ECU Rule Input to the CRB

[Greg Amy]

First, please write or email the CRB in regards to your preference as to the ECU rule. Second, once you've done that, please anonymously select one of the items above as to how you "voted".

Please, no discussion of the various merits of the options; we've got plenty of discussions all over this board on that already. In fact, if someone tries to open discussion on the proposals here, I'm probably going to move your post to the appropriate existing topic (hey, it's my topic, dammit, and I can do with it what I want... ;) ).

However, if you do choose option 4, "Other", it would be interesting to hear from you what you suggested... - Greg


Below is the solicitation for membership input, as posted in the March 2007 Fastrack (typos mine):

Improved Touring

The CRB and the ITAC wish to get member feedback on a modification of the existing rules regarding the ECU (Engine Control Unit) allowances in Improved Touring.

The existing rule, known as the “inside the stock housing” rule, creates an arbitrary situation that allows some, but not all cars, to modify or replace their ECUs at varying degrees of cost and complexity. As it stands, the wording of the existing rule constrains certain cars from doing anything, while allowing others to run complete engine management systems, including, in some instances non stock sensors.

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

Increasingly, more and more cars are delivered with complex and interwoven systems that interfere with racing by limiting engine rpms, top speed, stability management as well other issues, some as yet unseen.
Therefore, the CRB would like to solicit member response to three options:

1. Keep the current rule and wording. In this case, there would be no changes to the existing wording.

2. Allow chip replacements and reprogramming of stock chips. The intent with this option is to eliminate the practice of replacing the stock ECU with aftermarket control systems. Chips may be removed and replaced or reflashed. All modifications must be done through the original chip solder points. This will give options, but the complexity of such changes and the availability of commercially available solutions will vary from car to car. The intent with this option is to simplify the possibilities, but the performance parity may suffer compared to other options.

9.1.3.D.1.6 :
ECUs may be altered by reprogramming the stock chip(s), or by removing the stock chip(s) and replacing with any assembly using the same connection points. Any assembly must fit within the stock ECU enclosure. Installation of fixed resistors is allowed between the sensor and the OEM wiring harness. Adjustable fuel pressure regulators are allowed.

3. Allow open engine control system replacement. The current state of electronics has spawned a number of inexpensive EMS (Engine Management Systems) that are more approachable to the average racer. For these reasons, it seems prudent to open up the existing rule by removing the “in the box” clause, so as to allow the substitution of these systems. Furthermore, as some systems operate better with certain sensors, specific sensors will be allowed to be added.

However, the existing Air Flow Meter (AFM) or equivalent device, must be retained and operate as delivered from the factory completely unaltered.

By opening up the ECU rule to aftermarket systems, it is felt that more racers will be able to achieve “process power” and at lesser price points. As the IT classing process already presumes ECU gains, no performance increase is anticipated over what is currently achievable or predicted.

9.1.3.D.1.6
Altering or replacement of the engine management computer is allowed. The addition or substitution of a throttle position sensor and/or a MAP sensor and the associate wiring is permitted. Existing sensors, excluding the stock air metering device, may be substituted. Adjustable fuel pressure regulators are permitted. Where possible, wording has been removed that reminds competitors of things not permitted, such as the modification of the stock ECU box. As the category is based on the cornerstone principle that nothing may be modified unless specifically authorized, the extra wording can be counter productive.

Please forward your comments to the CRB.

[erlrich]

I could have chosen two of the poll options, had that been possible. I gave my support for one of the three options provided in the Fastrack request, but also expressed support for another option not included in the request (open EMS w/stock sensors/wires only). So you could add one check under the "other" option above.

[dj10]

more votes

[shwah]

I could have chosen two of the poll options, had that been possible. I gave my support for one of the three options provided in the Fastrack request, but also expressed support for another option not included in the request (open EMS w/stock sensors/wires only). So you could add one check under the "other" option above.
[/b]

My letter said exactly the same thing Earl.

[dj10]

I guess the only thing that matters now is what the CRB wants to do.

[lateapex911]

Actually, what matters is the getting and reading peoples thoughts and well informed opinions. We've been rather lucky to have gotten much praise in the letters for the mere fact that we've taken on the issue, and compliments on the method and the presentation as well. Apparently, reasonable requests inspire resonable responses.

So we'll gather the input, discuss it, and them make a recommendation to the CRB. They will then take it into consideration, and either bounce it back to us, or make a call.

But, lets not consider the case closed, we're still looking for, and getting input.

I am impressed also that some who race in IT, but don't own ECU equipped cars have written in and voted, and interestingly, their votes haven't been self serving.

Let's hear from more of you!

[tnord]

#2 for me.

[seckerich]

Another vote for other--open ECU with stock wire and sensors.

[dj10]

Actually, what matters is the getting and reading peoples thoughts and well informed opinions. We've been rather lucky to have gotten much praise in the letters for the mere fact that we've taken on the issue, and compliments on the method and the presentation as well. Apparently, reasonable requests inspire resonable responses.

So we'll gather the input, discuss it, and them make a recommendation to the CRB. They will then take it into consideration, and either bounce it back to us, or make a call.

But, lets not consider the case closed, we're still looking for, and getting input.

I am impressed also that some who race in IT, but don't own ECU equipped cars have written in and voted, and interestingly, their votes haven't been self serving.

Let's hear from more of you!
[/b]



Jake, have you heard how many letters the CRB has received on this subject? The vote doesn't matter much here as much as a letter would to the CRB.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Jake, have you heard how many letters the CRB has received on this subject? The vote doesn't matter much here as much as a letter would to the CRB.

[/b]

They all fall into a folder we have access to. 21 to date right now. Last one in is Marty Doane's - so if he tells us when he sent his, you can get a feeling for how quick they hit our inbox.

[dj10]

They all fall into a folder we have access to. 21 to date right now. Last one in is Marty Doane's - so if he tells us when he sent his, you can get a feeling for how quick they hit our inbox. [/b]



Wow, that's disappointing! Only 21 people give a rats ass what happens to this in IT !?!? Are the rest of the members that complacent?

[Joe Harlan]

Wow, that's disappointing! Only 21 people give a rats ass what happens to this in IT !?!? Are the rest of the members that complacent?
[/b]


Typically yes, and now that the fastrac is not in the magazine if less people know what is going on. I am shocked at how many people I have talked to about this that don't have a clue about any of it. What ever happens it will be based on a small amount of input. Apathy SUCKS!

[shwah]

This is actually a great argument for a printed FastTrack. Sorry but I bet the actual readership dropped in half when it went electronic. As much sense as it makes to those of use here, there are lots of folks that just don't get into the computer thing.

[Joe Harlan]

This is actually a great argument for a printed FastTrack. Sorry but I bet the actual readership dropped in half when it went electronic. As much sense as it makes to those of use here, there are lots of folks that just don't get into the computer thing.
[/b]

Chris, I have 3 customers that I print it out for because they refuse to learn how to get it..

[gran racing]

If it weren't for here, I'd probably miss the majority of them.

[Andy Bettencourt]

You think there would be more didication to the document that outlined rule changes and asked for input.

Two things that need to be back in SC - Regional racing and FT. I am sure TONS of prospective SCCA members salivate over the pics of 50's British cars winning races in 4 car fields...not.

[Eagle7]

They all fall into a folder we have access to. 21 to date right now. Last one in is Marty Doane's - so if he tells us when he sent his, you can get a feeling for how quick they hit our inbox. [/b]

2/27 1:49 PM EST

[Ron Earp]

Been away on this one, what is the Board's email address? Don't have a ECU car, just carb cars, but I'm thinking ahead for my R car.

Thanks,
Ron

[Eagle7]

Been away on this one, what is the Board's email address? Don't have a ECU car, just carb cars, but I'm thinking ahead for my R car.

Thanks,
Ron [/b]

[email protected]

[GT240sx]

Just sent my letter to the crb.

I am in favor of an open ECU rule that allows the replacement of the stock ECU with an aftermarket unit and the addition/replacement of sensors and wiring needed to control the engine with the new ECU. The addition and replacement of sensors should not allow for an air intake path larger than the restriction provided by the throttle body butterfly valve and the idle bypass valve if fitted as stock equipment.

Here is an attempt at updating the rule.

9.1.3.D.1.6 with updates…
Altering or replacement of the engine management computer is allowed. The addition or substitution of a throttle position sensor, and/or a MAP sensor, and/or a crank angle sensor and their associated wiring is permitted. Existing sensors<strike>, excluding the stock air metering device,</strike> may be substituted. All air entering the intake plenum shall pass through the stock unmodified throttle body butterfly valve (cars originally equipped with an idle bypass valve may retain or remove the idle bypass valve) . Adjustable fuel pressure regulators are permitted. Where possible, wording has been removed that reminds competitors of things not permitted, such as the modification of the stock ECU box. As the category is based on the cornerstone principle that nothing may be modified unless specifically authorized, the extra wording can be counter productive

I am not a rule writing expert and this may cause more issues than it solves, but it seems reasonable to me....at least right now...

[dj10]

Just sent my letter to the crb.

I am in favor of an open ECU rule that allows the replacement of the stock ECU with an aftermarket unit and the addition/replacement of sensors and wiring needed to control the engine with the new ECU. The addition and replacement of sensors should not allow for an air intake path larger than the restriction provided by the throttle body butterfly valve and the idle bypass valve if fitted as stock equipment.

Here is an attempt at updating the rule.

9.1.3.D.1.6 with updates…
Altering or replacement of the engine management computer is allowed. The addition or substitution of a throttle position sensor, and/or a MAP sensor, and/or a crank angle sensor and their associated wiring is permitted. Existing sensors<strike>, excluding the stock air metering device,</strike> may be substituted. All air entering the intake plenum shall pass through the stock unmodified throttle body butterfly valve (cars originally equipped with an idle bypass valve may retain or remove the idle bypass valve) . Adjustable fuel pressure regulators are permitted. Where possible, wording has been removed that reminds competitors of things not permitted, such as the modification of the stock ECU box. As the category is based on the cornerstone principle that nothing may be modified unless specifically authorized, the extra wording can be counter productive

I am not a rule writing expert and this may cause more issues than it solves, but it seems reasonable to me....at least right now... [/b]



So are you saying, you may retain or remove the idle bypass and if you retain it, no air can pass through it, air may only pass through the throttle body?

I just want to be clear on your intent.

[Joe Harlan]

So are you saying, you may retain or remove the idle bypass and if you retain it, no air can pass through it, air may only pass through the throttle body?

I just want to be clear on your intent.
[/b]


So as a toyota guy you are wanting to loose the airflow meter in your stock system with this writing?

[dj10]

So as a toyota guy you are wanting to loose the airflow meter in your stock system with this writing? [/b]

Joe, I don&#39;t think that was his intent. I beleive and I think you do too (correct me if I&#39;m wrong), I&#39;ll just say we for now :D , don&#39;t want everyone to map the cold air that bypasses the throttle body. If I remember correctly you stated that there could be and is a gain of some 15 hp by doing this. I don&#39;t think any of us want to lose the AFM. I&#39;m concerned like you, how do we police this and any cars that might be running a EMS this year in what ever class be made to close this loop hole to them, NOW? If not, what is keeping some teams who sat out ITS last year because of the SIR to come back in ITR with their Motec&#39;s or whatever and have a unfair advantage with this 15 extra hp from the mapping of the extra air from the cold air bypass?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think the intent is to have 100% of the air entering the engine travel through the stock air metering device AND the stock throttle body. Whether the stock air metering device is used to actually &#39;measure&#39; would be up to how the final language turned out.

[dj10]

I think the intent is to have 100% of the air entering the engine travel through the stock air metering device AND the stock throttle body. Whether the stock air metering device is used to actually &#39;measure&#39; would be up to how the final language turned out. [/b]



You are correct Andy, but we need to close off the loop hole of the bypass this year or as I pointed out someone who has this system already could and might have a 15 hp advantage THIS YEAR.

[Joe Harlan]

I think the intent is to have 100% of the air entering the engine travel through the stock air metering device AND the stock throttle body. Whether the stock air metering device is used to actually &#39;measure&#39; would be up to how the final language turned out.
[/b]


If we are gonna (I am voting against) open up the ECU to harness and sensors then I say the only way to control it is SIR&#39;s for all EFI cars to insure they stay inside process.

[dj10]

If we are gonna (I am voting against) open up the ECU to harness and sensors then I say the only way to control it is SIR&#39;s for all EFI cars to insure they stay inside process. [/b]



Joe, what would your opinion be on having all cars, depending on class, be within a HP/Wt catagory, like nasa? Bring a portable dyno to the track and the top 3 go on it. It there over........bye bye. I saw this happen and I was impressed only with that part of nasa.

[Joe Harlan]

Joe, what would your opinion be on having all cars, depending on class, be within a HP/Wt catagory, like nasa? Bring a portable dyno to the track and the top 3 go on it. It there over........bye bye. I saw this happen and I was impressed only with that part of nasa.
[/b]


The issue is paying for the Dyno...We are not far away from 300 dollar entries and every 10 bucks it goes up we seem to loose one more driver...I don&#39;t believe that we need to work that hard for balance. I unfortunatly feel that we will throw the existing balance right out the window if we pass rule 3 and in time will be on the same path if we maintain option1... The closer we can keep IT to the average member being able to get there the better IT&#39;s chances will be in the future. I guess you got more than the answer you asked for. If it were practical and affordable it maybe worth looking at. Since I just ran the business model on a porta dyno last spring I don&#39;t think the region could afford what needs to be charged even on per car deal I am not sure how NASA does their system but I do know they have speced out dyno shops they use. Now how do we know that the program dynoed on is the same one raced on?

[lateapex911]

and....

....using a dyno to class or maintain parity is a tough bit of work, not just from a time and money aspect. I can imagine a bunch of subtle ways to "tweak" the output.

[GT240sx]

So are you saying, you may retain or remove the idle bypass and if you retain it, no air can pass through it, air may only pass through the throttle body?

I just want to be clear on your intent.
[/b]

I was trying to say that if your car comes from the factory with an idle bypass valve, it can still function...have air going through it.


So as a toyota guy you are wanting to loose the airflow meter in your stock system with this writing?[/b]

you could word it like that....or, as a racecar driver/engineer and that&#39;s a stretch ... I would like the ability to substitute my air metering device (flapper...not just on toyotas) with a new one (map sensor) to allow the aftermarket ECU to measure airflow.

I prefer to keep it simple, and it seems to me that the throttle body/butterfly valve is the main restriction on intake air...so, why keep a non functioning sensor in the car?

[dj10]

and....

....using a dyno to class or maintain parity is a tough bit of work,[/b]



LOL a tough bit of work! Is it any harder than what you (ITAC & CRB) go through now?!? :D

What&#39;s funny is that after all the hard work you guys go through, that every racing organization use our rules as a outline for their rules. :D So if you think about this, you must be doing a pretty damn good job! :023: To copy someone is the sincerest for of flattery.



Thanks Joe, you gave me something to ponder.

[Joe Harlan]

I was trying to say that if your car comes from the factory with an idle bypass valve, it can still function...have air going through it.
you could word it like that....or, as a racecar driver/engineer and that&#39;s a stretch ... I would like the ability to substitute my air metering device (flapper...not just on toyotas) with a new one (map sensor) to allow the aftermarket ECU to measure airflow.

I prefer to keep it simple, and it seems to me that the throttle body/butterfly valve is the main restriction on intake air...so, why keep a non functioning sensor in the car?
[/b]
SO if you get your wish you won&#39;t complain when the car gets moved to ITR based on 2.8 liters of engine that can now take in air much more effectively than it was classed to start? I am just trying to get a picture of what it will be like once the rule is changed.



LOL a tough bit of work! Is it any harder than what you (ITAC & CRB) go through now?!? :D

What&#39;s funny is that after all the hard work you guys go through, that every racing organization use our rules as a outline for their rules. :D So if you think about this, you must be doing a pretty damn good job! :023: To copy someone is the sincerest for of flattery.



Thanks Joe, you gave me something to ponder.
[/b]


What&#39;s funny DJ is that i remember a time when it was flattery. I see now though that more clubs are starting to even limit how much of our rules they want to use and seem to be writing rules that are similar but maybe a little more limiting. We maybe copying rules from other clubs soon...

[Eagle7]

I was trying to say that if your car comes from the factory with an idle bypass valve, it can still function...have air going through it.



you could word it like that....or, as a racecar driver/engineer and that&#39;s a stretch ... I would like the ability to substitute my air metering device (flapper...not just on toyotas) with a new one (map sensor) to allow the aftermarket ECU to measure airflow.

I prefer to keep it simple, and it seems to me that the throttle body/butterfly valve is the main restriction on intake air...so, why keep a non functioning sensor in the car?
[/b]

Russell, I see two problems. First, the existing cars were classed with the AFM in place. It may well be that for many cars the AFM is the primary restriction, not the butterfly. For example, on my car opening up the large bypass that runs the engine up to 3000 RPM at startup gained me nothing measurable (where did that 15 HP claim come from - I need documentation on that) because all the air still went through the AFM, and that was the primary restriction. If you eliminate the AFM you may significantly change the potential of some cars.



Secondly, allowing the bypass valve without the AFM is very likely to increase the potential of some cars. I&#39;m in favor of keeping the bypass valve. It offers a great deal of convenience for idling the car under various conditions. Without it I need to babysit the car during warmup. But we can&#39;t allow the bypass to use air that doesn&#39;t go through the AFM.



You don&#39;t need to remove your AFM to use a MAP sensor. It&#39;ll work just fine with the AFM in place. That&#39;s exactly how mine&#39;s set up.

[shwah]

Yeah anything that opens up to allow ECUs and sensors being changed or added have to IMO require all air pass through the original air metering device AND the throttle body butterflys - even if there is an additional different air metering device added, or a manifold aboslute pressure system used. Also - the original stock fuel injectors must be used.

[Eagle7]

Joe, I don&#39;t think that was his intent. I beleive and I think you do too (correct me if I&#39;m wrong), I&#39;ll just say we for now :D , don&#39;t want everyone to map the cold air that bypasses the throttle body. If I remember correctly you stated that there could be and is a gain of some 15 hp by doing this. I don&#39;t think any of us want to lose the AFM. I&#39;m concerned like you, how do we police this and any cars that might be running a EMS this year in what ever class be made to close this loop hole to them, NOW? If not, what is keeping some teams who sat out ITS last year because of the SIR to come back in ITR with their Motec&#39;s or whatever and have a unfair advantage with this 15 extra hp from the mapping of the extra air from the cold air bypass?
[/b]

Does anyone have any hard info on this 15 HP? Is that supposedly using air that came through the AFM? What kind of car? I believe this to currently be legal, but I&#39;m extremely skeptical of a significant gain like that.

[lateapex911]

Just to clarify, the rule is written as it would appear...and it allows no removal of any intake tract devices, so the removal of the AFM (or any equivilent device ) is NOT being proposed.

As pointed out, there is no concrete knowledge that says that NO car has, as it&#39;s limiting factor, the AFM device. So, the open ECU option won&#39;t allow any physical changes to the intake tract that aren&#39;t currently legal.

[DavidM]

I voted for 2, though I think leaving it as is would also be ok.

I think that the member solicitation period for this should be a pretty long time. I don&#39;t know what the normal period is, but this one should be at least a few months (maybe even reprint this in FasTrack for the next couple months). That will give this time to filter through the ranks to people that don&#39;t regularly read this board or others like it. This is a pretty important issue and needs as much input from racers as possible. Removing the FasTracks from Sports Car was a dumb idea.

David

[dj10]

Does anyone have any hard info on this 15 HP? Is that supposedly using air that came through the AFM? What kind of car? I believe this to currently be legal, but I&#39;m extremely skeptical of a significant gain like that.

[/b]

Marty, I believe Chris Ludwig & Joe Harlan can verify these number gains. I don&#39;t know for sure what kind of car to be honest.

" How about cold air bypass the 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?" Joe Harlan

I&#39;m happy to see that doors #2 & #3 have been selected by the majority. I don&#39;t really don&#39;t care which one replaces the current only that the current rule be shit canned and the sooner the better.

[Eagle7]

Marty, I believe Chris Ludwig & Joe Harden can verify these number gains. I don&#39;t know for sure what kind of car to be honest.

" How about cold air bypass the 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?" Joe Harden
[/b]

Chris and Joe (or anyone), do you have any concrete knowledge of any particular IT car that can gain significant HP by using the warmup bypass valve for air that goes through the AFM? I only have one data point (no measurable gain on my car). I&#39;m in favor of keeping the bypass valve, in part because I don&#39;t expect to see HP gains from it. If there are documented significant gains to be made on some cars, then I see two options:
Continue to allow it, because it is part of the OEM equipment, has been legal for several years, and was part of the landscape during the "process evaluation". You choose your car and you get what you get. Are there any other cases of OEM parts that must be removed or disabled because they provide performance potential? Mandate it&#39;s removal, because it&#39;s use during racing conditions is not something that the OEM provided or intended. This seems as though it would set a new precedent, somewhat along the lines of the SIR.

[Joe Harlan]

Marty, I believe Chris Ludwig & Joe Harden can verify these number gains. I don&#39;t know for sure what kind of car to be honest.

" How about cold air bypass the 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?" Joe Harden

I&#39;m happy to see that doors #2 & #3 have been selected by the majority. I don&#39;t really don&#39;t care which one replaces the current only that the current rule be shit canned and the sooner the better.
[/b]


Who is joe harden?

[Eagle7]

Who is joe harden? [/b]

That&#39;s really funny. I read right over it, seeing your name there because of the context. Yeah Dan, which Joe Harden are we talking about?

[dj10]

Who is joe harden? [/b]

LOL I apologize Joe for butchering your last name! :D My memory is going with age.

[Joe Harlan]

LOL I apologize Joe for butchering your last name! :D My memory is going with age.
[/b]

Funny since I am one of very few that actually uses their rean name in every post....You sure you can still remember your way around a track? :wacko:

Marty I am not ignoring your question...because of the information your asking for I am looking for the data Some of the testing done cannot be released as I don&#39;t own the information. Partial answer is it also depends on legal mods, grey mods, and what the chock point is in your system. I believe in everything I have said it was stated that some cars would benefit from the ability.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Who is joe harden? [/b]



Doesn&#39;t everyone know that? Here he is. (http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/players/60185)

:)

[Joe Harlan]

Doesn&#39;t everyone know that? Here he is. (http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/players/60185)

:)
[/b]

Close Andy, That guy is 8 Inches taller and I may have a little weight on him... :P

[Eagle7]

Marty I am not ignoring your question...because of the information your asking for I am looking for the data Some of the testing done cannot be released as I don&#39;t own the information. Partial answer is it also depends on legal mods, grey mods, and what the chock point is in your system. I believe in everything I have said it was stated that some cars would benefit from the ability.
[/b]

Joe, are you at liberty to describe the legal and grey mods that would impact this?

[leggwork]

the formating of Fastracks is a problem re finding relevant things also. I submitted a suggestion for them to take more advantage of the hyperlink capabilities of the pdf format. It is still all scrunched together as if it matters how many pages it prints on.
cheers,
bruce




I voted for 2, though I think leaving it as is would also be ok.

I think that the member solicitation period for this should be a pretty long time. I don&#39;t know what the normal period is, but this one should be at least a few months (maybe even reprint this in FasTrack for the next couple months). That will give this time to filter through the ranks to people that don&#39;t regularly read this board or others like it. This is a pretty important issue and needs as much input from racers as possible. Removing the FasTracks from Sports Car was a dumb idea.

David
[/b]

[lateapex911]

Update:

30 of you have responded with letters to the CRB, and I am pleased with the content of the letters as well as the fact that many have taken the time to write, even though they have no dog in the hunt, so to speak. (In other words, we&#39;ve gotten letters from guys who have non ECU cars.) Heck, we&#39;ve even gotten letters from guys with no IT cars!!

Keep it up!

[dj10]

Update:

30 of you have responded with letters to the CRB, and I am pleased with the content of the letters as well as the fact that many have taken the time to write, even though they have no dog in the hunt, so to speak. (In other words, we&#39;ve gotten letters from guys who have non ECU cars.) Heck, we&#39;ve even gotten letters from guys with no IT cars!!

Keep it up!
[/b]

Does anyone know how many IT racers are in North America?

[Gary L]

Does anyone know how many IT racers are in North America?

[/b]

Prolly about 18 or 20.

There are, however, several hundred guys with SCCA competition licenses that compete in IT classes. :lol:

Have another beer, Gary. :birra:

[shwah]

:lol:

[GT240sx]

Does anyone know why the additional sensors allowed by the new rule wording are limited to air flow sensors?

This seems to limit your possible sources for ecu&#39;s, or at least how you implement them.

[88YB1]

That is to restrict air intake to the factory inlet. IE throttle body, mass air flow sensor etc. The mass air flow sensor would not be required to work with an aftermarket ECM. It&#39;s in the rule to prevent anyone from adding a larger air inlet than stock diameter.

Chuck

[Black91n/aRX-7]

I&#39;d like to point out that to implement rule #2 would be just as unfair as to leave it as is. Just as not every car can fit a programmable ECU in the stock case, not all cars are able to be chipped or have a re-flash of the stock computer. The 2nd gen RX-7 is one of them (although one is in the works). I don&#39;t think that&#39;s fair to arbitrarily restrict the performance of some cars based pretty much solely on aftermarket support.

I support option #3, but keep the AFM, because as it&#39;s been pointed out it&#39;s the main restriction to many people, and allowing it to go will potentially gain some cars quite a bit of power.

[JoshS]

One school of thought goes that the problem with the current rule isn&#39;t that it&#39;s unfair, it&#39;s just that it&#39;s a much greater allowance than perhaps was originally intended. So proposal #2 is intended to correct that, without trying to make it so that every IT car can replace fuel-injection electronics (that would be option #3).

I personally don&#39;t see this "lack of fairness" as an issue. All cars are not equal. If we really wanted that level of equality, we&#39;d also be allowing live axle cars to replace their suspensions with coilover double-wishbones. We&#39;d be allowing replacement of carbs with fuel injection. We&#39;d be allowing replacement of solid front rotors (or heck, front drums) with vented rotors. Asking for equality of fuel injection electronics is basically akin to asking that all cars with old technology be allowed to update to the latest-and-greatest ... for everything, not just for fuel injection. And my opinion is that this concept is just not appropriate for IT, and it is just as inappropriate to have one philosophy about fuel-injection electronics, but a different philosophy about suspension design, or brake technology.

[Greg Amy]

Please read the first post in this topic...there are PUHLENTY other topics to debate this issue; this thread is simply a poll as to see where folks stand, not why.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Greg - no letter yet?