $7K in the ECU on that car.

Each scenario comes back to the same conclusion: Stock ECus are becoming more and more intrusive, and if you want "club racing" to remain "Club" then allowing inexpensive open architecture electronics is really more in the original spirit than any other option.

But....thats the point!!!!!!! Right now these guys are perfectly legal! Running whatever sensor (BTW) they can get in the stock box, and going to town with full MOTEC.

By allowing inexpensive versions, and removig the "in the box rule", we allow kids with laptops to drive to the event and compete fairly....I would think you&#39;d see THAT as a strike against the elite......

But Joe, thats being done NOW.

And if it happens downstream of the throttle plate, it&#39;s flat illegal.

How do we police ANYTHING?? We protest...we use our brains. But we rarely do. Thats our fault, and thats a seperate discussion.
[/b]



QUOTE(Joe Harlan @ Jan 23 2007, 06:58 PM) http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/style_images/bill/post_snapback.gif (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?act=findpost&pid=102805)
Really, How much FI experience do you have? How about cold air bypass that most if not all EFI systems use during warmup? How are you gonna prevent me from opening this valve and adding fuel through the 3d map and creating 15 more HP because of the additional air? There are lots of gain for those that want to be creative and they will be impossible to polic with a free system..



Jake, I want to admit I didn&#39;t know this could happen, no one I spoke to ever told me about this form of cheating. I agree with Jake and that it is time to move beyond and into the 21st century. Joe has said this cheat is undetecable and maybe eliminated if the stock wiring harness is used. Is there any other options to eliminating this cheat? Sure i&#39;d like to see the open wiring harness, it would be less expensive to install the ems, but I don&#39;t want it at a cost of having people cheating with it. Were you aware of this cheat?Jake, this isn&#39;t a matter of striking out against the elite or anyone else, this is a matter of keeping the playing field even for everyone.BTW, no matter how you look at it, 7 to 10k is one hell of a lot of money when an open system can be had for 1 to 4k installed and tuned.
Dan

[erlrich]

Each scenario comes back to the same conclusion: Stock ECus are becoming more and more intrusive, and if you want "club racing" to remain "Club" then allowing inexpensive open architecture electronics is really more in the original spirit than any other option.
....
By allowing inexpensive versions, and removig the "in the box rule", we allow kids with laptops to drive to the event and compete fairly....I would think you&#39;d see THAT as a strike against the elite......[/b] Jake, the danger as I see it is that in the attempt to make it more affordable for some to have this technology we will at the same time be giving the guys with the budgets and/or skills yet another weapon to work with. How you ask; I have no idea, because I have neither the budget nor the experience to take advantage of the proposed new allowances. But it wouldn&#39;t suprise me to learn that when they were discussing the current ECU rule and someone asked "but isn&#39;t this going to allow the guys with the big bucks to gain an advantage?" the answer they got was "and just how are they gonna do that?".

If you want to eliminate the inequity in the rule, get rid of the restriction that makes it inequitable. In this case that&#39;s the "in the box" requirement. Get rid of that and everyone has the same opportunity to take advantage of the allowance. Forget about trying to make it cheap; as has been pointed out a million times in other discussions when you try to regulate costs through rules-making it invariably comes back to bite you in the ass.

If the only options presented to us are going to be the ones you outlined earlier (go back, status quo, or open it up - including adding sensors/wiring) my letter will go in support of the status quo.

[Joe Harlan]

Dan, I believe that this cheat is being done now with aftermarket ECU&#39;s. I think it would be very hard to program a stock unit to turn on and add fuel for the extra air and do it through a stock harness. 1 to 4K is a lot of money and you can bet that those numbers will be low. I charge 85 an hour for mapping work. That is above your dyno time. When you have a failure at the track and there are no codes to read where you gonna start? 1 to 4k may buy you a box but it does not buy you an expert to be at the track and fix it when you have a problem. Solution? Carry an extra ECU and complete harness extra injectors fuel pumps ect. Now your back to 10k with out even using some of the parts. Stock parts Bone yard spare ECU and a boneyard spare harness and a new set of extra injectors and your coverd for about five hundred bucks. Yeah this whole deal will be cheaper. OH and Motec charges a ton for an emerency overnight red lable so thats not a good option.

[camop]

The past 3 years of watching how "stock" Spec Miata engines have evolved leads me to believe that an "open" ECU rule is probably the least expensive and simplest way to deal with reality. It is only "not stock" if you can prove it is "not stock" and I&#39;ll bet that can be very hard to do in regional club racing.

The vast majority of racers I know won&#39;t file an equipment related protest in any case. How on earth could we single out a non-stock ECU?

If a certain car type becomes an "overdog" consistently can&#39;t the club deal with the issue in more eforceable methods such as weight or restictors?

[Conover]

"undetectable" is a myth. Undetectable with the current stock of tools in the tech shed, but why shouldn&#39;t the tech shed and the protest process have to keep up with the technology in the same ways the rules do. This 3rd map air bypass issue would be easily detected with two tools, a test light and a dyno. Same with traction control, strap it on the rollers and try to induce wheel spin if the revs start breaking up, there is your TC.

Yeah, I know you guys are going to argue that the club can&#39;t spend the money, it&#39;s too expensive, and the witch hunt will continue. either open it all the way up, or shut it all the way down.

[Z3_GoCar]

Dan, I believe that this cheat is being done now with aftermarket ECU&#39;s. I think it would be very hard to program a stock unit to turn on and add fuel for the extra air and do it through a stock harness. ....
[/b]

And we&#39;re back to the idle control valve by-pass again. It&#39;s controled by the stock ecu, you can&#39;t just program the stock system to open it up? How could you not take advatage of it with a stock ecu and custom programming? You just need to know the right address to turn on and it&#39;s instantly wide open by passing the throttle valve. I thought we wen&#39;t round and round about this in the last thread?

James

[Joe Harlan]

James, You have to read all the information. I said the stock unit would be difficult of at all, but in a Motec,AEM,Haltech,ect. I could program that loop through software.

[seckerich]

Found my info from Speedsource. Motec in a box was $3100 shipped or $3950 with Dyno tune. We should be doing BMW. :P Keep the harness and sensors-open the box-grow some kahonas to tear down the cheaters. Take donations from 10 racers that bitch and it will be real cheap. I will tear someone down to the rims if I think they are cheating. Certain miata&#39;s come to mind :rolleyes: .

[lateapex911]

Jake, the danger as I see it is that in the attempt to make it more affordable for some to have this technology we will at the same time be giving the guys with the budgets and/or skills yet another weapon to work with. How you ask; I have no idea, because I have neither the budget nor the experience to take advantage of the proposed new allowances. [/b]

Earl, I appreciate the point. Unintended consequences are a huge factor in any decision.

I highlighted a bit of your quote;

Remember, the "proposed new allowances" aren&#39;t all that huge.

We currently have:
-Open ECUs (for those who can fit them)
-Open sensors (got that too. We have TPS mounted IN boxes in some cases. perfectly legal. Same for MAP sensors)
-Idle air bypass (Currently being done with aftermarket systems, and probable with some stock systems.

Now...lets remember the last one is illegal, and is a clear violation, but lets not kid ourselves that any new allowance will create this cheat.....it&#39;s already done.

But also remember, at this point it is ONLY the guys with huge budgets and/or skill sets AND the right equipment (ECU box) that are doing this.

The rest of us either:

- Can&#39;t fit it
- Can&#39;t afford it
- Can&#39;t figure it out.

Each of those is intererelated of course, and, by eliminating the first, we will open the options up, which has the effect of lessening either or both of the others.

As pointed out earlier, some will choose to spend their budget elsewhere where they feel they derive more benefit...and thats great, perhaps their car happens to not need the access to the controls other cars might. But now, the guys with the other cars are often up the creek.

Look, guys, let me just add a personal note. Joe said up the line he was worried that I was biased. Well he&#39;s correct that I have an opinion, and I will continue to form it, and when the time comes, I&#39;ll vote my 1 vote out of 9 on the ITAC. But...if you asked me 9 months ago, I&#39;d have been dead set against the concept of an open ECU. Then I began to understand what we have, what the rules really allow, and some of the facts surrouding the issue.

Trust me, opening up the rule will hurt me further, and I anticipate my finishing position could be hurt by it. Guys I race against have stock ECUs...this could change that, and they might just get faster. I have no ECU...(And not even a carb, as Yaw hasn&#39;t returned mine after a year LOL) .....this won&#39;t do diddley for me.

So, I might have an opinion, but it sure isn&#39;t self serving..if I had any self preservation tendencies, I&#39;d say "Stock!", but evidently I don&#39;t. ;)

[Joe Harlan]

Something to think about Jake. Years ago somebody thought it was a good idea to allow fender flares so all cars could run the big tire in production. Every addon may seem like a good idea on the surface.

[GKR_17]

I would be all for putting the genie back in the bottle, but for one problem: how do you handle the cars that came programmed with rev/speed limiters? Show me a work-around for that one issue and I&#39;ll jump on the stock-ecu bandwagon in a heartbeat.
[/b]

The work around will be different for every car, but for the BMW&#39;s it is relatively easy to trick the governor with a completely stock ECU.

For the &#39;92 (non-vanos) E36, just unplug the speedometer sensor.

For the later E36&#39;s just cut every other tab off the &#39;wheel&#39; that feeds the speedometer sensor in the rear diff. Now the speedometer will read half of the actual speed.

That said, I&#39;m completely against requiring stock ECU&#39;s. It is completely unenforceable, doing so will only penalize the honest folks.

Grafton

[tnord]

i don&#39;t think you can write rules out of fear/expectation of people cheating. you need to consider how people will be "clever" though.

you write rules with the expectation (even though you know people cheat) that everyone will abide by the rules, and you try and create the best possible scenario if everyone is compliant.

[dj10]

Found my info from Speedsource. Motec in a box was $3100 shipped or $3950 with Dyno tune. We should be doing BMW. :P Keep the harness and sensors-open the box-grow some kahonas to tear down the cheaters. Take donations from 10 racers that bitch and it will be real cheap. I will tear someone down to the rims if I think they are cheating. Certain miata&#39;s come to mind :rolleyes: . [/b]



Damn Steve, is the 3950 installed?



Jake, by now I&#39;m sure you have seen the pros and cons of this. It&#39;s now up to the ITAC & CRB to get on the stick. You know the existing rule sucks and is only fair to a few. It&#39;s only a matter of time until some starts flashing their stock ecu&#39;s so IMO it&#39;s only logical to open up to the aftermarket ecu&#39;s, then there&#39;s the question of the wiring harness & sensors. How are we going to police it? Shouldn&#39;t it be up to us to prove were legal? There has to be some way we are over looking that is right in front of our faces, we just can&#39;t see it.

Dan

[GKR_17]

So our options are:

1. Back to stock
2. Stay as is
3. Open it up

1. Unenforceable, not a good option
2. Not that bad.
3. Better, maybe.

I can think of two ways I would support the third option.

A. Eliminate the stock box requirement (and the connector), but keep the remainder of the harness and sensors stock. This is certainly no worse than we are now, but some cars won&#39;t be helped much.

B. Eliminate the box requirement, allow modification or replacement of the harness, and allow addition or replacement of specific sensors. Make a list of the sensors these &#39;affordable&#39; systems require and allow only those to be added or replaced. You may even specify where any new sensors can be located and/or require that all sensors used by the new system be located inside the engine compartment.

Grafton

[Andy Bettencourt]

Grafton,

What if Option #1 was not 100% stock but allowed &#39;chips&#39; and flashing? As long as the stock board, sensors and wiring harness were unmodified...that is as policable (even easier IMHO) than ANY internal engine allowance or restriction...bone stock is for sure not the right thing.

AB - who is literally 10 days away from dropping a $2K programmable unit into his ITA car and investing even more money in a 5th dyno trip to try and get it to work. If option 1 is the answer, I hope I can sell it!

[pfcs49]

Sell it Andy, #1 (stock ECU w/chip tune) is the answer. Hell, how&#39;d you set the Limerock record with that
crummy original setup?? phil

[lateapex911]

The problem is that option 1 is inequitable (see Amy&#39;s posts) and doesn&#39;t allow for future growth, and the related issues.

[tnord]

The problem is that option 1 is inequitable (see Amy&#39;s posts) and doesn&#39;t allow for future growth, and the related issues.
[/b]

we&#39;re inequitable now. NO new rule is going to include everyone. don&#39;t let the exception make the rule. if you feel the need, figure out a way to include the nissans in the chip/reflash party via specific line item.

future issues with regards to super-computer controlled vehicles is still just that, in the future. we don&#39;t know what they are or how tuners will overcome their shortcomings. lets burn that bridge when we get to it.

this seems a lot closer to the intent of the original rule, and thus far seems like the best solution to me.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hell, how&#39;d you set the Limerock record with that crummy original setup?? phil [/b]

http://www.em-media.org.uk/images/library/Momentum%20.jpg

[tnord]

given that i don&#39;t know enough about ECU tuning my concern is that we&#39;ll just end up with "Motec in a chip" or something similar now instead of "Motec in a box."

how do we know this won&#39;t happen?

[Banzai240]

So our options are:

1. Back to stock
2. Stay as is
3. Open it up

[/b]

4. REVISE the wording to the existing rule JUST enough to get rid of the "or replace" and encompase the idea of only allowing &#39;chips&#39; and flashing? As long as the stock board, sensors and wiring harness were unmodified.

SMALL changes to the wording that would correct the past mistakes... Anything even resembling a complete rewording, no matter HOW good you think you are at it, is going to simply open up new holes that didn&#39;t exist before, and only MAY solve the issue...

You already know what you have... tweak it to make it what you want... The less words, the better...

[Joe Harlan]

The problem is that option 1 is inequitable (see Amy&#39;s posts) and doesn&#39;t allow for future growth, and the related issues.
[/b]
Growth needs to be handled on an as need basis. You will never wwrite a rule thart will cover all the variables that will be out there with future ECU&#39;s. My money says as manufactures get better with extracting all available HP from each ounce of fuel we will be racing stock ECU&#39;s that will be better than anything we can do. And when the fly by wire throttle bodies start showing up in IT we won&#39;t have to worry about some hack Screwing up and causing the throttle to hang open from a piss poor harness build.

[lateapex911]

given that i don&#39;t know enough about ECU tuning my concern is that we&#39;ll just end up with "Motec in a chip" or something similar now instead of "Motec in a box."

how do we know this won&#39;t happen? [/b]

Well, common sense tells us the problem will (sort of) solve itself, actually.

When the rule was written, they couldn&#39;t figure out a way to allow just chips, because you can&#39;t chip or flash all cars. (And there are what, hundreds of spec lines in IT?), so they thought they&#39;d allow the modification of the board to accomplish the same thing, and figured the "in the box" bit would keep things in check.

Well, electronics, as we know, get smaller and cheaper all the time. Greg, whats the 18 month rule?? I forget the name, but it was something like you get twice the processing power for half the price every 18 months or something...

Anyway, we&#39;re at the point on the timeline where some of the more expensive and capable units are pretty small, and by happenstance, fit in SOME of the stock boxes.....

Eventually, prices will drop, and more manufacturers will have products that are smaller and smaller. So as long as stock boxes don&#39;t shrink (they will) more units will fit. IT&#39;s not a huge market, so I doubt we&#39;ll see many "Fits in small ECU baxes" systems designed or marketed just for us......

Of course, it doesn&#39;t really solve the issue, and it certainly doesn&#39;t help for years, but, eventually..........

[Z3_GoCar]

.... The less words, the better...
[/b]

At last something I agree with....

How can you get any less words than, "ECU&#39;s are free," "Sensors are free," and "The wire harness is free"? :P Production it is not, those guys would make you replace the FI with a weber DCOE.

James

[JoshS]

The problem is that option 1 is inequitable (see Amy&#39;s posts) and doesn&#39;t allow for future growth, and the related issues.
[/b]
Some cars can&#39;t use independent rear suspensions. Some cars can&#39;t remove their rear window wipers. It&#39;s all part of picking the right car. The inequity doesn&#39;t bother me one bit.




My money says as manufactures get better with extracting all available HP from each ounce of fuel we will be racing stock ECU&#39;s that will be better than anything we can do.
[/b]
I agree!



And when the fly by wire throttle bodies start showing up in IT we won&#39;t have to worry about some hack Screwing up and causing the throttle to hang open from a piss poor harness build.
[/b]
There are already cars in ITR with electronic throttles.

[lateapex911]

Some cars can&#39;t use independent rear suspensions. Some cars can&#39;t remove their rear window wipers. It&#39;s all part of picking the right car. The inequity doesn&#39;t bother me one bit.
[/b]

True, but those issues (the rear wiper won&#39;t hit the radar though, LOL) are issues that are known up front. Unfortunately, we can&#39;t predict some of the more subtle items that rear their heads later on, and can be deal breakers.

[pfcs49]

"simplify, simplify, simplify! I say let a man&#39;s affairs be of two or three." Thoreau
Given this is an entry level/journeyman&#39;s class, and given what amateurs do with electrons, I shudder to see the electrical nightmares peple will find it neccessary to create in their pursuit of speed that people like me will have to decifer!! GO AWAY!! They say the transistor is the fastest blowing fuse. How many fuses (custom ECMs) will you blow, before you find your problem?? These problems belong in Prod. phil

[lateapex911]

You know, Phil, that&#39;s interesting, but lets not forget that most car guys who play with their cars have a laptop, and it&#39;s VERY common to see them at dyno days hacking away. Now, they might, or might not make better power, just like folks used to do dorking with their carbs....

A couple pages back a post was made to that effect, and it&#39;s a great point...younger generations are very comfortable hacking away with a laptop, but scratch their heads when faced with an emulsion tube. Ask Bob Dowie what it looks like when the tuners come to his shop to use the dyno.....

[Joe Harlan]

You know, Phil, that&#39;s interesting, but lets not forget that most car guys who play with their cars have a laptop, and it&#39;s VERY common to see them at dyno days hacking away. Now, they might, or might not make better power, just like folks used to do dorking with their carbs....

A couple pages back a post was made to that effect, and it&#39;s a great point...younger generations are very comfortable hacking away with a laptop, but scratch their heads when faced with an emulsion tube. Ask Bob Dowie what it looks like when the tuners come to his shop to use the dyno.....
[/b]

Bulls**t argument Jake and you know it. Until you open IT up to wings 18" wheels and bling you are not likely to get one or two of those tuners in any division giving serious consideration to sports car racing. I am the biggest pusher of going after the youth car nuts but don&#39;t try to justify something you want to do with a false argument like that. I will also bet dollars to dimes most of these kids are tuning their stock ECU&#39;s with software they hacked and created on their own as part of the task of tuning. Hondata is oneof the best free editors on the net. I have 3 other versions for burning Nissan chip that were all down loaded and free from web pages. My burning equiptment cost me 100 bucks on e-bay and is very functional.

[NATW]

Put me in the group that would open the ECU rule. I would propose that :

[GKR_17]

What if Option #1 was not 100% stock but allowed &#39;chips&#39; and flashing? As long as the stock board, sensors and wiring harness were unmodified...that is as policable (even easier IMHO) than ANY internal engine allowance or restriction...bone stock is for sure not the right thing.
[/b]

That certainly sounds like what was intended when the rule was originally changed.

If worded right, that solution would get my vote. I would be sorry for the folks who&#39;ve already installed Motec, especially since they were probably the same folks who lost their RR shocks.

[NATW]

Oops. I am new to this posting stuff. Put me in the group that wants to open the rule.

I would propose that:

Any ECU be allowed, that cars originally equipped with MAP type systems be allowed to substiute sensors and wiring, and that cars originally equipped with Air mass type systems be allowed to convert to MAP systems with the addition of sensors and wiring required to make them work.

To keep this from getting "out of hand" restrict inlets to stock including requirement for cars originally equipped with air flow sensors to have all air go through the unmodified stock air flow meter.

This will limit maximum air intake to what was available stock, and all that the ECU can do is provide optimum fuel ratio for the amount of air entering. This already exists except as Jake has pointed out only if you can stuff the required ECU and sensors in the box.

Most of us can either program an ECU that comes with an instruction sheet or find a tuner familiar with the aftermaket systems, but not many have the savvy of guys like Phil ( pfcs49) who have figured out how to reprogram the stock ECU.

If only reflashes and chips are allowed only popular cars with aftermaket support will be able to use the option to upgrade.

As far as sensors etc. I can&#39;t speak for BMW, Mazda, NIssan, Honda, VW or many other brands but I know that the Volvo 142 TPS and MAP sensors are not compatible with any aftermarket ECU&#39;s. Therefore I believe that allowing sensor changes is a key to this rule being an equitable one.


Nat Wentworth

ITB #2 Volvo 142

[pfcs49]

"A couple pages back a post was made to that effect, and it&#39;s a great point...younger generations are very comfortable hacking away with a laptop, but scratch their heads when faced with an emulsion tube. Ask Bob Dowie what it looks like when the tuners come to his shop to use the dyno....."


Jake, most of those kids are probably editing files in the E=prom emulator socketed in the program-chip socket. Once a good tune is achieved, that program is burned/read into a chip which is then installed in the STOCK ECU-that;s the rule I want. PRETTY SIMPLE/QUITE POWERFUL

I&#39;ll bet he&#39;ll be scratching more than his head when he has to figure out how to rewire his wiring harness to use MegaSquirt! He&#39;ll have to elimintate the MAF wiring and create a harness to his MAP (pressure) sensor.
He&#39;ll need to create a harness (3wire) to his TPS (throttle position sensor) which many vehicles don&#39;t have.
And most newer vehicles (say 95^) incorporate the TPS into a throttle control module, which controls idle, which have at least 8 circuits to it and won&#39;t idle without it as well as having no idle adjustment! And if his sytem didn&#39;t have a TPS, what a little engineering problem to fabricate what&#39;s necc to install one that&#39;s reliable. (this signal is absolutely necc for speed/density system to work) What kind of injectors does he have? Are they peak and hold or whatchama call it?? Will they require ballasting?? Come on Jake, this is supposed to be so simple any kid can do it. What&#39;s the answer? And, oh yes, I almost forgot; he&#39;ll need to fabricate and siamese a harness to the 20 or so circuits to his new ECM, and hope they&#39;re all correct and understandable (how many color wires you got?) If this is a simple answer to the problem, I must be on drugs. Keep it simple Phil

[dyoungre]

Let me lay the ground work of my opinion first:

1) My IT car is carburetted.
2) I have developed and released engine calibrations for an OEM.
3) I believe that engine management should be open, including wiring and sensors, provided that no new intake airflow paths are created.
I say the first two of those things to implore that while I am biased in my opinion, it comes not from what will benefit me most, but being comfortable with the ones and zeros - it is NOT a black art to me.

My first point:

Maximum engine power is defined by airflow. PERIOD.

On normally aspirated cars, an ECU can do nothing more but make the most power possible out of that airflow. And yes, as pointed out, that includes flow through the throttle body AND flow through the idle air control valve.

So how does an ECU make the most of that airflow?

1) Extend the RPM to pump more air, if the hardware allows (ie remove the rev limiter)
2) Optimize air/fuel ratio at ALL engine RPM to provide max allowable torque
3) Optimize the spark advance at all engine rpm for max torque

That is it. Nothing more. These 3 things are being done to a considerable extent with the rules as written. Now of course, there are other things that can be done for smoother transitions, but honestly, running rich takes care of most of that (it just kills fuel economy).

I believe the time has come where it is more economical, in terms of $$$ and effort, to open up the ECU rule without creating ANY unfair advantage to the wealthy. In fact, I believe it will be a great equalizer, for two reasons:

First, OBDII is actually making it harder to tamper with the inputs/outputs without causing a &#39;limp home mode&#39;, due to many &#39;plausibility checks&#39;.

Second, there are many different aftermarket ECUs, such as Haltech, Megasquirt, Motec, Morelli, electromotive, microtech, Edelbrock, Holley ... Not one will make any more power than the other on the same motor - and if it does, it will be no better than a header change.

Putting one of these systems onto an engine has GOT to be easier than deciphering all of the emissions stuff that is put on a modern vehicle, and tricking it into saying &#39;don&#39;t worry about the catalyst temperature, we want max power&#39; - or having someone make a custom circuit board for us so we can stuff any of the above listed systems into an OEM housing. THAT is unfair, and only available to the &#39;haves&#39;.

This technology, aftermarket ECMs, is the present, and it is actually quite basic. I believe allowing open ECMs will do more for the &#39;have-nots&#39; than it does for the haves, because there are very affordable options out there - just like the way affordable DOT race tires have evolved. And yes, a basic, functional fuel system can be bought for the price of 2 sets of tires. Or a HANS device.

The largest opportunity for increased horsepower I see are for cars which currently use a vane-type mass air meter - removing these will increase the airflow. If we keep the rules the same, throttle body to exhaust port, there should not be any fear for a competitor that they will no longer be able to compete.

[pfcs49]

Nat-sorry to put this out cause I like you.
Two points: Volvos make plenty good power without needing special consideration-I know that, and you know I do.
I believe that you&#39;re running Megsquirt or some aftermarket speed density sytem in the new car; I&#39;d like to know how that&#39;s currently legal in that, as you say, the Volvo MAP sensor won&#39;t work with any aftermarket system/you can&#39;t modify the existing sensor/you can&#39;t modify the case (to run a vacuum line into it)
I say this beacause I&#39;m deeply concerned about the way the class is moving and expect you may have a vested interst in getting this changed. phil

Edit-I may be thinking of your SAAB. However, the leaglity problem still applies, same MAP sensor.

[Bill Miller]

Nat-sorry to put this out cause I like you.
Two points: Volvos make plenty good power without needing special consideration-I know that, and you know I do.
I believe that you&#39;re running Megsquirt or some aftermarket speed density sytem in the new car; I&#39;d like to know how that&#39;s currently legal in that, as you say, the Volvo MAP sensor won&#39;t work with any aftermarket system/you can&#39;t modify the existing sensor/you can&#39;t modify the case (to run a vacuum line into it)
I say this beacause I&#39;m deeply concerned about the way the class is moving and expect you may have a vested interst in getting this changed. phil
[/b]

Phil,

I think Nat&#39;s comments were a tad tongue in cheek. AFAIK, and I&#39;m no expert, a 70&#39;s era Volvo 142 has neither a MAP or a TPS.

And damn, I go away for a couple of days, and this thread is another 5 pages. :birra:

[lateapex911]

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&#39;s good to go, right?

[pfcs49]

All D Jetronic EFI featured a MAP sensor that was an air-core transformer. The varying vacuum (Manifold Absolute Pressue) pulled a ferrite slug in and out of the core, changing the "Q" of the reluctor. No other ECM I know of can use this arrangement.
The throttle position sensor was a 10 step switch; the ECM counted the number of steps using a second directional cue (opening/closing). The main tuning "trick" on the Volvos for fueling is adjusting the fuel pressure-sorry to dissapoint all you high tech yuppies. phil

[lateapex911]

Phil, your post was full of "he&#39;ll need to"...and "He&#39;ll have to" and so on..

But keep in mind, this isn&#39;t a requirement..it&#39;s an option. He might not need to do anything, maybe his sytem can run fine as is, or with simple sensor and fule pressure mods. Or maybe he&#39;s lucky enough to have a good chip available. Or maybe he just pays someone and goes high end.

This is merely another option for folks who can&#39;t, for wahtever reason, avail themselves of the other options.

(Interesting contrast i posts between Youngrens and Phils.)

[Andy Bettencourt]

1) Extend the RPM to pump more air, if the hardware allows (ie remove the rev limiter)
2) Optimize air/fuel ratio at ALL engine RPM to provide max allowable torque
3) Optimize the spark advance at all engine rpm for max torque

That is it. Nothing more. [/b]

What if you knew of cars that could adjust cam &#39;movement&#39; with ECU tuning?

[pfcs49]

"So, if thats the case, he&#39;s good to go, right?"

Only if you let him out of the box. The box mustn&#39;t be modified (how to put a vacuum line into it?) and the new vacuum circuit isn&#39;t allowed.

"(Interesting contrast i posts between Youngrens and Phils.)" While what Youyngren says is true, applying it to IT doesn&#39;t follow. That&#39;s something I&#39;d expect to find in GT or Prod. The guys an engineer. What&#39;s he doing with that mindset in IT? Let the beginners and weekend warriors have fun, learn racecraft, and mov up if they want to get very technical. phil

[tnord]

My first point:

Maximum engine power is defined by airflow. PERIOD.
[/b]

awesome, lets all run an SIR and then give us a weight so that we&#39;re all on the same power/weight ratio. not sure what this has to do with ECUs though.



So how does an ECU make the most of that airflow?

1) Extend the RPM to pump more air, if the hardware allows (ie remove the rev limiter)
2) Optimize air/fuel ratio at ALL engine RPM to provide max allowable torque
3) Optimize the spark advance at all engine rpm for max torque

[/b]

great. all 3 of these things can be done via reflash/chipped ECU. why do we need to change the whole fuggin system?



I believe the time has come where it is more economical, in terms of $$$ and effort, to open up the ECU rule without creating ANY unfair advantage to the wealthy. In fact, I believe it will be a great equalizer, for two reasons:
[/b]

more economical than it used to be? yup. no unfair advantage to the wealthy? lies. wealthy ALWAYS have an unfair advantage. they&#39;ll just write a blank check to bimmerworld/speedsource, have them install and tune it. me, i&#39;m going to sit there in my garage for a freakin month building my own wiring harness, then i&#39;m going to spend another week at the dyno trying to play with the tune and learn the system on my own.

oh yeah, i&#39;m one of those young whipper-snappers (26) who has essentially grown up with PCs. i don&#39;t want to fuck with this stuff. i think it&#39;d be fun to learn, but it doesn&#39;t fit into the IT philosophy.
First, OBDII is actually making it harder to tamper with the inputs/outputs without causing a &#39;limp home mode&#39;, due to many &#39;plausibility checks&#39;.



Second, there are many different aftermarket ECUs, such as Haltech, Megasquirt, Motec, Morelli, electromotive, microtech, Edelbrock, Holley ... Not one will make any more power than the other on the same motor - and if it does, it will be no better than a header change.
[/b]

awesome, this will help the "P" classes be successful.



Putting one of these systems onto an engine has GOT to be easier than deciphering all of the emissions stuff that is put on a modern vehicle, and tricking it into saying &#39;don&#39;t worry about the catalyst temperature, we want max power&#39; - or having someone make a custom circuit board for us so we can stuff any of the above listed systems into an OEM housing. THAT is unfair, and only available to the &#39;haves&#39;.
[/b]

wrong. putting one of these systems into a car is easier than me trying to crack the OEM software code imbedded in the ECU. but i&#39;m not doing that, someone else is. i pay them $500 for their research, reflash my ECU and i&#39;m done. you cannot legitimately make this comparison.



This technology, aftermarket ECMs, is the present, and it is actually quite basic. I believe allowing open ECMs will do more for the &#39;have-nots&#39; than it does for the haves, because there are very affordable options out there - just like the way affordable DOT race tires have evolved. And yes, a basic, functional fuel system can be bought for the price of 2 sets of tires. Or a HANS device.
[/b]

it has no place in IT. ask yourself, what contributed to the immediate success of SM? cheap cars that are fun to drive and easy to build. you can easily build an entire car start to finish in a weekend outside of the cage. opening up all this stuff makes things WAY more complicated.

i relate this issue as being similar to the argument for including the 99+ miatas in SM (only later did i learn that it was a done deal from day 1 and there&#39;s nothing we could do to stop it). some of the same arguments were made for that change that are being brought up here.

1) it will let in the newer cars
2) new technology is becoming affordable
3) we can write rules to make it all even

yeah, but why do we NEED it? tell me how this isn&#39;t a move toward prod/prepared? how does completely replacing a major system of the car help the class? i don&#39;t care a bit if we CAN make it even and fair, why do we need to make the change in the first place? for future cars? we&#39;ll see what happens when those cars come along, but right now, i&#39;m not in favor of it.

[dj10]

Hey ITAC & CRB,

I hope someone does something about this ECU rule because there may be someone building a ITR car RIGHT NOW, for 2007, getting ready to plunk down mega bucks to stuff his stock ecu box with some high priced ems and using the 2007 IT rules to build it with. Just something to consider. :D So don&#39;t play paddie cakes to long.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hey ITAC & CRB,

I hope someone does something about this ECU rule because there may be someone building a ITR car RIGHT NOW, for 2007, getting ready to plunk down mega bucks to stuff his stock ecu box with some high priced ems and using the 2007 IT rules to build it with. Just something to consider. :D So don&#39;t play paddie cakes to long.

[/b]

Dan,

You won&#39;t see anything concrete for a few months unfortunately. Hopefully, this will hit the next Fast Track for member comment, the letters will roll in and then it will get sent to the CRB. Hopefully the CRB will act but since it&#39;s a rule change, it may have to go to the BoD and hit for 2008. I am not sure on that one but that is how I think any change will happen.

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.

[JoshS]

So how does an ECU make the most of that airflow?

1) Extend the RPM to pump more air, if the hardware allows (ie remove the rev limiter)
2) Optimize air/fuel ratio at ALL engine RPM to provide max allowable torque
3) Optimize the spark advance at all engine rpm for max torque

That is it. Nothing more. These 3 things are being done to a considerable extent with the rules as written. Now of course, there are other things that can be done for smoother transitions, but honestly, running rich takes care of most of that (it just kills fuel economy).
[/b]

It&#39;s just not that simple, unfortunately. The factory ECU in my car does those things, plus it also varies the timing on both camshafts, keeps the engine at the perfect temperature at all times with an electronic thermostat, alters the air intake routing, etc. Sure, some of these things might be done in the name of economy or emissions, but still, replacing the stock ECU would require someone to be able to handle all of these things, not just a simple air/fuel ratio.

I say keep it simple. No hardware changes allowed, only software. The way to police it is to open up the box and compare components.

[robits325is]

If the rule is reversed and only stock ECUs are permitted than what do you do with weight? From what I understand, the &#39;process&#39; takes into account maximum power potential. Speaking from experience, modern OBD II cars - specifically BMWs - do benefit from stand alone programmable ECUs. Will all then have to be reevaluated and possibly adjusted? That would be a nightmare.

Installing a Motec or similiar is not terribly difficult - Especially in a car with a CAN bus. Wire, soldering iron and a good wiring diagram and you are all set. Leave yourself a good month and any reasonably talened and very patient person can do it. Perfect winter project.

[Bill Miller]

All D Jetronic EFI featured a MAP sensor that was an air-core transformer. The varying vacuum (Manifold Absolute Pressue) pulled a ferrite slug in and out of the core, changing the "Q" of the reluctor. No other ECM I know of can use this arrangement.
The throttle position sensor was a 10 step switch; the ECM counted the number of steps using a second directional cue (opening/closing). The main tuning "trick" on the Volvos for fueling is adjusting the fuel pressure-sorry to dissapoint all you high tech yuppies. phil
[/b]

Thanks Phil, learn something new every day! :023:

[Dave Zaslow]

Air, fuel, spark,,,, so simple a concept, but so complex in practice?

IMHO there are a number of issues with ECU&#39;s in regards making one set of rules apply to all cases.

There are five instances of ECU progression in our cars:

No ECU
Pre-OBD ECU
OBD1 ECU
OBD2 ECU - Simple (circa 1996 > 2000?)
OBD2 ECU - Complex (and getting more so)

So what would Dave do?

D.1.a.6

a. Fuel injected cars may alter or replace the ECU&#39;s software programming.

b. In all fuel injected cars the programming must be routed through the stock, unmodified, motherboard connector to which the stock program-containing electronic device is attached. A &#39;piggybacked&#39; daughterboard meeting this requirement may be installed inside or outside of the ECU&#39;s housing and the housing modified to accommodate this.

c. No other modifications may be made to the ECU.

d. No modifications are permitted to the stock OEM ECU connector to the wiring harness.

e. The stock, unmodified, wiring harness must be used.

f. The stock, unmodified, sensors must be used to provide signals to the ECU except that the installation of a resistor is allowed between the sensor and the OEM wiring harness.

g. The re-programmed ECU may not control any functions that were not controlled by the OEM ECU.

I think this covers most of the cars that are listed today, but it certainly is not good enough to deal with newer cars that use ecu(s) to control many systems, or one system much more finely. For those cars I would look at no ecu mods. Yes, I do mean limited prep IT,

Leaning Phil and Joe&#39;s way.

Dave Zaslow

[Knestis]

Not bad, Dave - I think you gain some serious traction with b, if the intent is to maintain a "chip/flash" kind of intent.

K

[dj10]

Dan,

You won&#39;t see anything concrete for a few months unfortunately. Hopefully, this will hit the next Fast Track for member comment, the letters will roll in and then it will get sent to the CRB. Hopefully the CRB will act but since it&#39;s a rule change, it may have to go to the BoD and hit for 2008. I am not sure on that one but that is how I think any change will happen.

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.[/b]



Andy,

I would really feel bad for the guys you are trying to stuff their ecu box with a ems and spending more money than they need to because of the the new rule change which in my book is inevitable. I do hope your wrong on the time frame because the longer this drags out, the more time and money will be wasted for some. I also believe we will have the ecu opened up so your developmental work on your ems will not be in vain, IMO. Yes, I do believe being in the new ITR class will have some advantages, one is not having to run the SIR. :D

Dan

[bldn10]

My preference FWIW is for Andy&#39;s proposal, which is closest to what I think was the original intent and to the Class Philosophy (and similar to my suggestion - great minds..., you know :-)) as long as it if fair and enforceable. Otherwise, I cast my lot w/ Steve E. As to the guys who have already spent a bundle on X-in-a-box, is it feasible to allow them to keep them w/ a weight penalty? That might lessen the legitimate "we-been-done-wrong" objections.

[Joe Harlan]

I would suggest to those of you that would like to see the rule fixed and allow chipping ect. that you don&#39;t wait to vice your oppinion to the CRB. Write your letters of opposition to an OPEN rule today. There is no reason for the ADHOC or the CRB to waste any further time on aan open rule if enough people are against. it. Write to [email protected] and do it today. it looks like in the other thread that the number of cars that actually can&#39;t make adjustments to the stock box with some minor allowances are pretty small and even those i believe could be rechipped on the stock board.

[Conover]

it looks like in the other thread that the number of cars that actually can&#39;t make adjustments to the stock box with some minor allowances are pretty small and even those i believe could be rechipped on the stock board.
[/b]

There is no compilation on the other thread, pretty worthless actually.

While I don&#39;t disagree that the stock systems are probably the way to go, I do think that if the ECU rule is opened it needs to be done so to include all wiring and sensors/output devices, in order to promote economical tuning, which I admit is an oxymoron when your talking about any sort of ground up EFI system. I have written my letter.
I also feel compelled to note my feelings that some in this thread are vehemently defending their position to the point of insult, it seems to me that is an attempt to hold onto what they perceive as their singular precious advantage, threatened by this issue. So while considering your view on this, free yourself from the scare tactics and unfounded hypothesis.

[JoshS]

b. In all fuel injected cars the programming must be routed through the stock, unmodified, motherboard connector to which the stock program-containing electronic device is attached. A &#39;piggybacked&#39; daughterboard meeting this requirement may be installed inside or outside of the ECU&#39;s housing and the housing modified to accommodate this.
[/b]

Just checking this: the assumption, apparently, is that the stock harness could feed a Motec, but the stock ECU&#39;s socket pins cannot, right? Because I could put the Motec in its own box, make this box&#39;s connector look like a chip, call it an "external, piggybacked daughterboard", and still have a Motec, right?

How does the ITAC feel about putting its intent directly in the book?

[Knestis]

I think that the assumption is that by forcing any new hardware to attach to the pin locations of the original map memory chip (PROM, E-PROM, whatever-the-heck), and not allowing any other hardware to be changed, we are constrained by the original functionality - and importantly, INPUTS and OUTPUTS) - of the stock ECU.

I&#39;m no EE but I THINK that&#39;s probably a reasonably safe basis to work from. It seems like tough sledding to fool the entire ECU through that one set of pins.

K

[Z3_GoCar]

Just checking this: the assumption, apparently, is that the stock harness could feed a Motec, but the stock ECU&#39;s socket pins cannot, right? Because I could put the Motec in its own box, make this box&#39;s connector look like a chip, call it an "external, piggybacked daughterboard", and still have a Motec, right?

How does the ITAC feel about putting its intent directly in the book?
[/b]

Isn&#39;t this what Vic Sias did to adapt a Tec III? Also, using the stock sensors still means using the latest and most expensive system and not taking advatage of second hand equiptment that&#39;s less able to talk stock sensor.

James

[JoshS]

I&#39;m a good friend of Vic&#39;s, I&#39;ll ask.

[Dave Zaslow]

I think that the assumption is that by forcing any new hardware to attach to the pin locations of the original map memory chip (PROM, E-PROM, whatever-the-heck), and not allowing any other hardware to be changed, we are constrained by the original functionality - and importantly, INPUTS and OUTPUTS) - of the stock ECU.

I&#39;m no EE but I THINK that&#39;s probably a reasonably safe basis to work from. It seems like tough sledding to fool the entire ECU through that one set of pins.

K
[/b]

Kirk,

That was the intent of my proposal. I do not want IT to creep towards Production. I think that encouraging unlimited technological exploitation of the engine management system will degrade the competition in IT.

We all have investments in time, money and fabrication. We want to encourage others to make those investments as well so we can have more playmates in our sandbox.

IT is &#39;improved touring&#39;, not &#39;unlimited improved touring&#39;. The constraints of our rules, tested against our driving skills, is what makes this a great class to race. Keeping those constraints keeps our class thriving. The ECU rule needs to change. It needs to change because the technology of the available cars has changed. How we manage that change needs to be done very carefully.

The conversation we are having here is terriffic. I would encourage all of those reading this topic to pop in with their points of view, or pose additional questions.

Dave Z

[shwah]

Isn&#39;t this what Vic Sias did to adapt a Tec III? Also, using the stock sensors still means using the latest and most expensive system and not taking advatage of second hand equiptment that&#39;s less able to talk stock sensor.

James
[/b]

As has been posted several times. Megasquirt, the CHEAPEST aftermarket ecu system is fully configurable to accomodate your factory sensors. It does not even need a TPS, and can look at rate of change in MAP instead. It can run MAF or SD configuration. It can run any temperature sensor that is based on resistance change. It has a MAP sensor on the board, so if there is a vacuum line going to the ECU it has a MAP signal without adding any sensors to the intake tract.

It also comes in a super compact version designed for motorcycles. So, it could be made to work in lots of &#39;in the box&#39; scenarios today. The system does require that you learn how everything works, but you need to learn that anyway if you are going to take full control of the engine and don&#39;t plan to blow it up.

Because of this I do not buy the position that if we allow aftermarket ECUs we have to open up sensors and wiring harnesses, or force people to buy very expensive systems.


Now after reading this long thread again, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of making the rule say what they meant it to say. I can see alternate chips fitting into the IT philosophy, arguably moreso that a &#39;bone stock&#39; rule. Limit it to stock computers, alternate programming, alternate EPROM chips. If a specific car requires a &#39;daughter board&#39; in order to install a chip, write it on the spec line, and be specific - brand X or Y, model a and b daughter boards are approved to facilitate ECU tuning. This will only happen if those racing the car provide sufficient data to the ITAC to justify the allowance, and to limit the allowance. The cars that cannot chip tune at all are old enough to not have checks and balances designed into the engine management to prevent us from tricking them to do what we want, so that is no biggie. Current technology cars can be flashed with no changes to the hardware so they will fit just fine. The codes can and have been cracked and it will be possible to put an IT tune into your Whatchamacallit&#39;s ECU.

The other function issues in new cars are other problems. They could probably be disabled in a new program, but I don&#39;t know how you control that. Just an idea, but maybe all of the speed sensors have to be tirggered from a single point that is directly coupled (not to a drive wheel that could be not spinning as the other wheel spins, and not to a front wheel) such as drive shaft, or rear end. Then they cannot detect wheel speed differences.

[Conover]

It has a MAP sensor on the board, so if there is a vacuum line going to the ECU it has a MAP signal without adding any sensors to the intake tract.
[/b]

If there is no vacuum sensor will megasquirt run off of a TPS and a MAF? Can megasquirt run w/o a MAP, not even the one on the board?

[shwah]

Yes, with Megasquirt II.

If there is something that you need that is not currently supported, it can also be added to the system via hardware or programming. This thread is pretty parallel to the topic here:
MS forum thread about stuffing MS into Miata ECU box, and not using MAP (http://www.msefi.com/viewtopic.php?p=153280&highlight=mass+air+flow#153280)

You can run speed density, MAF or alpha-n modes w/Megasquirt. Alpha-N uses throttle position and rpm to calculate airflow, so can run w/o MAF or MAP.

[lateapex911]

I seem to remember some Porsche guys running Alpha-n in the low Rpm ranges, then segueing into other modes at higher revs, possibly due to intake pressure instability due to cams(?).


So, some folks here like the idea of a chip replacement/flash mentality. Just picking brains here.

You know that currently, the rule allows full ECU replacement, and that includes sensors (case by case)

I can think of a dozen or so guys/ that I know, who will have to throw away their systems. A couple guys purchased their cars based on the fact that the car looked good for the class, and the box looked big enough for an EMS. Rescinding the right to do this is a big deal. Are we fine with that? Walk a mile in the other guys shoes before you answer that.

And, if you allow chip replacement, keep in mind that you will be allowing some cars significant opportunites, based on room in the box, wiring harness, and vacuum lines that go to the box. Why? because you&#39;re allowing not just the chips to be replaced, but the addition of other equipment as long as it is accessed through that chips pin points. (Which I guess could take the form of a sort of piggyback unit) Of course, we all doubt that that could be anything but another chip, but....who knows!? Are we cool with the concept that there will be those who will be able to get more and push the boundries (like now)?

Also, it seems like the basic consensus regarding chips/flashing, etc, is that anything can be done. In some cases all you need to do is find the approprate genius and contract him at an hourly rate to do the work, plus engage the dyno services to prove/disprove his changes. This amounts to prototype and one off work, and is tied to one person. Clearly this is well out of the capabilities of many racers. So if thats our limit, are we comfortable with essentially saying, "Tough crap dude, get another car, or get smarter, or hire someone to be smart for you"?

I have to play devils advocate on this stuff, you know. ;) I&#39;m interested to hear thoughts on those three items.

[bldn10]

I don&#39;t know the extent, if any, that carb cars utilize ECUs or stand to gain from ECU mods, but has anyone noticed that there are actually 2 ECU rules? One is specifically for FI and has the words "or replace" - the other is a general rule, and thus applies to non-FI cars, and only allows you to "alter" the stock ECU in the box. This is another GCR anomaly that I doubt was intended.

No one ever answered my query about the objectives of a rule change. Can someone succinctly state why we need an ECU rule change? I&#39;m not saying we don&#39;t - just that in my experience if you don&#39;t have a clearly defined objective you aren&#39;t likely to get a satisfying result.

[Andy Bettencourt]

No one ever answered my query about the objectives of a rule change. Can someone succinctly state why we need an ECU rule change? I&#39;m not saying we don&#39;t - just that in my experience if you don&#39;t have a clearly defined objective you aren&#39;t likely to get a satisfying result. [/b]

What about Jake&#39;s first post in the first thread?


As it stands, the rule limits us to what can fit in the stock box. This is rather arbitrary, and while I understand the intent, I don&#39;t think it&#39;s the best way to get there.

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

What I mean by that it that the process the ITAC uses basically assumes that most cars will acheive a certain % increase in the IT build, and the ECU mods are considered to be part of that increase. (there are exceptions to that of course, but for the sake of argument, lets not get too specific) But some cars just can&#39;t fit someting in the box...even at any price.

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

But does it HAVE to be that way?

I think it&#39;s time we took a serious look at the ECU rule wording and it&#39;s intent.

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

Perhaps it&#39;s time to allow aftermarket units, (Megasquirt, et al), and forget the "inside the box " requirement.

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

Thoughts?[/b]

[Andy Bettencourt]

I can think of a dozen or so guys/ that I know, who will have to throw away their systems. A couple guys purchased their cars based on the fact that the car looked good for the class, and the box looked big enough for an EMS. Rescinding the right to do this is a big deal. Are we fine with that? Walk a mile in the other guys shoes before you answer that.[/b]

I am one of those guys and I want what is best for the category. Does it suck? Yes.


And, if you allow chip replacement, keep in mind that you will be allowing some cars significant opportunites, based on room in the box, wiring harness, and vacuum lines that go to the box. Why? because you&#39;re allowing not just the chips to be replaced, but the addition of other equipment as long as it is accessed through that chips pin points. (Which I guess could take the form of a sort of piggyback unit) Of course, we all doubt that that could be anything but another chip, but....who knows!? Are we cool with the concept that there will be those who will be able to get more and push the boundries (like now)?[/b]

I am. Every car has it&#39;s limitations. We deal with them.


Also, it seems like the basic consensus regarding chips/flashing, etc, is that anything can be done. In some cases all you need to do is find the approprate genius and contract him at an hourly rate to do the work, plus engage the dyno services to prove/disprove his changes. This amounts to prototype and one off work, and is tied to one person. Clearly this is well out of the capabilities of many racers. So if thats our limit, are we comfortable with essentially saying, "Tough crap dude, get another car, or get smarter, or hire someone to be smart for you"?[/b]

This is the case with almost everything on the car. No off-the-shelf shocks available for your car? Develop them. No suitable rear sway bar? Develop them. No chip available for your car? Develop it! Somebody has to do it first. My Miata is one of teh most mainstreem cars on the track today. Guess what? Off-the-shelf stuff isn&#39;t good enough. I have a custom ECU in the works, one-off rear shocks and a custom rear sway bar and a fully adjustable front sway bar mounting bracket.. More to come in year 2. the best cars just don&#39;t get bolted together from a catalogue - period.


I have to play devils advocate on this stuff, you know. ;) I&#39;m interested to hear thoughts on those three items.
[/b]

I could go either way. Open it up with stock harness and sensors or stuff it back in with chips and flashes only. I hope we get a ton of letters. Something WILL change.

[mom'sZ]

I have been following this thread with great interest because this rule change is profound and far reaching. I have a solution I feel could make the most people happy and upset the current balance the least. The following is the rule as it stands now. My suggestion is to strike the ‘in the box’ verbiage as follows.

D.1.a.6
Fuel injected cars may alter or replace the engine management computer, or ECU<strike>, provided that all modifications are done within the original OEM ECU housing</strike>. Only the stock (unmodified) OEM ECU connection to the wiring harness may be used. The allowance to modify the ECU in no way permits the addition of wiring, sensors,<strike> or piggybacked computers outside of the OEM ECU housing</strike>. The stock (unmodified) wiring harness must be used. The installation of a resistor is allowed between the sensor and the OEM wiring harness. Adjustable fuel pressure regulators are permitted.

I feel this is the best compromise for the following reasons: (not necessarily in order of importance)
From a rule writing point of view, the change is simple. We’ve not added more verbiage that could be misconstrue, twisted, interpreted or tortured anymore then is already being done. We’ve done so using less words. Secondly, this change would upset the current balance the least. The specs were recently realigned to bring more equality to the class with this rule in mind and changing this rule could require further tweaking of the specs. No car would receive an advantage that some cars don’t already enjoy. Thirdly, it accomplishes most goals of the proposed rule change. It reduces the gap between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. It makes the technology available to every budget. Competitors that have invested in the old rule don’t loss their investment. It doesn’t rule out what the future may bring. It contributes to rules creep the least. Some models are hamstrung by small stock ECU boxes, this removes that inequality.
I feel this is a better solution then some of the other suggestions for the following reasons. Going back to ‘stock OEM ECU only’ is backwards thinking, unenforceable and could require further adjustment of the specs. Chipping, reflashing and remapping of the stock electronics marginalizes some competitors further. To make fair, it would require intimate knowledge of every model. Well financed teams would find a way to do anything they wanted anyhow. Making tuning changes could require special equipment and/or technical knowledge. One of the advantages of aftermarket ECUs is the ability to make changes using a laptop, PDA or built in interface. Tuning adjustments for track conditions and weather could be made at the track. (an advantage carb guys have always had) Opening up the rules to allow additional wiring and sensors could bring unintended consequences never imagined and would constitute vast rules creep. Enforcement of stock harness and sensors would be as easy as comparing with stock parts.
There are cheap, open source aftermarket ECUs that could be adapted to any electronically controlled fuel injection car currently competing (do your homework guys) The cheapest system available can use any sensors and can be assembled from parts for less then three hundred dollars. Using it is not simple, but neither is setting up your chassis. Technical prowess and deep pockets are always going to be an advantage.

[dj10]

You know that currently, the rule allows full ECU replacement, and that includes sensors (case by case)

I can think of a dozen or so guys/ that I know, who will have to throw away their systems. A couple guys purchased their cars based on the fact that the car looked good for the class, and the box looked big enough for an EMS. Rescinding the right to do this is a big deal. Are we fine with that? Walk a mile in the other guys shoes before you answer that.



As I stated before, you did away with the very expensive shocks w/ reservoiurs, (I wasn&#39;t in ITS so it didn&#39;t pertain to me when you did it :D ) and pissed a lot of people off, but it was done. 2. It&#39;s not like they won&#39;t be able to use their stuffed ecu box. If you open up the ecu rule they will be able to keep and use what they have.

And, if you allow chip replacement, keep in mind that you will be allowing some cars significant opportunites, based on room in the box, wiring harness, and vacuum lines that go to the box. Why? because you&#39;re allowing not just the chips to be replaced, but the addition of other equipment as long as it is accessed through that chips pin points. (Which I guess could take the form of a sort of piggyback unit) Of course, we all doubt that that could be anything but another chip, but....who knows!? Are we cool with the concept that there will be those who will be able to get more and push the boundries (like now)?



"Like now", Jake it&#39;s always going to be this way with no matter what rule you change or draft. In some degree someone willl be able to take advantage of something.



Also, it seems like the basic consensus regarding chips/flashing, etc, is that anything can be done. In some cases all you need to do is find the approprate genius and contract him at an hourly rate to do the work, plus engage the dyno services to prove/disprove his changes. This amounts to prototype and one off work, and is tied to one person. Clearly this is well out of the capabilities of many racers. So if thats our limit, are we comfortable with essentially saying, "Tough crap dude, get another car, or get smarter, or hire someone to be smart for you"?



Staying with this atitude will hurt the most people. IMO, it&#39;s either back to the stock ecu with no daughter, mother or grandmother boards, or open up and allow the EMS to step in where most everyone can take advantage of this (getting cheaper all the time) technology. This is a far cry from production.



I do have one question (actuall there&#39;s two :D ), by limiting the open ecu but only allowing the stock connector, are we not limiting which ems we might be able to use as well as driving up the costs?

Dan



I have to play devils advocate on this stuff, you know. ;) I&#39;m interested to hear thoughts on those three items.
[/b]

[erlrich]

I can think of a dozen or so guys/ that I know, who will have to throw away their systems. A couple guys purchased their cars based on the fact that the car looked good for the class, and the box looked big enough for an EMS. Rescinding the right to do this is a big deal. Are we fine with that? Walk a mile in the other guys shoes before you answer that. [/b]Yes I am, if that&#39;s what the majority believes is in the best interest of the class. And that&#39;s not to say this isn&#39;t a big deal; it is, but if a mistake was made in the writing of the original rule then it needs to be corrected, regardless of what it&#39;s going to cost people. That&#39;s one of the risks involved in this sport.


And, if you allow chip replacement, keep in mind that you will be allowing some cars significant opportunites, based on room in the box, wiring harness, and vacuum lines that go to the box. Why? because you&#39;re allowing not just the chips to be replaced, but the addition of other equipment as long as it is accessed through that chips pin points. (Which I guess could take the form of a sort of piggyback unit) Of course, we all doubt that that could be anything but another chip, but....who knows!? Are we cool with the concept that there will be those who will be able to get more and push the boundries (like now)? [/b]As Dan pointed out, there will always be those who have the resources and knowledge to push the boundries, no matter how you write the rules. We can&#39;t let that dictate where we are going to set the limits.


Also, it seems like the basic consensus regarding chips/flashing, etc, is that anything can be done. In some cases all you need to do is find the approprate genius and contract him at an hourly rate to do the work, plus engage the dyno services to prove/disprove his changes. This amounts to prototype and one off work, and is tied to one person. Clearly this is well out of the capabilities of many racers. So if thats our limit, are we comfortable with essentially saying, "Tough crap dude, get another car, or get smarter, or hire someone to be smart for you"? [/b] Aren&#39;t they in that situation now? Is the point of this exercise to try and write an entirely new ECU rule that makes it possible for everyone to play, or to attempt to correct a mistake that was made in the writing of the original rule?

I agree with Andy; anything this side of adding extra wires/sensors is fine with me. It seems like from the very small sample we&#39;ve seen here the prevailing sentiment is to go back to a reflash/chip/daughterboard(?) rule, which I agree sounds most like what the original rule was intended to allow. It would be interesting to know what the majority of the IT crowd thinks.

[lateapex911]

I do have one question (actuall there&#39;s two :D ), by limiting the open ecu but only allowing the stock connector, are we not limiting which ems we might be able to use as well as driving up the costs?

Dan[/b]

Dan, that&#39;s correct. Limiting the harness and the sensors adds complexity and time to the installation, and can limit the available choices. Some aftermarket systems need a certain type of sensor(s), while others are more adapatable.

The most common issue, to my understanding is the use of TPS and MAP sensors. Some cars don&#39;t have one or the other, and some aftermarket systems are easier to install, or require specific sensors.

I haven&#39;t had it explained to me how substituting one TPS over another will increase performance, (nor have I heard any explanation of a documentable performace increase when swapping a TPS for a MAP sensor.)

I would be interesed in more comprehsive information regarding that.

[lateapex911]

(lateapex911)Also, it seems like the basic consensus regarding chips/flashing, etc, is that anything can be done. In some cases all you need to do is find the approprate genius and contract him at an hourly rate to do the work, plus engage the dyno services to prove/disprove his changes. This amounts to prototype and one off work, and is tied to one person. Clearly this is well out of the capabilities of many racers. So if thats our limit, are we comfortable with essentially saying, "Tough crap dude, get another car, or get smarter, or hire someone to be smart for you"? [/b]




(DJ10)Staying with this atitude will hurt the most people. IMO, it&#39;s either back to the stock ecu with no daughter, mother or grandmother boards, or open up and allow the EMS to step in where most everyone can take advantage of this (getting cheaper all the time) technology. This is a far cry from production.
[/b]
Thats an interesting point regarding the comments I have read about open ECUs being more like production. Initially, I thought that too, but I think the opposite is actually true.

A rule requiring the reflash/chip solution is, as we&#39;ve seen in the other thread, a bit of a project for some in certain cars, and beyond the scope of a good number of racers. To me, hacking and wrting code with emulators and scopes and such seems to me an awful lot like Prod to me...basically, you&#39;re making your own stuff. Becoming the industry expert for your oddball....Bolt on? Not in some cases.

But the open EMS solution seems to me more of a "kit" approach, with the manufacturer of the EMS availble for tech support. To me, thats much more "IT-like". Of course, allowing open ECUs /EMSs doesn&#39;t eliminate the option to hack your own if you are so inclined, it just adds an option for those who are less inclined to write code and play with scopes.

[dj10]

A rule requiring the reflash/chip solution is, as we&#39;ve seen in the other thread, a bit of a project for some in certain cars, and beyond the scope of a good number of racers. To me, hacking and wrting code with emulators and scopes and such seems to me an awful lot like Prod to me...basically, you&#39;re making your own stuff. Becoming the industry expert for your oddball....Bolt on? Not in some cases.

But the open EMS solution seems to me more of a "kit" approach, with the manufacturer of the EMS availble for tech support. To me, thats much more "IT-like". Of course, allowing open ECUs /EMSs doesn&#39;t eliminate the option to hack your own if you are so inclined, it just adds an option for those who are less inclined to write code and play with scopes. [/b]



Jake, I just spoke to a guy who I literally ran into (by accident) @ WGI last year. We talked about obd2 cars and how hard they are to remove things like traction control and to modify. Makes me realize how fortunate I am with a obd1 for now. With more and more people going to move new cars into racing I ask you, how is racing going to accommodate these newer cars whith what I see only getting harder and harder to tune and take off features which are against IT philosophy?? I believe the answer is simple, equalize the playing field for all. Allow us the EM Systems so pretty much everyone is on the same plain.

Dan

[Z3_GoCar]

One point that I&#39;ve not seen addressed is the fact that the IT rules and Touring rules concerning ECU&#39;s are the same. If IT forces everyone to go back to a stock based ECU, are you going to adjust the Touring rules also? Do you think that IT even has the authority to do that? Keep in mind that Touring is the future source of IT cars. If you limit IT&#39;s rules but Touring&#39;s stays the same, then many Touring cars would need additional work to become IT legal.

Jake,

It&#39;s the same as the replacement carburetors. Sure given enough talent and modifications you could adjust the mixture in a smog carburetor. But IT allows for the wholesale replacement of these with approved aftermarket carburetors that has a wide knoledge base on how to adjust them. Do we make odd ball owners resposeable for tinkering their own solution, do they have to contact maybe the single person in the nation that can maybe hack their stock ECU, or can they buy a kit and bolt on what they need. The knoledge base is much wider for replacement ECU&#39;s when compaired to some of the stock units, especially if it&#39;s an odd-ball. Keep the words simple, set the ECU, sensors and wiring free!

James

[JoshS]

One point that I&#39;ve not seen addressed is the fact that the IT rules and Touring rules concerning ECU&#39;s are the same. If IT forces everyone to go back to a stock based ECU, are you going to adjust the Touring rules also? Do you think that IT even has the authority to do that? Keep in mind that Touring is the future source of IT cars. If you limit IT&#39;s rules but Touring&#39;s stays the same, then many Touring cars would need additional work to become IT legal.
[/b]

Maybe someday, but for now, T3 (the slowest Touring class) has some cars that might fit into ITR, but the other touring classes are just too fast for IT. For now, the real source of IT cars is Showroom Stock, and Showroom Stock doesn&#39;t allow replacement ECUs of any sort.

BTW, I&#39;m in favor of trying to rewrite the rule to meet the original intent (maybe even writing the intent in the book, to give stewards something to go on.)

[Joe Harlan]

One point that I&#39;ve not seen addressed is the fact that the IT rules and Touring rules concerning ECU&#39;s are the same. If IT forces everyone to go back to a stock based ECU, are you going to adjust the Touring rules also? Do you think that IT even has the authority to do that? Keep in mind that Touring is the future source of IT cars. If you limit IT&#39;s rules but Touring&#39;s stays the same, then many Touring cars would need additional work to become IT legal.

Jake,

It&#39;s the same as the replacement carburetors. Sure given enough talent and modifications you could adjust the mixture in a smog carburetor. But IT allows for the wholesale replacement of these with approved aftermarket carburetors that has a wide knoledge base on how to adjust them. Do we make odd ball owners resposeable for tinkering their own solution, do they have to contact maybe the single person in the nation that can maybe hack their stock ECU, or can they buy a kit and bolt on what they need. The knoledge base is much wider for replacement ECU&#39;s when compaired to some of the stock units, especially if it&#39;s an odd-ball. Keep the words simple, set the ECU, sensors and wiring free!

James
[/b]

2. The engine management computer or ECU may be altered, but not replaced. All modifications shall be done within the original housing. The car may meet federal emission standards, but shall provide OBD II compliant data to the data link connector.[/b]

James you really need to read rules befpre you quote them. There is no replace in the Touring rules. and the car must feed the OBDII data through the service port to be legal. Next Touring is a completely different catagory and what IT does has no effect on the rules for touring.

[Z3_GoCar]

.....Deleted.....

Mr. Harlan, sorry for the comment

[tnord]

But the open EMS solution seems to me more of a "kit" approach, with the manufacturer of the EMS availble for tech support. To me, thats much more "IT-like". Of course, allowing open ECUs /EMSs doesn&#39;t eliminate the option to hack your own if you are so inclined, it just adds an option for those who are less inclined to write code and play with scopes.
[/b]

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&#39;ve still got a car that doesn&#39;t necessairly run. those oddball cars that don&#39;t have easy solutions for a chip/reflash won&#39;t have an easy solution for standalone EMS either. you&#39;ll be on your own.

off to the dyno you go....

think interpreting data acquisition is tough? i can only imagine making a car RUN, much less at its peak potential, starting from nothing and programming your own software will be much more difficult. this, or write someone a big check to do it for you. i don&#39;t see how this is any different from the situation with the oddball cars that don&#39;t have readily available chips.

that doesn&#39;t sound like IT to me, sounds like prepared.

[Joe Harlan]

Joe,

If you&#39;re going to quote the rule you should also include the italics:

2. The engine management computer or ECU may be altered, but not replaced . All modifications shall be done within the original housing. The car may meet federal emission standards, but shall provide OBD II compliant data to the data link connector.

As of last years rules replacement was legal and happening, OBDII compliant data links weren&#39;t required. I guess this precludes someone from replacing their stock ecu with another stock ecu too.

Plug and Play, Baby!

Set the ECU, Sensors, and Wiring free!

ps. Joe, you should slow down typing, "befpre" you hit send, you might catch some of those fat finger moments.
[/b]

Wrong again James I have been dealing with the ECU rules in touring for the last five years and they have always had to meet federal emmisions laws and those laws require that the car provide OBDII serial data..

It is the first sign that you are loosing an issue when you attack something stupid like fat finger issues. I could care less. I spent my days building cars and try to offer some actual fact to these arguments. The only reason you even care about anyof this is you bought a car that doesn&#39;t fit into any of these classes without modification and you would like to shoe horn it in. Well I could care less about your car or an investment in an ECU that was an exploitation of rule that was poorly written to begin with. You go ahead and have at it from here My letters are written and sent. I have offered folks help where they had none before with data and information. You on the other hand have brought nothing to the table but excuses as to why you can&#39;t do it.

PS in case you need the old rule here it is:
2. The engine management computer or ECU may be
altered provided that all modifications are done within the
original housing. Automobiles shall meet federal emission
standards.[/b]

And there was no intent to miss the new part of the rule I cut it right from the 07 TCS

[Banzai240]

Listening to all these "issues" and "can&#39;ts", "why we shouldn&#39;ts&#39;, etc... It seems a miracle that any of these cars actually ever made it to the grocery store... :rolleyes:

[Knestis]

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&#39;ve still got a car that doesn&#39;t necessairly run. ...that doesn&#39;t sound like IT to me, sounds like prepared.[/b]
Joe kind of made the point earlier, I think - we need to set free the expectation that we can make putting nth-degree tuning on an IT car with an off-the shelf part easy (read, "cheap") for every injected car in the ITCS. It just isn&#39;t going to happen regardless of the rules.

Someone who is willing to spend $10K on tuning under the current rules will still be willing to do so under different rules - regardless of whether they are grounded in "chip-only" or "anything goes" first principles.

Someone who runs a car that doesn&#39;t have economies of scale on their side in the aftermarket is going to have to break their own trail. STILL going to...

None of us will be OBLIGATED to do anything. I&#39;d wager that, if you haven&#39;t spent $1000 on parts, software, experiments, and dyno time under the current regime, you aren&#39;t going to spend it on Megasquirt or whatever if/when the rules change. The good news is that, if you don&#39;t you also won&#39;t lose much - if anything - in relative competitiveness to others in your class, indexed to what they are already spending on this particular area of improvement.

I&#39;m increasingly of the opinion that neither of the primary directions proposed here are enough better than what we have to warrant the transactional costs associated with changing the rule.

K

[dj10]

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&#39;ve still got a car that doesn&#39;t necessairly run. those oddball cars that don&#39;t have easy solutions for a chip/reflash won&#39;t have an easy solution for standalone EMS either. you&#39;ll be on your own.

off to the dyno you go....

think interpreting data acquisition is tough? i can only imagine making a car RUN, much less at its peak potential, starting from nothing and programming your own software will be much more difficult. this, or write someone a big check to do it for you. i don&#39;t see how this is any different from the situation with the oddball cars that don&#39;t have readily available chips.

that doesn&#39;t sound like IT to me, sounds like prepared.
[/b]

Travis, I can see where your coming from, but I think your missing the big picture. What is going to happen when the manufactures keep upgrading their ecu&#39;s until everyone that comes into IT will need a electronics specialist with a masters (at a min) in computer science? Will Turner, of Turner Motorsports, brought his M3 to a national @ Nelson Ledges last year, I missed his race but spoke to his crew. They told me he was running and the car was going into limp mode (something to do with the traction control if I remember right)so he didn&#39;t finish to well. Now here is a guy that has access to BMW and he can&#39;t get his car to run right! He did for the runoffs by that is another story. How can you or anyone expect the normal every weekend racer to flash factory ecu&#39;s unless we are lucky enought to find someone that can, then what happens and how many people will suffer if these guys screw something up! The, how much will this cost? I beleive everyone against the open ecu rule is not looking ahead and maybe thinking of theirselves to a degree. The problem is in 3D, we will never understand, or see the entire problem by trying to see it in 2D.

One other thing, with a EM System, you have factory backed support. Who will back up the people that try and flash your obd2 ecu&#39;s?

Dan

[Joe Harlan]

Travis, I can see where your coming from, but I think your missing the big picture. What is going to happen when the manufactures keep upgrading their ecu&#39;s until everyone that comes into IT will need a electronics specialist with a masters (at a min) in computer science? Will Turner, of Turner Motorsports, brought his M3 to a national @ Nelson Ledges last year, I missed his race but spoke to his crew. They told me he was running and the car was going into limp mode (something to do with the traction control if I remember right)so he didn&#39;t finish to well. Now here is a guy that has access to BMW and he can&#39;t get his car to run right! He did for the runoffs by that is another story. How can you or anyone expect the normal every weekend racer to flash factory ecu&#39;s unless we are lucky enought to find someone that can, then what happens and how many people will suffer if these guys screw something up! The, how much will this cost? I beleive everyone against the open ecu rule is not looking ahead and maybe thinking of theirselves to a degree. The problem is in 3D, we will never understand, or see the entire problem by trying to see it in 2D.

One other thing, with a EM System, you have factory backed support. Who will back up the people that try and flash your obd2 ecu&#39;s?

Dan
[/b]Bad argument Dan, At least with the factory system there is a chance to use a factory manual and scan to to correct the problem. Or you could actually run the car down tio a dealer.How are you going to resolve an issue with your motec at the track with no factory support? I am very curioous Dan, How many of these systems havfe you had hands on experience with? How much actual programming of a Motec,Haltec, AEM, Megasquirt, ect have you done. I am also curious in a effort to get full disclosure. Does your race car already have a Motec in the box that you are afraid to loose? Believe me if Turners guys couldn&#39;t figure it out they would have had just as much trouble with any aftermarket system out there.

edit: on a side note Dan, I am an AEM dealer I sell and program Motec. I am fully able to stick either in an OEM box. I could stand to make a boatload of money by doing all of these things. I believe IT is betteroff without this level of prep becoming a requirement to run up front. I am also of the belief that there are a great number of cars that will have to be moved if an open rule is created. imagine Dave Gran&#39;s Honda...ITB 2.0 liter with sequential injection and full timing maps with no rev-limiter. I am thinking it is now an ITA car, Dave now has to buy all new rims.
ITA 240sx, OPen up the rules and it will end up an ITS car how many guys are ready for that? These classes have a reasonable balance that will be disrupted by an open rule. And finally as has been stated and backed up by others The new technology is improving to the point that the OEM&#39;s are trying to grab every ounce of power out of the factory ECU and program that the gains or losses of a stock unit with be part of the classification process.

[lateapex911]

B I am also of the belief that there are a great number of cars that will have to be moved if an open rule is created. imagine Dave Gran&#39;s Honda...ITB 2.0 liter with sequential injection and full timing maps with no rev-limiter. I am thinking it is now an ITA car, Dave now has to buy all new rims.
ITA 240sx, Open up the rules and it will end up an ITS car how many guys are ready for that? . [/b]

OK, now were getting somewhare.

Lets talk numbers. Dave Grans car. As it stands, Dave may be able to fit a EMS in his case. But he&#39;s not about to pay for it. So, he&#39;s not going to see the power, but that power is available, should he come up with the $ and the right sized EMS, right?

1- if we go to an open system, how much power will he make over what he could make now??

2- If we go to an open system, how much power could he make over an improved (Chipped, etc) version of his current ECU? You mentioned sequential injection. How much is that worth over his current injection..(I asume that must be batch fired if you&#39;re saying he will gain with sequential, correct?)


I&#39;m curious, where will these gains come from, exactly, and what magnitude will they be?

[Joe Harlan]

OK, now were getting somewhare.

Lets talk numbers. Dave Grans car. As it stands, Dave may be able to fit a EMS in his case. But he&#39;s not about to pay for it. So, he&#39;s not going to see the power, but that power is available, should he come up with the $ and the right sized EMS, right?

1- if we go to an open system, how much power will he make over what he could make now??

2- If we go to an open system, how much power could he make over an improved (Chipped, etc) version of his current ECU? You mentioned sequential injection. How much is that worth over his current injection..(I asume that must be batch fired if you&#39;re saying he will gain with sequential, correct?)
I&#39;m curious, where will these gains come from, exactly, and what magnitude will they be?
[/b]

Well Jake,
Open system, Daves car. were it to be shipped to me and a custom AEM system adapted under an open rule. It now has sequential FI with full ignition control mapped, Traction control with no sensors because you can&#39;t police it and what ever we want for a reve limit. I am not familiar enough with the early SI engine (but you know I could be if challenged) I would expect from what I have seen a 30 to 35 % maybe more gain from stock HP if my company were to do all the work including a full IT engine prep. SO how quickly does it move out of ITB.

240sx 3 valve as stated many times I have always felt less the stock MAF (which actually works as an SIR) the car can make ITS power and would be very competitive at that point if fully developed. I would have to sit down and really look at the book but I am thinking of a couple of others off the top of my head.

How about an open rule volvo 142? I have to think the gains would be fairly significant there? AT what point do we stop? once we screw up the balance do we give the carbs guys a similar adjustment with an open carb rule? I know we could drag a bunch of old 510 back to ITC if we gave them a pair of solexs?

I kjnow you want to try to make it sound like these things can be done now and some of them can. That is the biggest reason to go back to chipping the stock box. You are not going to add traction control to a box that it did not exist in already. If you could actually get a complete Motec on a chip don&#39;t you think Motec would just sell it that way? They would have a product that no one could rival. Imagine your whole system smaller that the credit card you bought it with. NOT AVALIABLE TODAY. The rule was dorked years ago and just needs to be fixe and nothing more. the obsoleted parts will be less in numbers than you are trying to make out. That technology can be used in Prod or Prepared so there is at least a market for those guys to recapture some if not all of their investment.

Finally I will ask you the same questions I asked Dan, How many of these plug and play systems you are so excited about have you personally installed and programed. How many Megasquirts have you actually built and sucessfully dynoed? How many stock EFI systems have you had experience with? ALl of this matters when making a recommendation to the CRB on this rule change because if the answer is none then you are relying on second hand information rather than first hand knowledge and i fear that&#39;s what has got us in the mess we are in now.

[lateapex911]

Well Jake,
Open system, Daves car. were it to be shipped to me and a custom AEM system adapted under an open rule. It now has sequential FI with full ignition control mapped, Traction control with no sensors because you can&#39;t police it and what ever we want for a reve limit. I am not familiar enough with the early SI engine (but you know I could be if challenged) I would expect from what I have seen a 30 to 35 % maybe more gain from stock HP if my company were to do all the work including a full IT engine prep. .[/b]

Just so we understand, thats what you could do with an unrestricted open system. How much more is that over the current possibility of an unrestricted sytem in his box, assuming he could fit one and pay for it?



240sx 3 valve as stated many times I have always felt less the stock MAF (which actually works as an SIR) the car can make ITS power and would be very competitive at that point if fully developed. [/b]

But nobody is talking about removing any MAFs, etc.



How about an open rule volvo 142? I have to think the gains would be fairly significant there? [/b]

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&#39;t shown any significant difference.


I kjnow you want to try to make it sound like these things can be done now and some of them can. [/b]

Lets be clear here. I am not making it "sound as though some of these things can be dne"...I have only refereced items that I know ARE being done.



Finally I will ask you the same questions I asked Dan, How many of these .........have you had experience with? [/b]

My role on the ITAC is to research and recommend. Some of my experience is more direct, some not. I avail myself of the knowledge of others with experience, such as yourself, whenever possible, whether I have direct experince in the matter or not. I feel that it is better to undersand all points as that gives you the clearest and biggest picture on any issue.

[Dave Zaslow]

For those of you who are reading this and need help understanding the technobabble on what it means to install and tune a DIY system, here is a helpful link to some basic information:

http://volksearch.com/patatron/forum/index.php

Look under the megasuirt part of the forums for some FAQ&#39;s.

Dave Z

[tnord]

Travis, I can see where your coming from, but I think your missing the big picture. What is going to happen when the manufactures keep upgrading their ecu&#39;s until everyone that comes into IT will need a electronics specialist with a masters (at a min) in computer science? Will Turner, of Turner Motorsports, brought his M3 to a national @ Nelson Ledges last year, I missed his race but spoke to his crew. They told me he was running and the car was going into limp mode (something to do with the traction control if I remember right)so he didn&#39;t finish to well. Now here is a guy that has access to BMW and he can&#39;t get his car to run right! He did for the runoffs by that is another story. How can you or anyone expect the normal every weekend racer to flash factory ecu&#39;s unless we are lucky enought to find someone that can, then what happens and how many people will suffer if these guys screw something up! The, how much will this cost? I beleive everyone against the open ecu rule is not looking ahead and maybe thinking of theirselves to a degree. The problem is in 3D, we will never understand, or see the entire problem by trying to see it in 2D.

One other thing, with a EM System, you have factory backed support. Who will back up the people that try and flash your obd2 ecu&#39;s?

Dan
[/b]



Listening to all these "issues" and "can&#39;ts", "why we shouldn&#39;ts&#39;, etc... It seems a miracle that any of these cars actually ever made it to the grocery store...
[/b]

first off, i&#39;m 26, grew up with PCs, and currently sit in front of one all day every day at work. second, i did everything on my car other than the cage, including building my own engine, so i&#39;m not intimidated by DIY or trying something new.

second, if you go back to the original ECU thread jake created a couple months back, i was one of the first people to jump on the "open it up" bandwagon largely in part to the ECU issues new cars present, so i do understand and recognize the problems that might come up with new cars.

but those are problems we don&#39;t have just yet. you can&#39;t make a rule based on what MIGHT be, only on what currently is. how do we know that turner, speedsource, joe, etc won&#39;t figure out a way to do everything we need via chip or reflash only? now we just created a rule that opened up a whole mess of issues and caused a lot of people a ton of work for no reason. i think we&#39;d be fools to guess how things turn out in the tuning market and what our ECU needs will be 10yrs from now.

i really think we need to wait a year to see what ECU issues show up in all the new ITR cars before we make a change.

i&#39;m curious, what was turner having problems with on their ECU under touring rules that they wouldn&#39;t have had under "open" rules? i watched that thing run with my own 2 eyes at the runoffs, and they had it figured out just fine, except for they hadn&#39;t figured out that toyos won&#39;t last a whole race. :D that is, if they were on toyos, i just assumed they were based on the whole car wearing huge toyo logos.

[Knestis]

OK, now were getting somewhare.

Lets talk numbers. Dave Grans car. As it stands, Dave may be able to fit a EMS in his case. But he&#39;s not about to pay for it. So, he&#39;s not going to see the power, but that power is available, should he come up with the $ and the right sized EMS, right?

1- if we go to an open system, how much power will he make over what he could make now??

2- If we go to an open system, how much power could he make over an improved (Chipped, etc) version of his current ECU? You mentioned sequential injection. How much is that worth over his current injection..(I asume that must be batch fired if you&#39;re saying he will gain with sequential, correct?)
I&#39;m curious, where will these gains come from, exactly, and what magnitude will they be?
[/b]

This IS an interesting issue, since the ITAC has based some cars&#39; race weights on their "not being able to reach the formula IT gain %" - or words to that effect. Or maybe it&#39;s a non-issue, if the current weights were all figured based on the POSSIBILITY that all FI cars could do Haltech-in-a-box kind of stuff, rather than on the different question of whether anyone was actually DOING it??

K

[lateapex911]

This IS an interesting issue, since the ITAC has based some cars&#39; race weights on their "not being able to reach the formula IT gain %" - or words to that effect. Or maybe it&#39;s a non-issue, if the current weights were all figured based on the POSSIBILITY that all FI cars could do Haltech-in-a-box kind of stuff, rather than on the different question of whether anyone was actually DOING it??

K [/b]

I&#39;ll quote myself from post #1 on the other thread:


What I mean by that it that the process the ITAC uses basically assumes that most cars will acheive a certain % increase in the IT build, and the ECU mods are considered to be part of that increase.[/b]

So, yes, the basis for the process that is applied to all cars assumes that the ECU gains will be there. If the ECU can&#39;t fit in the box, thats not considered, as in some cases, the car can make nearly all but the last couple percent (of the potential ECU gains) with chip tuning and other methods. And in some casses, the car won&#39;t be able to acheive any kind of increase, but thats considered the lesser evil.

In cases where a car has either well documented known hp, or has other physical propeties that are known to affect it&#39;s output, there can be discussion about the process, but in general, it is assumed that the car will be able to exploit the ECU rule, whether it can or not.

[dj10]

Bad argument Dan, At least with the factory system there is a chance to use a factory manual and scan to to correct the problem. Or you could actually run the car down tio a dealer.How are you going to resolve an issue with your motec at the track with no factory support? I am very curioous Dan, How many of these systems havfe you had hands on experience with? How much actual programming of a Motec,Haltec, AEM, Megasquirt, ect have you done. I am also curious in a effort to get full disclosure. Does your race car already have a Motec in the box that you are afraid to loose? Believe me if Turners guys couldn&#39;t figure it out they would have had just as much trouble with any aftermarket system out there.

edit: on a side note Dan, I am an AEM dealer I sell and program Motec. I am fully able to stick either in an OEM box. I could stand to make a boatload of money by doing all of these things. I believe IT is betteroff without this level of prep becoming a requirement to run up front. I am also of the belief that there are a great number of cars that will have to be moved if an open rule is created. imagine Dave Gran&#39;s Honda...ITB 2.0 liter with sequential injection and full timing maps with no rev-limiter. I am thinking it is now an ITA car, Dave now has to buy all new rims.
ITA 240sx, OPen up the rules and it will end up an ITS car how many guys are ready for that? These classes have a reasonable balance that will be disrupted by an open rule. And finally as has been stated and backed up by others The new technology is improving to the point that the OEM&#39;s are trying to grab every ounce of power out of the factory ECU and program that the gains or losses of a stock unit with be part of the classification process. [/b]



Joe,

Just so you realize just because we might disagree don&#39;t think for one minute I don&#39;t respect and appriciate your knowledge and imput. You are right, I am relying on 2nd hand info from like yourself, professional tuners. "Does your race car already have a Motec in the box that you are afraid to loose?" No it doesn&#39;t Joe, I am running a stock, unaltered ECU, with the exception of the chip.

"The new technology is improving to the point that the OEM&#39;s are trying to grab every ounce of power out of the factory ECU and program that the gains or losses of a stock unit with be part of the classification process." When have you ever found a stock ecu that you couldn&#39;t improve? They are tuned for safe engine performance.

"At least with the factory system there is a chance to use a factory manual and scan to to correct the problem. Or you could actually run the car down tio a dealer." Actually, I be sending back to the person who flashed the damn thing in the 1st place. So now I&#39;m down for how long waiting for my ecu to be repaired. What about the initial setup for a flashed unit? Who&#39;s going to take it to the dyno to make sure everything is in correct parameters? Flashing ecu&#39;s I beleive will end up costing the average racer way more money that a ECU. From what I hear and maybe you could vouch for this, the systems, like Haltech and Motec are very reliable once installed and are easily managed with a laptop.

My last question, if tuning and obd2 is so easy and cheap, why are so many people having problems with them (from what I hear)?

Dan

[tnord]

What about the initial setup for a flashed unit? Who&#39;s going to take it to the dyno to make sure everything is in correct parameters?
[/b]
what about the initial setup for a standalone ECU? who&#39;s going to take it to the dyno to make sure everything is in correct parameters? no difference between the two in that regard, but the standalone unit is more work (and expense) to even get to communicate with all the sensors. you&#39;re rewiring everything that talks to the ECU right from the get-go, and that makes things way more complicated (and expensive). then once you get there, you&#39;re starting from literally zero. have fun tuning and getting all your variable valve and cam timing setup right, multiple-runner throttle bodies, electronic throttles, electronic thermostats, and whatever other jibberish the ECU runs these days. these things are already set if you start with the OEM ecu and just reflash it.....i think.



Flashing ecu&#39;s I beleive will end up costing the average racer way more money that a ECU.
[/b]
huh?
more expensive hardware, more time to setup, and likely more time on the dyno.....how does that equate to the reflash costing more?

[dj10]

"first off, i&#39;m 26, grew up with PCs, and currently sit in front of one all day every day at work. second, i did everything on my car other than the cage, including building my own engine, so i&#39;m not intimidated by DIY or trying something new."



Travis, I happy to see you expressing yourself, most peopl your age don&#39;t give a hoot. The 1st computer was a IBM 360 I worked on.;~)


"second, if you go back to the original ECU thread jake created a couple months back, i was one of the first people to jump on the "open it up" bandwagon largely in part to the ECU issues new cars present, so i do understand and recognize the problems that might come up with new cars."



So you are off the bandwagon, but are you supporting the ecu rule as it is now? Do you think it is fair?


"but those are problems we don&#39;t have just yet. you can&#39;t make a rule based on what MIGHT be, only on what currently is. how do we know that turner, speedsource, joe, etc won&#39;t figure out a way to do everything we need via chip or reflash only? now we just created a rule that opened up a whole mess of issues and caused a lot of people a ton of work for no reason. i think we&#39;d be fools to guess how things turn out in the tuning market and what our ECU needs will be 10yrs from now."



Just because I&#39;m a proponent of opening up the euc rule, I can go either way, like I said I run a stock ecu. I&#39;m only think of the poor SOB&#39;s that other systems that are having major problems getting their car tuned. I don&#39;t want to go throught this rule every year, do you?


"i really think we need to wait a year to see what ECU issues show up in all the new ITR cars before we make a change."



So leave the existing rule?

i&#39;m curious, what was turner having problems with on their ECU under touring rules that they wouldn&#39;t have had under "open" rules? i watched that thing run with my own 2 eyes at the runoffs, and they had it figured out just fine, except for they hadn&#39;t figured out that toyos won&#39;t last a whole race. :D that is, if they were on toyos, i just assumed they were based on the whole car wearing huge toyo logos. [/b]

Yes he was on Toyo&#39;s ;) As for his obd2, he got it right but can we if we had obd2 systems in our car now?





what about the initial setup for a standalone ECU? who&#39;s going to take it to the dyno to make sure everything is in correct parameters? no difference between the two in that regard, but the standalone unit is more work (and expense) to even get to communicate with all the sensors. you&#39;re rewiring everything that talks to the ECU right from the get-go, and that makes things way more complicated (and expensive). then once you get there, you&#39;re starting from literally zero. have fun tuning and getting all your variable valve and cam timing setup right, multiple-runner throttle bodies, electronic throttles, electronic thermostats, and whatever other jibberish the ECU runs these days. these things are already set if you start with the OEM ecu and just reflash it.....i think.
huh?
more expensive hardware, more time to setup, and likely more time on the dyno.....how does that equate to the reflash costing more?
[/b]



Can you reflash your own ecu? How do you get it tuned correctly? How can you make adjustments on the dyno that someone else has flashed across the US?

[Joe Harlan]

To Start Dan, Manufactures want to sell cars. They know the market is driven by cars that make power and extract every ounce of power out of every drop of fuel placed into them today. THe percentage of gain in an OBDII system is again not likely to be a hugh peak number. it is likely to be fine tuning for the area we use the engine. 2 cars I know (and can&#39;t share actual numbers) 350 vs 300zx. There was more hp found in the 300ZX with a chip than was the 350z. This was because the 350z ecu was built to extract everything. The 300ZX was not as refined.

From what I hear and maybe you could vouch for this, the systems, like Haltech and Motec are very reliable once installed and are easily managed with a laptop. Not true. I would bet they are no more reliable than any other electrical item. Now if a stock ECU can be picked up in a bone yard for 5 bucks chipped and reflashed by a professional for 450 bucks you have a decent spare for under 600 bucks for mot cars. Spare Motec= 2k minimum, Spare AEM 1500 minimum

My last question, if tuning and obd2 is so easy and cheap, why are so many people having problems with them (from what I hear)? Again you are going on what you hear and exactly how many people are you hearing it from. I burned exactly 3 boxes for the 2 350z&#39;s we did and never installed the spare. This is exactly why I am asking you these questions because I fear that you are getting not so good information or only using the parts of it you want to push this change.

As I stated before I could make a boatload selling and tuning kits but I don&#39;t believe the change will be good for IT in the end.

[dj10]

To Start Dan, Manufactures want to sell cars. They know the market is driven by cars that make power and extract every ounce of power out of every drop of fuel placed into them today. THe percentage of gain in an OBDII system is again not likely to be a hugh peak number. it is likely to be fine tuning for the area we use the engine. 2 cars I know (and can&#39;t share actual numbers) 350 vs 300zx. There was more hp found in the 300ZX with a chip than was the 350z. This was because the 350z ecu was built to extract everything. The 300ZX was not as refined.

From what I hear and maybe you could vouch for this, the systems, like Haltech and Motec are very reliable once installed and are easily managed with a laptop. Not true. I would bet they are no more reliable than any other electrical item. Now if a stock ECU can be picked up in a bone yard for 5 bucks chipped and reflashed by a professional for 450 bucks you have a decent spare for under 600 bucks for mot cars. Spare Motec= 2k minimum, Spare AEM 1500 minimum

My last question, if tuning and obd2 is so easy and cheap, why are so many people having problems with them (from what I hear)? Again you are going on what you hear and exactly how many people are you hearing it from. I burned exactly 3 boxes for the 2 350z&#39;s we did and never installed the spare. This is exactly why I am asking you these questions because I fear that you are getting not so good information or only using the parts of it you want to push this change.

As I stated before I could make a boatload selling and tuning kits but I don&#39;t believe the change will be good for IT in the end.
[/b]



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

[pfcs49]

"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&#39;t shown any significant difference. "
QUOTE: Jake Gulick

I have a big problem with a member of the ITAC reffering to something that&#39;s clearly illegal as "ingenious"
Do you understand this stuff Jake?? phil

[tnord]

[/b]

So you are off the bandwagon, but are you supporting the ecu rule as it is now? Do you think it is fair?
[/b]

yup, i&#39;m off the "open it up bandwagon." i don&#39;t support the current rule either, but i think we can make a more informed and better decision next december after the ITR (read: OBDII and newer) cars have had at least some time to sort things out.



Can you reflash your own ecu? How do you get it tuned correctly? How can you make adjustments on the dyno that someone else has flashed across the US?
[/b]

i think you can on some cars can&#39;t you? for OBDII cars don&#39;t you chip the things then tune through the diagnostic port?

and like i said, the cost for dyno tuning for either a reflash/chip or standalone unit won&#39;t likely be that much different for purposes of tuning. but the expense and time to setup the standalone unit just to get a baseline is far greater and way more complicated.

[dj10]

" i don&#39;t support the current rule either,[/b]



We deffinately agree on this! B)

[Banzai240]

yup, i&#39;m off the "open it up bandwagon." i don&#39;t support the current rule either,
[/b]

Now you just need to jump on the "remove the words &#39;or replace&#39; 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&#39;ll have a step in the RIGHT direction for IT as a class... :happy204: