August Fastrack out!

[JoshS]

http://www.scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/07-f...ugust-final.pdf (http://www.scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/07-fastrack-august-final.pdf)

Effective 1/1/08: Change section 9.1.3.D.1.a.6 and add a new section 7 as follows:

<strike>6. 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.
</strike>

6. The engine management computer may be altered or replaced. A throttle position sensor and its wiring may be added or replaced. A MAP sensor and its wiring may be added. Other existing sensors, excluding the stock air metering device, may be substituted for equivalent units.

7. Wires and connectors in the engine wiring harness may be modified or replaced.

[Z3_GoCar]

:026: ITR here I come

James

[Jeremy Billiel]

Wow so its anything goes huh... That&#39;s interesting!

[keycom]

Does this open the way for MegaSquirt and MegaSpark?

[Jeremy Billiel]

Does this open the way for MegaSquirt and MegaSpark?
[/b]

Thats the way I read it. Full Motec&#39;s, Hondatas, AEM, etc...

[dj10]

Wow so its anything goes huh... That&#39;s interesting! [/b]



The way the rule is written now, anything goes if you want to pay to stuff your stock ecu with a ems. Now it more cost effective.

[Jeremy Billiel]

The way the rule is written now, anything goes if you want to pay to stuff your stock ecu with a ems. Now it more cost effective.
[/b]

This is true

[Lael Cleland]

but what about going from CIS(vw) to electronic injectors?

[tnord]

get out your checkbooks.

[dickita15]

The way the rule is written now, anything goes if you want to pay to stuff your stock ecu with a ems. Now it more cost effective.
[/b]
won&#39;t there be a performance increase due to the new sensor rules.

[RSTPerformance]

but what about going from CIS(vw) to electronic injectors?
[/b]

I don&#39;t know about this stuff at all, and I will have to learn... I have herd that several conversions have been done to CIS equiped Audi&#39;s (outside of SCCA IT racing) and have made substaintial gains in HP...

with a little $$$ or a lot of $$$$$ I think we might be able to investigate this and keep the Germans at the top of ITB :)

Raymond "Dave, your in trouble even more now" Blethen

[C. Ludwig]

won&#39;t there be a performance increase due to the new sensor rules.
[/b]


No.


Re: CIS injection
As I understand it the CIS is a mechanical injection setup...

I would assume that even though you are now allowed to make changes to the electronics, changing injectors would not be legal. So how would one then legally convert anything that isn&#39;t already electronically injected?

[shwah]

The way I read it, carburators and mechanical injection systems remain, but you can replace any computer and wiring.

Also, a lot of gains I have seen on street cars (CIS-E 16V VWs is my experience) were due to removing the more restrictive air meter system. However the way I read this, regardless of what sysetm you run, you would retain the original air metering device, whether it is telling the new computer anything or not.

So if I swap my Golf over to Digifant to take advantage of this rule, I will still be pulling air through a 2 x 2 flapper door in the VW intake system.

I don&#39;t expect huge gains, but maybe more flexibility, and more importantly no rusty CIS fuel injector lines under my hood.

[Charlie Broring]

This is stupid. Last winter it was rebuild the cage so I could gut the doors. This winter it&#39;s take the fuel management system off the Production car and put it on the IT car. We are going to rule-creep ourselves to death just like production did. Can&#39;t we learn from the past?

Charlie Broring

[Charlie Broring]

If I read this right I can also add a magnetic "sensor" to trigger the spark off the crankshaft too, just like on my production car.

[chuck baader]

OK, guys, chew on this one...."air metering device" cannot be changed. I don&#39;t know about your car, but my car has a butterfly device to meter air to the motor. That being said, can we do away with the air flow meter? Food for thought :026: Chuck

[jlinfert]

The way I read it You have to LEAVE the Trap door Air meter in place but can use a MAP Sensor to control fuel delivery. However, those of us who use CIS or carbs have to stick with what we have. No biggie I have CIAS working well for me.

[Conover]

I think the air metering verbiage should be more clear.

**edit: I read it as including for some reason, nevermind, that is very clear.

[Knestis]

THIS might change my attitude about the cost/benefit of doing anything besides plugging in a new chip. Cameron is going to be thrilled. The dyno guy is going to be extra thrilled.

K

[924Guy]

If I read this right I can also add a magnetic "sensor" to trigger the spark off the crankshaft too, just like on my production car.
[/b]

I&#39;m no rules nerd, but I seem to recall that there&#39;s a separate rule about requiring the same type of spark trigger - if it&#39;s in the distributor stock, it must stay there; if stock runs a crank trigger, then you&#39;re home free.

Yes/no?

[tnord]

to satisfy my own curiosity, what&#39;s the benefit of triggering spark from the crank rather than conventional methods?

[Joe Harlan]

Well this is one time I hope the BOD uses it power to kill this deal before it gets started. If your not with this rule then write the BOD cause the CRB stepped on it here.

[tnord]

i doubt that&#39;s going to happen joe. a little birdie told me letters were about 3 to 1 in favor of this move. if you ask me, we&#39;re digging our own grave. maybe there&#39;s a special place for us right next to SS.

[Joe Harlan]

i doubt that&#39;s going to happen joe. a little birdie told me letters were about 3 to 1 in favor of this move. if you ask me, we&#39;re digging our own grave. maybe there&#39;s a special place for us right next to SS.
[/b]


The question total letter count.

[Charlie Broring]

924Guy you are correct about the crank trigger.

However this is the biggest and most expensive piece of rules creep that I have seen in my 15 years of IT racing. I replace the stock ECU with a Megasquirt system last year on my F/P Volvo 142. The time and expense of implementing this change are going to have a significant impact on the cost of building an IT car. If you have a simple old car, do it all yourself, have lots of time, go low budget with Megasquirt, are good with computers, and get lucky it will cost $1000. Don&#39;t forget to factor in dyno time. Many racers will spend multiple thousands on this.

To put my feelings in perspective, my ITB Volvo will benefit from this rule change. I already have the hardware and it&#39;s fully sorted out already so this costs me nothing. But I think this is a bad move for IT. We are having fun and spending plenty of money with the current rules. Will we have more fun with an expensive change like this?

Charlie Broring

[chuck baader]

TNORD: Accuracy...usually within 1/4 degree. That way you can set the timing to the optimum advance without worrying about scatter. The old way was to retard the timing from optimum to account for scatter and prevent detonation. CB

[924Guy]

924Guy you are correct about the crank trigger.

However this is the biggest and most expensive piece of rules creep that I have seen in my 15 years of IT racing. I replace the stock ECU with a Megasquirt system last year on my F/P Volvo 142. The time and expense of implementing this change are going to have a significant impact on the cost of building an IT car. If you have a simple old car, do it all yourself, have lots of time, go low budget with Megasquirt, are good with computers, and get lucky it will cost $1000. Don&#39;t forget to factor in dyno time. Many racers will spend multiple thousands on this.

To put my feelings in perspective, my ITB Volvo will benefit from this rule change. I already have the hardware and it&#39;s fully sorted out already so this costs me nothing. But I think this is a bad move for IT. We are having fun and spending plenty of money with the current rules. Will we have more fun with an expensive change like this?

Charlie Broring
[/b]

?? I thought all the 140s and 240s were CIS?

[ddewhurst]

Guys, yer all not seeing the black helicopter over head. :bash_1_: This whole rules creep deal is a conspiracy to bring IT to it&#39;s knees so that the IT cars can be absorbed into Production so that Production classes meet their numbers. :cavallo:

[tnord]

well, i don&#39;t think i&#39;d go THAT far.

i don&#39;t like the change, but i don&#39;t think the CRB is trying to kill off IT either. it&#39;s hard to argue against the change if an overwhelming number of leters asked for it. doesn&#39;t necessarily mean it&#39;s good for the class though, just ask the SM guys about Spec Toyo.

[dj10]

924Guy you are correct about the crank trigger.

However this is the biggest and most expensive piece of rules creep that I have seen in my 15 years of IT racing. I replace the stock ECU with a Megasquirt system last year on my F/P Volvo 142. The time and expense of implementing this change are going to have a significant impact on the cost of building an IT car. If you have a simple old car, do it all yourself, have lots of time, go low budget with Megasquirt, are good with computers, and get lucky it will cost $1000. Don&#39;t forget to factor in dyno time. Many racers will spend multiple thousands on this.

To put my feelings in perspective, my ITB Volvo will benefit from this rule change. I already have the hardware and it&#39;s fully sorted out already so this costs me nothing. But I think this is a bad move for IT. We are having fun and spending plenty of money with the current rules. Will we have more fun with an expensive change like this?

Charlie Broring [/b]



Charlie, this isn&#39;t manditory! You really don&#39;t have change a thing on your car.

[RSTPerformance]

Charlie, this isn&#39;t manditory! You really don&#39;t have change a thing on your car.
[/b]

Unless you want to win, then you need to spend a billion more hours learning about this stuff, nevermind the cash that many IT racers don&#39;t have for tires let alone a computer system to run their race cars.

I don&#39;t like the idea and sent in my letter to the CRB.

Raymond "Just what I want to see, faster Volvo&#39;s :rolleyes: " Blethen

[Conover]

I support the proposed rule, I think it is fair and can actually help
some tune their cars on a tighter budget. Some who do not have good
options can now use open source engine management to tune their cars
for only a few hundred dollars.
I would be in support of this rule to be adopted as it appears in the
August fastrack.

[charrbq]

Isn&#39;t it interesting that the letters to the CRB seem to want this "uber expensive" change, yet they don&#39;t want to move the battery to a safer location because of "rules creep". It&#39;s times like these that I&#39;m glad I have a POS carb to fight with at every event. Of course, if this means I can install a cranfire ignition, then I&#39;ll have to do it...to the tune of about $2 large. :blink:

[IPRESS]

It beats the hell out of the STOCK ECU BOX rule now. That rule makes you want to find a car with a big box. In the long run I think they (CRB) made a good move.

Mac

[lateapex911]

924Guy you are correct about the crank trigger.

However this is the biggest and most expensive piece of rules creep that I have seen in my 15 years of IT racing. I replace the stock ECU with a Megasquirt system last year on my F/P Volvo 142. The time and expense of implementing this change are going to have a significant impact on the cost of building an IT car. If you have a simple old car, do it all yourself, have lots of time, go low budget with Megasquirt, are good with computers, and get lucky it will cost $1000. Don&#39;t forget to factor in dyno time. Many racers will spend multiple thousands on this.

To put my feelings in perspective, my ITB Volvo will benefit from this rule change. I already have the hardware and it&#39;s fully sorted out already so this costs me nothing. But I think this is a bad move for IT. We are having fun and spending plenty of money with the current rules. Will we have more fun with an expensive change like this?

Charlie Broring [/b]

Charlie & Raymond....keep in mind this rule isn&#39;t actually going to change anything in ITB, as you&#39;ve been racing against cars already running open ECUs. This rule is merely changing the limitations of the previous rule, which allowed open ECUs, but at sometimes incredible costs.

[RSTPerformance]

Charlie & Raymond....keep in mind this rule isn&#39;t actually going to change anything in ITB, as you&#39;ve been racing against cars already running open ECUs. This rule is merely changing the limitations of the previous rule, which allowed open ECUs, but at sometimes incredible costs.
[/b]

What would prevent me from having a computer screen dash that allowed me to make changes to the engine management as you were racing???

I don&#39;t know anything about the computer side of cars, other than the Volvo above can now get more power and i still can&#39;t change anything to my car... do I get a weight break since all these computer mods that help others don&#39;t help me?

I think others are correct, I support you Andy and the others, but why do we keep F&#39;ing with the IT rules???

People are happy how the rules are written now. IMO YOU (ITAC & CRB) keep opening up rules for things that you don&#39;t understnad and con&#39;t govern, thus whipping your hands of responsability to understand and figure out a way to govern. But yet you maintain stupid rules like the batter, headlights, washer bottles, stock useless wiring harnesses to removed windows and interior lights, etc that do almoast nothing as far as performance. Older cars are getting outclassed by technology. Opening the rules for this technology just outclasses those cars even more...

Just my opinion, I think it is time to finish your "fixing" and let us know the long term goals...

Raymond

[lateapex911]

Guys, yer all not seeing the black helicopter over head. :bash_1_: This whole rules creep deal is a conspiracy to bring IT to it&#39;s knees so that the IT cars can be absorbed into Production so that Production classes meet their numbers. :cavallo: [/b]

Visionary stuff there, DD.

[mowog]

I do find it interesting that people think the new ECU rule will cost people more money. Those who are going to spend money to go fast have likely already gone out and spend considerable funds on a custom ECU that would work with the stock harness and case. For reference, it cost us over $10,000 for a customized unit that didn&#39;t really give us comlete control over all the functions we really wanted. Dyno time was considerable especially as the first few units weren&#39;t correct and motors either wouldn&#39;t start or wouldn&#39;t run. But it was the only game in town within the rules. We aren&#39;t alone, many had to do the same thing if they weren&#39;t willing to run the stock unit. Now there is a far wider range of units available, and for 1/10th to 1/5th the price, including dyno time. It cost money to have a chance of running at the front, this rule actually makes it possible for others to catch up at far less expense than others incurred previously.



to satisfy my own curiosity, what&#39;s the benefit of triggering spark from the crank rather than conventional methods?
[/b]

Travis, years ago we dyno tested 5 different motors. All gave the same overall result: if the "standard" ignition system was optomized and functioning properly, there was no real gain (anything less than 2% generally is considered no gain as it often can&#39;t be repeated from one dyno session to the next, even with a computerized dyno such as the Superflow 901 we used). Our experience is that it&#39;s easier to live with because it&#39;s more reliable. But as a matter of real power gain, not if your current parts are correct and you&#39;ve tuned it as well as possible (only possible to do this on a dyno in my opinion).

[JoshS]

People are happy how the rules are written now.
[/b]
That&#39;s not what the letters said. The ITAC asked about three options: 1) leave things alone; 2) try to put the genie back in the bottle; 3) open things up. I think there was only one letter that picked option 1, and a great majority picked option 3.

You might be comfortable with the current rule, but don&#39;t put words in other member&#39;s mouths.

[Banzai240]

OPEN ECUs??? :blink:

We&#39;ll, it&#39;s happened... And IT WAS heading is such an excellent direction...

This is going to go down as one of the worst things to ever happen to IT... Things were just starting to get in balance, now the gauntlet has been laid down, the doors thrown wide open...

I&#39;m glad I got out of car racing when I did... becuase this one would have ended it for me anyhow... Not sure how many of you can afford $2,000 + ECU systems, but have fun guys... If you think you are going to be able to compete with the Motecs of the world with your "Mega-Squirt" or whatever, you&#39;re dillusional... There is a reason why Motecs are $2,000+ and Mega-Squirts are "do-it-yourself"... Have fun... "off the shelf" can be equated to "also-ran"... Your "bolt-in" ECU systems just aren&#39;t going to cut it guys... not anymore than the Wolf units could against a Motec... Have Fun...

I want to appologize to those of you who were assured by me and others about the direction IT was headed a couple of years ago... it seems, at the moment, that I was wrong... The reassurances I gave have proven to be wrong now, and it seems that it&#39;s only a matter of time before IT is swallowed up and combined with Production, or GT, or wherever sedans go these days when they cost twice as much to race competitively...

If there are any rational racers left out there, you need to get a letter to the BOD IMMEDIATELY and get them to STOP this non-sense before it&#39;s too late... You still have a voice and it&#39;s up to you to preserve your class... "they" aren&#39;t going to do it for you...

Good Luck...





For reference, it cost us over $10,000 for a customized unit that didn&#39;t really give us comlete control over all the functions we really wanted.
[/b]

EXCELLENT... PERFECT... It&#39;s all fixed and "fair" now... NOW EVERYONE get&#39;s to go through this! :rolleyes:

Nice job! :018:

[lateapex911]

OPEN ECUs??? :blink:

. There is a reason why Motecs are $2,000+ and Mega-Squirts are "do-it-yourself"... Have fun... "off the shelf" can be equated to "also-ran"... Your "bolt-in" ECU systems just aren&#39;t going to cut it guys... not anymore than the Wolf units could against a Motec... Have Fun...

[/b]

Devils advocate hat on...

Performance increase-wise.............
With Motec installations being quoted at $10,000.00, what does the buyer get?
With a Wolf installation, costing, say, $2,500, what does a buyer get?
With a Bosch ECU that costs $15,000 plus installation and tuning, what does a buyer get?

In other words, is there a linear ratio? Is a $2500 system only going to deliver 25% of the return of a $10,000 system?

Regarding input-

People spoke of this rule allowing them to come closer to those who could fit the $10K solution...and they were fine with the fact that they would not equal that system. Input indicated that the freedom to chose the level of performance that suited their time and financial concerns was important to them.

I don&#39;t think anybody thinks that a Megasquirt is going to outrun a Motec.

But people did have issues that there were cars out there running Motecs AND Megasquirts, but many were excluded due to verbiage.

[Conover]

It&#39;s all about resolution, you get more definition in your tables with the motec Vs. MS-n-S. BUT, there were guys out there with Motec in a box, and guys out there who we&#39;re screwed because they we&#39;re limited by the verbiage of the rule. And now those guys have the freedom to chuck the stock ecu in the trash and start with something that is a least tunable. Even if Megasquirt doesn&#39;t get up to the level of the Motec, it&#39;s a lot closer to it than a stock ECU with an econotune on it.

I offset at least one of you guys with my letter. . . ;)

[Joe Harlan]

I do find it interesting that people think the new ECU rule will cost people more money. Those who are going to spend money to go fast have likely already gone out and spend considerable funds on a custom ECU that would work with the stock harness and case. For reference, it cost us over $10,000 for a customized unit that didn&#39;t really give us comlete control over all the functions we really wanted. Dyno time was considerable especially as the first few units weren&#39;t correct and motors either wouldn&#39;t start or wouldn&#39;t run. But it was the only game in town within the rules. We aren&#39;t alone, many had to do the same thing if they weren&#39;t willing to run the stock unit. Now there is a far wider range of units available, and for 1/10th to 1/5th the price, including dyno time. It cost money to have a chance of running at the front, this rule actually makes it possible for others to catch up at far less expense than others incurred previously.
Travis, years ago we dyno tested 5 different motors. All gave the same overall result: if the "standard" ignition system was optomized and functioning properly, there was no real gain (anything less than 2% generally is considered no gain as it often can&#39;t be repeated from one dyno session to the next, even with a computerized dyno such as the Superflow 901 we used). Our experience is that it&#39;s easier to live with because it&#39;s more reliable. But as a matter of real power gain, not if your current parts are correct and you&#39;ve tuned it as well as possible (only possible to do this on a dyno in my opinion).
[/b]
Sorry Chris but lets face facts here. The cat was brought into prod as a spec car and the ECU was supposed to be part of those control specs. The fact that you chose to spend 10k working on was your choice in the type of car you chose. I have lots of experience with aftermarket systems and I can tell you 10k will be the small end of thepool when people really start blowing shit up. LIMITS LIMITS,,,,Just like the stupid control arm rules in Prod. Every time we increase the LIMITS we increase the cost of doing business and that will never change. The fact is that with the fastrack no longer in the shitty magazine 3/4 of this club will be blindsided by this whole deal and that is a shame.



That&#39;s not what the letters said. The ITAC asked about three options: 1) leave things alone; 2) try to put the genie back in the bottle; 3) open things up. I think there was only one letter that picked option 1, and a great majority picked option 3.

You might be comfortable with the current rule, but don&#39;t put words in other member&#39;s mouths.
[/b]
Josh, How many letters did you get? Total number?




Devils advocate hat on...

Performance increase-wise.............
With Motec installations being quoted at $10,000.00, what does the buyer get?
With a Wolf installation, costing, say, $2,500, what does a buyer get?
With a Bosch ECU that costs $15,000 plus installation and tuning, what does a buyer get?

In other words, is there a linear ratio? Is a $2500 system only going to deliver 25% of the return of a $10,000 system?

Regarding input-

People spoke of this rule allowing them to come closer to those who could fit the $10K solution...and they were fine with the fact that they would not equal that system. Input indicated that the freedom to chose the level of performance that suited their time and financial concerns was important to them.

I don&#39;t think anybody thinks that a Megasquirt is going to outrun a Motec.

But people did have issues that there were cars out there running Motecs AND Megasquirts, but many were excluded due to verbiage.
[/b]


All of this coming from a guy with zero direct experience......I see a lot of I don&#39;t thinks in your statments Jake but the fact is you don&#39;t know.

[Charlie Broring]

Currently there are few IT cars racing with high dollar ECU&#39;s. I know a couple of the front running ITS E36&#39;s had them but this is not the norm in IT. Most IT cars get along fine with inexpensive mods and band-aids to the stock system. We have enjoyed modest rule creep on this issue This is part of the success of the IT formula, keep our cost down. and our rules relativity stable.

The new rule would make an after market ECU and a laptop mandatory for any front runner with electronic FI. I wouldn&#39;t give up that advantage if I want to continue winning. Implementing it is not cheap and if you do it your self it take a lot of time. I am sure I have 50-100 hours (maybe more) into learning how to, building, and installing a Megasquirt system. DIY Fuel Injection is almost a new hobby in itself. Spend a few hours reading the Megasquirt board and see for yourself.

Now Chris&#39; perspective of this rule change being a good option to the $10K ECU in her Production Caterham is valid. But we are IT drivers are not Production car racers and few of us are running bucks up E36&#39;s. Most of us don&#39;t want to be big budget racers. Thats why we race IT.

I am against this rule change because it makes IT more expensive and less appealing compared to the &#39;Spec" classes. I&#39;m sure a few IT racers will benefit from this new rule. They are probably the people who sent in letters to the CRB if favor of it.

Charlie

[dj10]

Currently there are few IT cars racing with high dollar ECU&#39;s. I know a couple of the front running ITS E36&#39;s had them but this is not the norm in IT.Charlie
[/b]

I for one am glad that the folks that have invested the big bucks on the their ems will not have to dispose of them. Making them switch back to the stock ecu&#39;s would mean they pissed a lot of money away. With that said, I&#39;m just glad the current rule will be flushed down the toilet.

[JoshS]

Josh, How many letters did you get? Total number?
[/b]
50+. And lots of direct input through personal conversations.

The overwhelming preference for open ECUs received via the member input process was definitely a factor in the decision of the ITAC to recommend this strategy.

[lateapex911]

I have lots of experience with aftermarket systems and I can tell you 10k will be the small end of thepool when people really start blowing shit up. LIMITS LIMITS,,,,Just like the stupid control arm rules in Prod. Every time we increase the LIMITS we increase the cost of doing business and that will never change. The fact is that with the fastrack no longer in the shitty magazine 3/4 of this club will be blindsided by this whole deal and that is a shame.

Josh, How many letters did you get? Total number?


All of this coming from a guy with zero direct experience......I see a lot of I don&#39;t thinks in your statments Jake but the fact is you don&#39;t know. [/b]

Joe,

1-Why not actually answer the questions, as you have stated that you have the experience to know, and the actual knowledge?

2-People have been blowing expensive engines up with carb tuning and dorking with timing, via distributors and chips and ECUs for years. And they still can. How is this really that different?

3- Considering that this question was placed before the membership multiple times, and the response was very large in context of other issues the IT community has responded to, and the fact that the response rate dropped to next to nothing as the question was re proposed, I hardly think this issue was snuck under the publics nose, nor would I consider them "blindsided"

4- Please reread my statements in context. My single (not "a lot of..." as you state) "I don&#39;t think" fell under the heading of "input/responses from the public", which, by the way included letters from other tuners such as yourself.



Currently there are few IT cars racing with high dollar ECU&#39;s. I know a couple of the front running ITS E36&#39;s had them but this is not the norm in IT. Most IT cars get along fine with inexpensive mods and band-aids to the stock system.
[/b]

Charlie, I appreciate your points, but..

Perhaps you aren&#39;t aware of who is, and who isn&#39;t running what system. You speak of Volvos suddenly becoming faster now with the open ECU rule, but, the ones I know already running a full ECU system won&#39;t go a bit faster.

And if most IT cars are fine with inexpensive mods and band-aids to the stock system, then whats to stop them from continuing to do just that??

If I were to consider spending thousands (or hundreds or whatever) of my budget, I&#39;d think I&#39;d spend the money where it made the most difference, right? I think most will continue as they are now, and will do a cost/benefit analysis, and decide that tires or track time represent a better investment.

For others though, no band aid is possible, and those people now have more options.

[Joe Harlan]

50+. And lots of direct input through personal conversations.

The overwhelming preference for open ECUs received via the member input process was definitely a factor in the decision of the ITAC to recommend this strategy.
[/b]

50 WOW for SCCA maybe a big response but not a true sample. Wait until the new rule book comes out and people see this for the first time and tell me you got a fair response....


Jake you aren&#39;t even sharp enough to see who your responding too.....I know how much effort goes into making either system work.

[tnord]

actually.....according to my memory from collegiate statistics, 30 is an adequate sample size assuming the sample set is a fair representation of the population as a whole.

[dickita15]

6. The engine management computer may be altered or replaced. A throttle position sensor and its wiring may be added or replaced. A MAP sensor and its wiring may be added. Other existing sensors, excluding the stock air metering device, may be substituted for equivalent units.

7. Wires and connectors in the engine wiring harness may be modified or replaced.
[/b]

When this was discussed before I understood why if we could not go back to stock ecus then getting rid of the inside the stock box should be deleted. I figured not having to make the system so small would be cheaper. I just do not understand why the new sensors and the open harness rules. How is this not going to increase performance? How is this not going to upset the balance?

[Joe Harlan]

actually.....according to my memory from collegiate statistics, 30 is an adequate sample size assuming the sample set is a fair representation of the population as a whole.
[/b]


Yea and to think you paid for that information. As I said once the other members figure out how badly they just took it in the ass there are gonna be some upset folks

[tnord]

Yea and to think you paid for that information. As I said once the other members figure out how badly they just took it in the ass there are gonna be some upset folks
[/b]


ya know what? shove it harlan. go have a ding-dong and get your head on straight.

in case you forgot, i&#39;m on your side on this. for as much as you know, you&#39;re being about a uselful as that curly brown lump in my front yard left by my neighbors dog right now.

[Joe Harlan]

ya know what? shove it harlan. go have a ding-dong and get your head on straight.

in case you forgot, i&#39;m on your side on this. for as much as you know, you&#39;re being about a uselful as that curly brown lump in my front yard left by my neighbors dog right now.
[/b]


To bad I forgot the smilely face Travis you would have seen my comment about you paying was kidding...But its ok I can deal with the fact that your as frustrated as alot of us and get by the fact that you called me dog shit. This whole deal is dog shit. Have a nice weekend and forget about all this stuff. The ITAC will soon be flooded with requests for comp adjustments and free carburators just watch. I already wrote mine.

[Knestis]

Respondents self-selected and the process that got them the information necessary to even KNOW to respond is biased, so sampling rules are way out of the window. Give that up. BUT in my experience, 50 responses to something that Club Racing asks members about is a pretty darned good response.

As usual, some of the key actors have dived back in here in a stunk up the discourse but all shrieking aside, this proposed rule doesn&#39;t allow anything that isn&#39;t already possible, in terms of the ECU. The rest of the allowances follow the philosophy set by the already-in-place "stuff anything you can afford in the stock box" rule, which is internally inconsistent and arbitrarily restrictive in a respect that ONLY makes it more expensive than it might otherwise be.

If we weren&#39;t going to go back in time and put in place a more restrictive rule, this is the best answer.

If the new rule makes someone faster, it&#39;s ONLY because they didn&#39;t want to spend the bigger coin to optimize their systems under the old rule. If you were counting on limited budgets to prevent that technology from creeping onto the grid, all you were doing was reserving that advantage for the truly bucks-up. If they weren&#39;t playing in ITB - and they generally haven&#39;t - that&#39;s an accident of a bunch of individual choices and priorities - NOT the result of some clever plan. If you REALLY wanted to maintain that status quo, there would have been more than one of you write a letter supporting that choice.

K

[Bill Miller]

Older cars are getting outclassed by technology. Opening the rules for this technology just outclasses those cars even more... [/b]

You said a mouthful Raymond.


To those that say this rule is no different than what&#39;s allowed now, except for the stock ecu housing, there&#39;s an old saying about ears and rain. :blink:

I&#39;m surprised no one has brought this up.

free ecu + new sensors + modified harness = traction control.

And please don&#39;t come out w/ the &#39;prohibited function&#39; argument. If they can&#39;t police a stock ecu now (wasn&#39;t that the whole justification for opening up the internals to begin with?), there&#39;s no way they&#39;ll be able to police traction control w/ an open ECU, added sensors, and a modified harness.

[tnord]

You said a mouthful Raymond.
To those that say this rule is no different than what&#39;s allowed now, except for the stock ecu housing, there&#39;s an old saying about ears and rain. :blink:

I&#39;m surprised no one has brought this up.

free ecu + new sensors + modified harness = traction control.

And please don&#39;t come out w/ the &#39;prohibited function&#39; argument. If they can&#39;t police a stock ecu now (wasn&#39;t that the whole justification for opening up the internals to begin with?), there&#39;s no way they&#39;ll be able to police traction control w/ an open ECU, added sensors, and a modified harness.
[/b]

and people have traction control today.

i&#39;m against this change, but many are using invalid arguements to try and prevent it imo. if you go back and read through the old threads about this, you&#39;ll see that the original intent was to allow chips/reflashes ONLY and not the current status quo we have today.

the main justification being used is that only certain cars are now able to fit standalone units inside the stock housing, so we should just open the whole thing up. personally, i think it&#39;s rediculous that a poorly written rule is being used to justify further allowances, and from my seat in the bleachers, is the very definition of rules creep.

the secondary justifcation being that it&#39;s getting more and more difficult (esp in the new ITR) for cars to operate in race trim. certain vehicles automatically go into limp mode when one of the wheel speed sensors/ABS is removed, top speed limiters come into play, factory traction control systems...etc. THIS is valid, but from what i remember, these problems can be overcome with chips/reflashes that are available for the majority of vehicles being raced. and for cars that don&#39;t have common aftermarket solutions, these issues can still be overcome if you find the right guy and give him a proper check. for these cars to get max build it will cost them a bit more, which is unfortunate, but it should be part of the decision making process in choosing a car to race.

further in the future we may be forced to completely replace the ECU, but i don&#39;t believe that situation exists today, and that we should attempt to write a rule to allow chips/reflashes only as the original rule was intended and give it a chance to work before we go asking the majority in IT to spend thousands in order to maintain their current finishing position for benefit of the very few who are having issues getting their car to run properly in race trim.

[Bill Miller]

and people have traction control today.


[/b]
Names? Cars?

Would love to hear more about these people/cars.

[tnord]

Names? Cars?

Would love to hear more about these people/cars.
[/b]

iirc....our resident expert of everything has already layed out how it can be done with current technology without too much complication. something like a limit for RPM gained/sec, and when that limit is exceeded the ignition is changed in some way....retarded back for less HP, cut out, or whatever....it doesn&#39;t seem all that hard to do.

even if i knew people who did this, i wouldn&#39;t oust them in this context. i doubt there are very many cars out there using it today, but however many it is, i would expect that number to increase with this allowance, regardless of legality.

[lateapex911]

The new rule would make an after market ECU and a laptop mandatory for any front runner with electronic FI.

Charlie
[/b]

Actually, no.

In doing research on this issue, I made lots of calls, and one of them was to a very fast car that runs at the front of the ARRC regularly. His ECU? Stock, as of a few months ago. He&#39;s experimented, he&#39;s got reasonable flexibility , but so far, he&#39;s found the stock solution with his other mods to be perfectly sevicable. I discussed the possibilities with him, and he indicated that he wouldn&#39;t spend significant money on further ECU work unless he found an inexpensive option that improved performance. As he feels that the avaiable performance increase for his car is very slight, the preferrable option must be very cheap.

[lateapex911]

I don&#39;t know anything about the computer side of cars, other than the Volvo above can now get more power and i still can&#39;t change anything to my car... do I get a weight break since all these computer mods that help others don&#39;t help me?

[/b]

Not that on track performance matters.....but....you&#39;ve been racing against a Volvo with a full on ECu for awhile now. Did you notice the sky falling? I think not.




People are happy how the rules are written now.
[/b]

Yea? Thats a pretty bold statement, if you&#39;ve bothered to read the threads here, you&#39;d know that this issue is anything but one sided. Certainly you can&#39;t draw the conclusion that everyone likes the status quo based on even this site. But our input, which inlcude, as an option, leaving things alone, elicitied less than 2% support!



[IMO YOU (ITAC & CRB) keep opening up rules for things that you don&#39;t understnad and con&#39;t govern, thus whipping your hands of responsability to understand and figure out a way to govern. Older cars are getting outclassed by technology. Opening the rules for this technology just outclasses those cars even more...[/b]

Tell me, and this goes for other detractors as well, exactly HOW this rule is going to result in your older car being outclassed? Remember, the existing rule, in place for years now, has allowed full ECU replacement, AND it&#39;s allowed use of sensors listed in the new rule....and, be careful here, as the cars...in your class, are as old, or, even older than your car.

[dj10]

Look at how much ink they saved in writing the new rule! :026:

[lateapex911]

When this was discussed before I understood why if we could not go back to stock ecus then getting rid of the inside the stock box should be deleted. I figured not having to make the system so small would be cheaper. I just do not understand why the new sensors and the open harness rules. How is this not going to increase performance? How is this not going to upset the balance? [/b]

Dick, reread the rule, and, then tell me HOW, exactly, you will increase the performance.

In terms of "traction control", lets first define what TC is, and isn&#39;t. True TC is the ability of a car to adjust power (tq) to each individual traction patch in response to available friction (traction). Typically, this involves the use of wheel speed sensors, and real time comparative math to determine if one wheel has exceeded it&#39;s presumed proper rotational speed.

In what I&#39;ll call "Intermediate" TC, the engine power is adjusted , often via spark timing or cutout, to trim output power. This is often done, in leau of wheel speed sensors, by algorithms that monitor the rate of rise in revs the engine could be seeing in the different gears. In cruder conditions, gear selection isn&#39;t available.

Well, IIRC, thats being done now, through the use of various ignition control devices, made by firms like Accel.

So, how will this new rule enable any increase in allowable TC?

[Charlie Broring]

Jake, You are rightfully proud of your work on the Advisory Committee and the conclusions it reached but you are wrong to dismiss peoples comments and experience on this issue voice here. You also in the wrong if you don&#39;t acknowledge that there are more concerns about this rule change then the letters you received led you to believe.

I guess that I too am in the wrong by not voicing an opinion BASED ON EXPERIENCE when you asked for comments previously in Fastrack.

The issue here however is not how much a Bosh D-Jetronics fuel injection system will benefit. It is rules creep. Improved Touring is slowly turning into Production. But the rate of changes seems to be speeding up recently.

Charlie

[Spinnetti]

<Stands on soapbox>

IT continues to move away from its original intended (stated) purpose, which I suppose can be good or bad depending on your preference, yet still misses a big segment of the general populace that might want to go racing.

I think Cal club had a couple classes over the years which hit it right on the head for cheap fun:
> Leave most of the stock bits except springs/shocks/swaybars, but allow removal of every thing else that is non-essential. The big benefit of this approach is that the lighter you get, the better brakes work, the better the handling, and the less junk is in the way. More important than all of that, IT DOESN&#39;T COST ANYTHING! My goals are the best lap times for the least cost in my chosen steed. Why should that take complicated mods? Why not focus on the easy and free stuff so more people can get there - that will improve overall competitiveness and reduce cost. Money wins anyway, but I am against any ECU mods. Easy to police by simply making a claiming rule - you lose to somebody with the same car, you can swap ECU&#39;s with them (or buy one to swap!). Why are we not learning from other motorsports? We keep looking at our own navels, yet other forms (e.g. sportsman type roundy round stuff) have figured out these things before and we could learn from them.

I&#39;d like:
> The original IT ECU rules, with current engine rules.
> Free cage over minimum spec - It&#39;s dumb to limit how much cage you put in given a min weight
> Free Battery location - Better for safety and for handling in many cases, and is cheap to do if you want to.
> Gut whatever you want - thats what you have a min weight for.
> The original suspension rules
> Comp adjustments


They got most of it right in the first place. Why do we keep messing with it?

[GKR_17]

It seems there are a lot of folks who don&#39;t understand the change:

1. Crankfire is only legal if stock, this rule doesn&#39;t change that.
2. Fuel injectors must be stock, no change again. CIS cars will still have to use CIS.
3. Only two new sensors can be added (TPS and MAP), so this doesn&#39;t add any functionality that wasn&#39;t available to much of the catagory already. Traction control is possible on a limited scale, but no more than it already was.

[lateapex911]

<Stands on soapbox>

............, but I am against any ECU mods. Easy to police by simply making a claiming rule - you lose to somebody with the same car, you can swap ECU&#39;s with them (or buy one to swap!). Why are we not learning from other motorsports? We keep looking at our own navels, yet other forms (e.g. sportsman type roundy round stuff) have figured out these things before and we could learn from them.
[/b]

We ARE looking at our own navels, because our navels are different....

WE race a hundred different engines...and ECU combos. Even if we specified a mandatory ECU, even claiming an ECU would be rather pointless, as each engine has it&#39;s own tune. The ECU is only a part of the picture.



Jake, You are rightfully proud of your work on the Advisory Committee and the conclusions it reached but you are wrong to dismiss peoples comments and experience on this issue voice here. You also in the wrong if you don&#39;t acknowledge that there are more concerns about this rule change then the letters you received led you to believe.

I guess that I too am in the wrong by not voicing an opinion BASED ON EXPERIENCE when you asked for comments previously in Fastrack.

The issue here however is not how much a Bosh D-Jetronics fuel injection system will benefit. It is rules creep. Improved Touring is slowly turning into Production. But the rate of changes seems to be speeding up recently.

Charlie [/b]

Fogive me if I appear to be dismissing peoples comments, but what I&#39;m really trying to do is get people to prove their points. I really want to either understand the mechanics of the comments, or clear up mis conceptions.

Remember, this particular rule is merely an adjustment of a previous rules change that has been on the books for years. If people had problems with THAT change, (to my eyes, THAT was the REAL rules creep), then they should have spoken up, as we offered the return to chips as an option, and it was vastly unpopular.

[dickita15]

Dick, reread the rule, and, then tell me HOW, exactly, you will increase the performance.
[/b]
two new sensors can be added \




3. Only two new sensors can be added (TPS and MAP), so this doesn&#39;t add any functionality that wasn&#39;t available to much of the catagory already. [/b]

so does that mean performance potential increases for some of the ecu cars but not others?

i know I know little about ecu tuning but more allowances usually meas more performance

[zchris]

How about a 5% weight penalty for non stock ECU&#39;s. Anyone with the burning desire to spend the money on the open ECU will be slowed down an equal amount to what they might gain. That should end the problem of the wealthy outspending to win. And those IT guys that want more will sell there car and move to another class instead of getting on the ITAC and changing the rules to suit there needs. Remember, IT is the entry level class of the SCCA. These same poeple will next be asking for wings and ground effects, and hell, why not turbos while were at it. :bash_1_:
Chris Howard

[tnord]

Remember, this particular rule is merely an adjustment of a previous rules change that has been on the books for years. If people had problems with THAT change, (to my eyes, THAT was the REAL rules creep), then they should have spoken up, as we offered the return to chips as an option, and it was vastly unpopular.
[/b]

this was pretty much the argument in my letter exactly iirc.

using rules creep to justify further allowances..... :rolleyes:

[JeffYoung]

Guys, the way I see it, this door was opened a long time ago. We&#39;ve basically had free ECUs for a long time now. I see this change as one that simply makes it easier for everyone to take advantage of the rule.

I don&#39;t see anyway to go back to where we were -- stock chips (and before my time) and based on the member input received it seems like no on wants that anyway.

[dj10]

How about a 5% weight penalty for non stock ECU&#39;s. Anyone with the burning desire to spend the money on the open ECU will be slowed down an equal amount to what they might gain. That should end the problem of the wealthy outspending to win. And those IT guys that want more will sell there car and move to another class instead of getting on the ITAC and changing the rules to suit there needs. Remember, IT is the entry level class of the SCCA. These same poeple will next be asking for wings and ground effects, and hell, why not turbos while were at it. :bash_1_:
Chris Howard [/b]



From the beginning of racing people have and will always will complain about someone spending more money than themselves to have a racing advantage, Do you complain when someone out spends you on a better diff, suspension, tires, brakes, etc. etc? Someone still has to dive what ever they build or have built! I&#39;m not wealthy, I just play the cards that are dealt to me and so should you. Put away the tourches and pitch forks. :D

[JoshS]

this was pretty much the argument in my letter exactly iirc.

using rules creep to justify further allowances..... :rolleyes:
[/b]
Your letter was excellent.

Let&#39;s just be clear -- the ITAC didn&#39;t use the previous creep to justify further allowances. The #1 thing that justified further allowances (which, BTW, aren&#39;t believed to be significant -- they just make these existing allowances more accessible) was the dramatic preference for this option from the membership.

[lateapex911]

....And those IT guys that want more will sell there car and move to another class instead of getting on the ITAC and changing the rules to suit there needs. Remember, IT is the entry level class of the SCCA. These same poeple will next be asking for wings and ground effects, and hell, why not turbos while were at it. :bash_1_:
Chris Howard [/b]

Chris, since I&#39;m one of two ITACers currently responding to this thread, I hope you&#39;re not suggesting by your insinuation, that we have changed the rules for personal gain.

First-
Personally, it&#39;s ludicrous that I would, as I race the much maligned ITA RX-7, a car thats total computational power is quadrupled when you tape a stopwatch to the steering wheel! IF this rules change were to affect parity, I, more than anyone, should be screaming bloody murder!

And I&#39;ll let Josh speak for himself, but I think you&#39;d be surprised if you were privy to the con call conversations.

Secondly, there are NINE guys on the ITAC...personal agendas don&#39;t fly. Period.

Third, our work, and discussions, are overseen by the CRB, and the CRB decides to further our suggestions to the BoD, or to deny them.

I seriously hope your writing was poorly crafted, and you aren&#39;t making accustations such as the one I read.

[Ron Earp]

I&#39;ll openly admit I favor the new rule. Darin made a statement many pages back indicating that the Wolf, Megasquirt, etc. won&#39;t compete with a Motec. However, with many of the fuel injection front running SE cars running Motec the precedent is set for aftermarket ECUs. At least opening the rule will allow ease of integration of aftermarket ECU (whatever you choose) without resorting to the smallest packaging or working around the OEM box requirement.

I&#39;d have to agree that the initial rule was poorly written and resulted in some unintended consequences. However, that is water under the bridge. People are using Motecs and other systems now and having a harder time doing it (read spent more money) than they would if the ECU rule were relaxed. All of us are interested in spending less money to get the same result, at least I thought we were.

Others have brought up ITR and more modern ECUs. I think you&#39;ll have to have a stand alone option to deal with some of the pitfalls of OBDI and OBDII in a race enviroment.

Ron

[Eric Parham]

I&#39;m 100% for the new rule, and I can&#39;t even benefit since both my old car and half-built new car are limited by non-electronic CIS injectors. The new rule levels the playing field for all of the EFI cars while allowing the addition of the two simple sensors in order to permit the most inexpensive solutions (e.g., Mega-squirt). The new rule also makes it much easier to run a newer car that would otherwise go into limp mode just from the required (not just allowed) mods. It&#39;s good for the class, but there&#39;s no good reason to make the switch on a well-running IT car just because it&#39;s allowed. The cars that will need it are the newer cars with OBD issues. The cars that will benefit on a real HP/$ basis are probably just the ones with variable valve timing (VVT), which will mainly be in ITR. The sky is not falling for ITC, ITB, ITA or even ITS. In fact, my forcast is that it&#39;s going to be a beautiful year :) Good work!

[Knestis]

...And those IT guys that want more will sell there car and move to another class instead of getting on the ITAC and changing the rules to suit there needs. ... Chris Howard [/b]
Jake was too polite: This is WAY out of line, Chris. The ITAC guys work too hard for the health of YOUR category for you to make an accusation like that - even a backhanded one. And do everyone a favor and get over the "poor me, getting outspent by all the big mean IT racers with programmable ECUs." At the end of the day, money buys speed in any kind of racing.

K

[tnord]

It&#39;s good for the class, but there&#39;s no good reason to make the switch on a well-running IT car just because it&#39;s allowed. The cars that will need it are the newer cars with OBD issues. The cars that will benefit on a real HP/$ basis are probably just the ones with variable valve timing (VVT), which will mainly be in ITR. The sky is not falling for ITC, ITB, ITA or even ITS. In fact, my forcast is that it&#39;s going to be a beautiful year :) Good work!
[/b]

really? you don&#39;t think people are willing to spend a couple grand for 5-10hp? i&#39;m pretty sure they are....i&#39;m pretty sure i would do that before spending a couple g&#39;s for .40 overs and port work. 5-10hp is a pretty standard gain for cars without any sort of variable valve timing....well, that would be my educated guess at least.

[zchris]

To both K and Jake. All I am saying is the rules creep by over zealous ITAC members is creating a non entry level group out of IT. In the long run they(ITAC) are doing more harm than good to bring in new members(my opinion). Now to build a competitive car I will also have to buy a Motec, something exclusively reserved for the dummies in PROD and GT. And yes I am both a GT and PROD driver. Also a SM driver, but I don&#39;t usually admit to that. I have never driven an IT car but installed hundreds of cages. I don&#39;t build many IT cars anymore. Makes me wonder about its future. I would have to admit when asked I tell poeple to start in SM as rules creep is so out of hand in IT. For sure GT and PROD are in that same boat. I am just concerned about the overall health of the club. And as I also like to recognize the good the ITAC does, they did a great job with the reclass or process classing of cars. If that process can be brought into PROD and GT, that would be great.
Chris Howard

[JeffYoung]

and of course, in SM, costs are in control, and there is no rules creep....not trying to be a smart ass, but I would say that:

1. $8k Sunbelt/Rebello/Race Engineering motors in SM is not a good sign.

2. The $2k clutches in SM was not a good trend (fixed, I understand).

3. The threads about the legality of what you GET for $8k for your motor was not a good sign.

Etc., etc., etc.

Honestly, given the car counts in IT I&#39;ve seen this year, I&#39;d tell a new racer to start with an ITA or B car. Hell, you can run decently to start with in a $5 to $10k ITS RX7 or Z car.

There have been rules changes in IT for sure since I started racing in 2003, but I still think the basic things that make IT, IT, have not changed:

1. No real modifications to motor or intake system.

2. Suspension must remain stock with bushings, springs and shocks/struts free.

4. Brakes remain stock, with pads (define pad! lol) free.

5. Body remains stock.

Pretty simple minded I know, but to me those are the core values of IT that make IT what it is, and have not been touched in the lasted round of rule modification.

I do think a cooling off period where we let the changes that have been made sink in for a few years is a good idea to evaluate them, and see where things stand.

[BlueStreak]

ITAC did exactly what its membership asked it to do. What more do you expect?

I&#39;m in a CIS car, so "in the box" or not means zip to me. I don&#39;t see this change having any impact on the finishing order in any event that I will be running.

I do have to wonder how many of the supportive letters came from people sponsored by dyno owners :lol:

If it opens up some chasm someone didn&#39;t forsee, there will be enough screaming that it will get changed back to the "in the box" rule or ????

I, for one, appreciate the efforts being made by ITAC.

If you&#39;re all freaked out over this to the point that you decide you are going to drop another 10k in your budget to stay up front, perhaps you might better serve your racing aspirations by selling everything and purchasing a part time ride in a "pro" series for a bit.

Eddie

[GKR_17]

Now to build a competitive car I will also have to buy a Motec... ...I have never driven an IT car[/b]

That is no different now than with the old rule. The top cars had Motec already, now you have more options to accomplish the same result, if you were to run an IT car that is...

[Joe Harlan]

To both K and Jake. All I am saying is the rules creep by over zealous ITAC members is creating a non entry level group out of IT. In the long run they(ITAC) are doing more harm than good to bring in new members(my opinion). Now to build a competitive car I will also have to buy a Motec, something exclusively reserved for the dummies in PROD and GT. And yes I am both a GT and PROD driver. Also a SM driver, but I don&#39;t usually admit to that. I have never driven an IT car but installed hundreds of cages. I don&#39;t build many IT cars anymore. Makes me wonder about its future. I would have to admit when asked I tell poeple to start in SM as rules creep is so out of hand in IT. For sure GT and PROD are in that same boat. I am just concerned about the overall health of the club. And as I also like to recognize the good the ITAC does, they did a great job with the reclass or process classing of cars. If that process can be brought into PROD and GT, that would be great.
Chris Howard
[/b]


Chris, I knew what you were saying and completely agree. I have fought hard to keep IT an entry level class for years. I believe that the fight is lost and it is lost to a few misguided folks that would rather let it get out of hand than to admit they are wrong. My money says the next push will be National status and then all hell will break loose when it comes to money spending. Too bad it will actually be like this and in the end I guess Knestis was right when he warned us that touching anything would unlitimatley break it but we charged on with a good process to balance things and didn&#39;t listen. K, you can think what you want about the uglyness of some of the players here but the fact is IT used to be a good class for everyone. I will continue to fight this deal but I am doing it from the top now. And fianlly Josh S. I am amazed that you can even defend this. After watching rules creep cause touring to be unaffordable in both money and time for the average competitor you went IT racing instead. I really could care less about the added money as much as I care about the added time it adds to a build for the average racer and those are the ones we loose when mid-pack becomes a couple laps down rather than just a straight away. Hope you guys have a plan to fix it once the number hit the toilet.



That is no different now than with the old rule. The top cars had Motec already, now you have more options to accomplish the same result, if you were to run an IT car that is...
[/b]

SO further F&#39;in up a F&#39;ed up rule is the right thing to do? Please don&#39;t try to justify this change because a screwed up rule was written years ago. I don&#39;t care what the percentage of the drivers that wrote in said. Sometimes you have to tell the kids NO ITS NOT GOOD FOR YOU. This was and is not part of the IT philosphy period.

[trhoppe]

I&#39;m 100% for the new rule, and I can&#39;t even benefit since both my old car and half-built new car are limited by non-electronic CIS injectors. The new rule levels the playing field for all of the EFI cars while allowing the addition of the two simple sensors in order to permit the most inexpensive solutions (e.g., Mega-squirt). The new rule also makes it much easier to run a newer car that would otherwise go into limp mode just from the required (not just allowed) mods. It&#39;s good for the class, but there&#39;s no good reason to make the switch on a well-running IT car just because it&#39;s allowed. The cars that will need it are the newer cars with OBD issues.[/b]

Nicely said! This just lets everyone spend LESS to get where some people are right now.

-Tom

[tnord]

and of course, in SM, costs are in control, and there is no rules creep....not trying to be a smart ass, but I would say that:

1. $8k Sunbelt/Rebello/Race Engineering motors in SM is not a good sign.
[/b]

costs are basically peaked at 30k at least. for a comparable IT build, you&#39;d be in another 10k by my estimation. and btw, SM motors are more like 6-7k depending on where you get it and what year you&#39;re buying.



2. The $2k clutches in SM was not a good trend (fixed, I understand).
[/b]

you mean the $1200 clutches that are perfectly legal for IT?



3. The threads about the legality of what you GET for $8k for your motor was not a good sign.
[/b]

this isn&#39;t completely rumor and speculation, but i can&#39;t do much to substantiate this claim either, but i think the vast majority of the cheater stuff was coming from one builder in particular. people have for the most part figured this out now.



Honestly, given the car counts in IT I&#39;ve seen this year, I&#39;d tell a new racer to start with an ITA or B car. Hell, you can run decently to start with in a $5 to $10k ITS RX7 or Z car.
[/b]

if you&#39;re a great driver yeah, you can be respectable in a $10,000 IT car. but there&#39;s some underlying reasons for this...

1) you might be in a division without much competition
2) the others in your region still have a long way to go on car prep and/or driver

make no mistake about it, a $30,000 ITA car driven decently will destroy a $10,000 ITA car driven quite well. by opening up the ECU rule and making it more accessible, the avg prep level of IT cars just went up, making it more expensive to maintain the current finishing position for all but those who have already spent the coin on a standalone-in-stock-housing.

[JeffYoung]

Travis, at least here in the SEDiv where SM is very competitive, I sense more frustration among SM drivers than the IT crowd. We (teh IT crowd) are pretty happy with the state of things. We&#39;ve got big fields, good competition, and the Speedsources/Bimmerworlds/Sunbelts have checked out, for now at least. Not to knock them, but they did some good things.

But right now, I would say you don&#39;t need a pro built car or huge dollars to run up front in ITS or A. A well built car with some hard work on your part will get you there.

I don&#39;t think that is true in SM right now here in the SE. You must have a pro set up and pro powered car to finish up front. And you have to be part of the clique that gets the best motors and parts. Weird, but true I think.

For me anyway, the changes the ITAC have made to IT have resulted in immediate improvements in car counts and compeittion in my class. So, I guess I am biased in that regard, but right now ITS in the SEDiv is a hell of a lot of fun.

[Knestis]

To both K and Jake. All I am saying is the rules creep by over zealous ITAC members is creating a non entry level group out of IT. In the long run they(ITAC) are doing more harm than good to bring in new members(my opinion). Now to build a competitive car I will also have to buy a Motec, something exclusively reserved for the dummies in PROD and GT. ...[/b]
Hey, I&#39;ve spent decades - literally - being the anti-creep poster boy but I&#39;m better now. :)

I loved the old days of IT, when we could put springs and bars on an SS car, drive it to the track, and be competitive. But those days are long gone. And NOT because rules have opened up. That&#39;s flawed cause-and-effect logic. In fact, budget doesn&#39;t drive competitiveness - it&#39;s more like the other way &#39;round.

If the fastest ITB cars in Division A can stay up front on junkyard engines, open diffs, and 10 heat-cycle tires, there&#39;s little motivation for them to step up their game. That&#39;s how it was in my "old days," when racing in the Pacific NW. Fields weren&#39;t very deep so we didn&#39;t have to stretch very hard. You can find conversations here where this same issue gets played out (e.g., "My ITA car gets beat by those mean old Spec Miatas, so we need to slow them down"). On the other hand, if someone spends the coin necessary to buy new tires, dyno tuning time, really good shocks, driver coaching, and testing time, then they are likely going to win. They DESERVE to win.

What causes budget creep - what Chris and others are ACTUALLY PO&#39;d about, not rules creep - is the perfect storm of a well-subscribed competitive championship and a some entrants willing to spend to keep up with one-another.

IT is still just as entry level as it has always been - unless one wishes to enter the game into the pointy part of the grid. There is nothing keeping someone from building "old school" and getting out there. In fact a large proportion of the average IT grid falls into that category. I buy $80 clutch disks and use stock pressure plates, when I could easily spend a grand to go a little faster. My budget is determined by what I want to spend to reach my goals but the two have to be in line. I know that the driver (me) injects more inconsistency in lap times than the next $5000 would buy, so I am smart enough to not open my checkbook.

If someone want to be able to be competitive without spending to buy all of the advantages that another someone up there is willing to pay for, it&#39;s no longer about IT being "entry level" - it&#39;s about wanting to be a winner without stepping up to make it happen.

And (for the bazillionth time), this new allowance doesn&#39;t give us anything that we don&#39;t essentially already have. It just gives it to more people for less money. I am now more likely to commit to a really tuneable option to replace my $90 off-the-shelf chip, because I can do it for less dough and have more control over my destiny than was the case under the old rule.

K

[tnord]

Travis, at least here in the SEDiv where SM is very competitive, I sense more frustration among SM drivers than the IT crowd. We (teh IT crowd) are pretty happy with the state of things. We&#39;ve got big fields, good competition, and the Speedsources/Bimmerworlds/Sunbelts have checked out, for now at least. Not to knock them, but they did some good things.

But right now, I would say you don&#39;t need a pro built car or huge dollars to run up front in ITS or A. A well built car with some hard work on your part will get you there.

I don&#39;t think that is true in SM right now here in the SE. You must have a pro set up and pro powered car to finish up front. And you have to be part of the clique that gets the best motors and parts. Weird, but true I think.

For me anyway, the changes the ITAC have made to IT have resulted in immediate improvements in car counts and compeittion in my class. So, I guess I am biased in that regard, but right now ITS in the SEDiv is a hell of a lot of fun.
[/b]

Jeff, am i reading this right? are you saying that SE IT cars aren&#39;t really running pro motors anymore and are willingly leaving power on the table? this would go a ways to explain why many of the SM guys can beat on up a good chunk of IT cars.

same is true in MiDiv. if you want to beat Stretch/Drago/Reynolds/James/Daniels/etc....yeah, you better bring a big weapon. and same as in the SE, just writing the check to the builders doesn&#39;t mean you&#39;re going to get the same power as the &#39;in&#39; crowd.

what you&#39;re describing to me sounds just like SM was THE YEAR BEFORE IT WENT NATIONAL. maybe i&#39;ve been ruined hanging around SM for 4 years now, and that my assumption of how many people will take advantage of the ECU allowances are too high. but to let this ECU thread overlap into the national discussion, you can bet the last dollar of your 401k that if you guys let IT go national, you absolutely will have to spend the thousands on ECU upgrades to compete.

[JeffYoung]

Uh, no, still pro motors in IT (although I don&#39;t have one...lol). It&#39;s just that instead of people buying $40 and $50k ITS cars turnkey, most folks are building their own stuff with a pro motor of some sort (either pro motor with their ecu work, or some combination of parts). But the true "Bimmerworld" or "Sunbelt" ITS cars are gone.

SM has not changed here even with the advent of SM national racing. There are 4-5 guys who run on the regional level, and you have to have a certain plate full of parts to get to that part of the field. The other 20-25 guys don&#39;t have a chance.

EDIT -- for what it is worth, I am opposed to IT going national. That is another element of "ITness" that I don&#39;t think should be touched.

[SPiFF]

:happy204: :happy204: :happy204:

YAY!!! A little further then I thought the IT long beards would take it, but it is about time the ECU rules got cleaned up!

For me, OBD2 Honda, this saves me money. The best part is now the rules are even for all (ECU-ed) cars. This will also make it possible for future cars which will need ECUs to be replaced in to order to race them with all the "safety" stuff on new cars.

[Renaultfool]

I believe that the ITAC did a great job on this rule!
It will allow for a lot of new cars to join the IT ranks.
Lets remember guys, they don&#39;t make Pintos and Rabbits anymore. The rules written when these were the main cars in IT just don&#39;t address the needs of the more modern car with it&#39;s more sophisticated electronics.
There are many less expensive ways to correct the mixture and timing on many current cars that were not allowed by the old rules, or made prohibitively expensive by the old rules.
Sounds to me like the "Haves" just don&#39;t want us poor riffraff with our junk yard conversions up there racing with their $40,000 toys. Too bad, more competitive cars make for more fun at the track.
I for one will still run my stock ECU with a couple resistors in the temp circuits. Good enough for me.
Carl "The Renaultfool"

[lateapex911]

And (for the bazillionth time), this new allowance doesn&#39;t give us anything that we don&#39;t essentially already have. It just gives it to more people for less money. I am now more likely to commit to a really tuneable option to replace my $90 off-the-shelf chip, because I can do it for less dough and have more control over my destiny than was the case under the old rule.

K [/b]

This...this exact quote, is, in my eyes, the intent of the new wording.

Kirk has nicely summed up here what drives cost (time, money, or a combination of both) up: Popularity. If nobody really cares to go as fast as possible, the costs reflect that. As soon as two people with the resources decide that THIS class is worth winning on a large scale, kiss bargain basement racing goodby. No rule, in multi marque racing, can effectively police spending, but this one will help to offer less expensive options, and does so without moving the performance target.

[dj10]

How long will this take for the BOD to approve or turn down this rule? Do the wait until the last minute (12/31/07)? Just wondering.

[BlueStreak]

Lets remember guys, they don&#39;t make Pintos and Rabbits anymore.
[/b]


Actually:
http://www.vw.com/rabbit/en/us/

But I do get, and even as a rabbit driver, agree, with your point.

[AntonioGG]

If the status quo wasn&#39;t acceptable by most people (and I agree it seemed to be the worst out of the 3 choices), why weren&#39;t the choices to go back to stock ECU w/ reflash or full open? That would have been more interesting to see.

As an outsider sitting in the bleachers a few rows behind Travis, I agree with his viewpoint completely.

Furthermore, I&#39;m trying to understand the rationale behind some "allowances" (such as allowing stuffing an ECU into the stock box because the stock ECU has a speed limiter, or limp mode, etc.) when for some others, the answer is always tough nuts if the car has some handicap that puts it at a disadvantage compared to other cars.

Do you guys know what I think? Look at the cage rules, fire system rules, and now ECU rules...I smell a big realignment of all the classes coming our way. I don&#39;t think it&#39;s a bad thing either. Pardon me the use of a cliche, but to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs. :D

[shwah]

Antonio,

I think that the items you mention will make it easier to create a logical development path through different prep levels/classes, without an earth shattering realignment.

[seckerich]

"Furthermore, I&#39;m trying to understand the rationale behind some "allowances" (such as allowing stuffing an ECU into the stock box because the stock ECU has a speed limiter, or limp mode, etc.) when for some others, the answer is always tough nuts if the car has some handicap that puts it at a disadvantage compared to other cars."



Do you really believe a car classed in IT should have a rev limiter? Do you also believe it should go into limp mode after sensors that are mandated to be removed make it undrivable. Think about your statement for a minute--sound stupid yet?? :rolleyes: This has nothing to do with "the car you decide to race" if it can not be made to run under the rules. Somehow we got alternate carbs in the early days of IT for some cars--wonder why?? The stock unit was unable to be tuned. See anything similar yet.

I still think the rule needs some rewording to severely limit the "new wiring" to the allowed sensors. That will be the next big snafu. Needs to state that the stock harness must remain unaltered except to replace connectors and the wires to the map and tps must be seperate and serve no other purpose.

[gran racing]

I did the smart thing and decided not to begin reading this thread until I got back to work from vacation. LOL!

Unfortunately I do not feel that moving back to all stock ECUs is feasible, or even best for the category in the long-term. The existing “stuff what you can into the OEM box” has so many flaws to it. There have been several comments made throughout the course of this thread, which I simply don’t agree with and make me wonder if they are just reactions. One argument is that it changes the performance envelope. As a few have stated, these modifications are already possible for people that have the funds. This rule change makes it more attainable for people that do not have the money to go out and buy MoTec or other similar units.


I have fought hard to keep IT an entry level class for years. I believe that the fight is lost...[/b]

This rule is what makes you think that IT is no longer an entry level class? Really??? What truly makes IT an entry level class is that people can easily go purchase a safe and reliable racecar for under $5,000, then go out on the track and have fun racing. Heck, this Spring a friend and I purchased a fairly new trailer with a nice ex-SSC Neon for $2,000 total that could run somewhere near the middle of an ITA field. Now I realize this is not the norm, but getting into IT certainly is entry level with or without the ECU rule change.


I really could care less about the added money as much as I care about the added time it adds to a build for the average racer and those are the ones we loose when mid-pack becomes a couple laps down rather than just a straight away.[/b]

Well, if a person is mid-pack, won’t they still have 1/2 of the field to play with even if they are further back from the leaders? I can next hear someone saying they’d lose track time, but that wouldn’t be the case because if the leaders are finishing races faster, regions would in-turn increase the race lengths. I do not believe the average person needs to add ECU work into their build process just because it would become more accessable.

I am curious to hear what your definition of the “average racer” is, especially since many people probably have different perceptions. Related to that, what level of a car build do you think these people complete?

------------
Many posts ago, Jake mentioned an aspect that plays a vital role in IT - diminishing returns. This is such an important factor. This also ties directly into what Kirk said about directing resources to various areas.

[tnord]

Do you really believe a car classed in IT should have a rev limiter? Do you also believe it should go into limp mode after sensors that are mandated to be removed make it undrivable.
[/b]

which can be overcome with a true chip/reflash/daughterboard allowance (and btw, THIS was the original intent of the current rule). no need for completely open ECU rules.

[benspeed]

I believe this rule change is appropriate. Without programmability it is very difficult to try and tune a car for optimal performance. The guys with the big bucks are already spending to do this and had to comply with the old rule and burning up extra dollars uneccesarily. Now more people can take a shot at enhancing performance and it gives the mechi-nerds more stuff to play with on their cars.

Somebody else already said it - this new open ECU rule will allow more racers on smaller budgets the CHOICE to upgrade their ECUs and achieve modest gains that before were much more costly. This in many regards levels the playing field in favor of the less well healed.

The new rule will allow folks to better understand what their cars are doing. We predict there will be many folks in the same competing classes helping out each other on what is the best program to run and what to adjust based on the weather, temp and other factors. Some folks will bitch that its yet another thing to worry about and fiddle with on race day. That would be me - but I will still do it because I seek every little advantage I can get.

We have huge sympathy for the E46 guys up here in the NE - cannot imagine what they spent on fighting the OBDII stuff that this rule likely fixes immediately.

Cars are newer - rules must keep pace.

PS - the important rule change was really about the Fiero being put on the same spec line as the &#39;88 year car - now I get ventilated brakes and better suspension B)

[charrbq]

Whether it was the intent of the ITAC, the CRB, the OIC, or whoever, the changes recommended will help enable the newer, higher classed IT cars to go national. That is the desire of more than one ITAC member, so I&#39;ve been told. It&#39;s not going to boost production car numbers. As it is, the SCCA would like to get rid of production and lower classed GT cars. The idea behind the motivation is to get national racing to be more current model cars. Then they can make use of manufacturer&#39;s money as was done in the Trans Am series. As it is, the SCCA has no real stake in any pro racing anymore. It&#39;s name is mentioned in the paper work, but only as much as needed.

Those of us in ITB and ITC will soon join ranks with GTL, F.G, and HP in a regional only series, while those in the newer classes will spend their buns off going national racing. I wish them luck. See you in retirement.

[JoshS]

If the status quo wasn&#39;t acceptable by most people (and I agree it seemed to be the worst out of the 3 choices), why weren&#39;t the choices to go back to stock ECU w/ reflash or full open? That would have been more interesting to see.[/b]

Those were the choices ... and it was interesting.

[ScotMac]

PS - the important rule change was really about the Fiero being put on the same spec line as the &#39;88 year car - now I get ventilated brakes and better suspension B)
[/b]

And i get Holley TBI???

[planet6racing]

Wow! I&#39;ve never seen so many conspiracy theories compressed into one thread on IT.com before! Not even Mattberg&#39;s threads have had this many!!!

So, the ITAC did what the input they received requested, and now others are up in arms. Let me guess, these same people didn&#39;t vote in the last election and are now calling for the recall/removal/impeachment of an official, right?

The ITAC is doing a great job. I&#39;m really surprised they still even post here, given all the accusations about personal agendas (and others) that are made.

How many people really think this is going to change (significantly) where they finish over the next 2 years? 5 years?

And, when did you all stop having fun racing? This is a HOBBY, remember?

[charrbq]

Bill,
You owe everyone a beer for mentioning the name of the troll. :D

[benspeed]

10-4 on that Bill

Folks sorta fight change and think there are ulterior motives behind it.

PS-Mattberg is marching to his own drum (to be kindly theraputic) - but he isn&#39;t dumb - my bet is he likes this. C&#39;mon Matt, chime in with some vitriol!

[seckerich]

Be very quiet--He is over stirring up S$$T in the Florida ECR thread. Something about Martin Bartlet and Barry Hair and divide and conquer. Who would have guessed. Isn&#39;t he from Washington region this week?? :bash_1_:

[DavidM]

Seems like I was in the minority with my vote of keeping the current rule. Somebody stepped on their johnson when they wrote the current rule so let&#39;s just finish the job apparently. The ITAC says they are recommending this rule because most people seem to want it. Most people seem to want it because they say it&#39;s already possible with the existing rule and this just makes it easier. Therefore, the ITAC is saying they are recommending this rule because it makes what is already possible easier. Not a good enough reason IMO and pretty much the definition of rules creep.

I own a car that almost won the ARRC in 2004 (not with me driving, of course). It has a reflashed stock ECU. Do you think that car would come close to winning next years ARRC without a standalone management system? I doubt it. The only way to find out, though, would be to spend all the money on a stand alone management system and compare the results. They might just be the same as the reflashed ECU, but there&#39;s no way of knowing without spending the money. If you want to win, then you&#39;ll have to spend the money to find out.

A stand-alone management system is going to go beyond most people&#39;s skill level to get running properly. I&#39;m pretty confident I could install one, but there&#39;s no way I could tune it right. I&#39;d blow my motor. Most people will wind up farming this work out to a race shop along with all the dyno time required to get the job done. I could easily see it taking $4-5k to get one installed and working correctly. The race shops will be happy with all the new business.

I think this will go down as one of the worst rule changes. There was a big discussion a long time ago about the "sacred cows" in IT that we shouldn&#39;t touch. The engine was one of them. I guess that doesn&#39;t hold anymore. The day IT has open transmissions (they fit in the same case you know) I put my car up for sale. And yes, I&#39;m being sarcastic - somewhat anyways.

David

PS: Nobody had better say a damn word about washer bottles, wiper stalks, rebuilt wiring harnesses, etc. from here on out.

[77ITA]

It appears that most of my opinions seem to follow the general consensus here, starting with the obvious performance advantage that will be given to late model computer controlled cars over carbureted examples. I currently run an internally modified engine computer (CHEAP off the shelf bolt on performance part) per the current rules and I think it&#39;s safe to say that the addition of a megasquirt, wideband o2 setup, and hours of dyno time would net me some serious extra power across the RPM range and added reliability. Suddenly a large gap is created between myself and the guy with the ITA RX7. I get a new level of preparation, he does not.

I can see why this rule came about... there are currently people spending truck loads of cash to fit fancy computers inside stock housings that integrate with the factory wiring harness. I don&#39;t feel that it&#39;s in the spirit of the rules, but it is legal and more power to those people. At some point, a guy with a small (normal size?) wallet complained and then it was suggested to just open up the rules to anything and everything. I feel that this is a terrible way to deal with the situation and was probably not very well thought through.

For those not very familiar with the gained features and improvements from stand-alone engine management, I would suggest spending some time browsing around at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MegaSquirt (lots of links there)

In the end, this rule will turn IT into a &#39;tuner&#39; class where racers with modern cars will be using laptops and dyno time. I don&#39;t know if this is a bad thing or not... The &#39;up-side&#39; is that the whole "tuner" thing is very hip with the times and more popular with younger people (I&#39;ve never even touched a carburetor!), but on the down side; I can think of a few IT racers that would have trouble setting the clock on their VCR ;)

[JeffYoung]

This is already happening.....

[benspeed]

Yup - newer cars, younger drivers. These tuner guys know more about the electronics than the chassis setup. And who will be the next gen of drivers coming in? These guys. Tuning will make IT very attractive and competitive to other racing organizations by allowing this rule change.

[gran racing]

I own a car that almost won the ARRC in 2004 (not with me driving, of course). It has a reflashed stock ECU. Do you think that car would come close to winning next years ARRC without a standalone management system? I doubt it. The only way to find out, though, would be to spend all the money on a stand alone management system and compare the results.[/b]

The way to actually find out is to enter next year’s ARRC without spending more money on your ECU.


They might just be the same as the reflashed ECU, but there&#39;s no way of knowing without spending the money. If you want to win, then you&#39;ll have to spend the money to find out.[/b]

You stated “(not with me driving, of course)” which leads me to believe that you feel that other person was/is a better driver then you. Serious question here: if that is true, shouldn’t your priority be driver development and not trying to see if there is another magic ECU program that can benefit your car’s performance a bit more? Not that I ever looked into it (alright, so I may have), but Randy Pobst does coaching days for $1,000 and is in the GA area.

Once again, all of this goes back to the diminishing returns in IT. If you want to win, one needs to evaluate what areas are the best places to spend money and time on. I do understand the feeling of “you don’t know until you do it” as I also feel that way with my stock ECU.

There are people out there for whom this will make ECU tuning much more in reach than before. In some ways this is bad (for ME) since others will now take advantage of it. The ITAC has stated that they classify cars based on a full build which includes ECU tuning, yet there are some cars out there that can not take advantage of this without a MoTec or similar system. I know when I looked into this many times for my car, I got the “sure you can do it”. I then say “o.k., what will it cost and how can we proceed?” That’s followed by either no reply or a “well, I thought it would be possible but with the current rules it’s not.” For these situations, with the new rule will it cost the person money or save them money to get the results the ITAC used when classing the car?

I will admit that I have some concerns about the whole tuning the car at the track with a lap top idea. Are there ways to expand upon who is able to tune their ECU while avoiding that? I imagine tuning at the track is already happening, but it just isn&#39;t as prevelant?

[Knestis]

... The ITAC has stated that they classify cars based on a full build which includes ECU tuning, yet there are some cars out there that can not take advantage of this without a MoTec or similar system. ...[/b]
This does bring up a great issue - I SEEM to remember that there have been some fudging adders/subtractors discussed for particular cars, where adjustments might have been made because make/models in question couldn&#39;t get to a "full build" in this respect.

We need to be very sure that there aren&#39;t any of these out there, if/when this change goes into effect.

K

[Gary L]

Edit: Never mind! The adjustable FPR is also covered in another area, so it was a duplicate entry. Thanks, Andy!

[Dave Zaslow]

Could someone please help me understand the full meaning of what the stock &#39;air metering device&#39; is? I assume for most fuel injected cars that is the throttlebody. Are there other interpretations?

DZ

[DavidM]

You stated “(not with me driving, of course)” which leads me to believe that you feel that other person was/is a better driver then you. Serious question here: if that is true, shouldn’t your priority be driver development and not trying to see if there is another magic ECU program that can benefit your car’s performance a bit more? Not that I ever looked into it (alright, so I may have), but Randy Pobst does coaching days for $1,000 and is in the GA area.
[/b]

Am I as good a driver as Bob Stretch? Nope. Not even close. That&#39;s why I haven&#39;t worried about trying to modify the car. Until I can come close to Bob&#39;s lap times then the problem lies behind the wheel, not with the car. That&#39;s one of the big reasons I bought a proven fast car (that and I happen to like 240s). I will not be changing the engine management system any time soon.

Do I hope to be as good as Bob some day? You bet. I hope in a year or two I can be up towards the pointy end of the grid. I&#39;d like to be able to compete for podiums without having to drop $4-5k on a stand alone management system. I don&#39;t think that will be possible if this rule is passed.

The guys with more cubic $$$ are still going to have an advantage. They&#39;ll have individual programs for each track and guys at the track that can program the system based on variations in the track and weather that particular moment in time. They&#39;ll also have advanced data acquisition systems to show how the car is performing on track to determine how to change the programming.

This rule doesn&#39;t "fix" anything. All it does is make it cost $4-5k more to maintain the status quo. The current rule, while less than ideal, is a known quantity. The new rule is going to open up Pandora&#39;s box and who knows where that will lead. If the intent is to up the technology factor and cost in IT then it will sure do that. If the intent is to fix some perceived inequity then I think it will fall short.

David

[lateapex911]

I own a car that almost won the ARRC in 2004 (not with me driving, of course). It has a reflashed stock ECU. Do you think that car would come close to winning next years ARRC without a standalone management system? I doubt it. The only way to find out, though, would be to spend all the money on a stand alone management system and compare the results. They might just be the same as the reflashed ECU, but there&#39;s no way of knowing without spending the money. If you want to win, then you&#39;ll have to spend the money to find out.

. [/b]

Dave gran really hit the nail on the head with his response, but I&#39;d like to specifically point out that assuming you will never know until you do a full ECu isn&#39;t entirely the case.

Go to a dyno, and fully instrument the car, and look at the results. You&#39;ll see if there are issues with mixture, for example, right away. As I stated earlier, in my research on this, I found cars that run very very well with their stock/slightly modded setups. And one of those guys, who&#39;s at the very pointy end of the field, has little interest in "Really finding out"...he&#39;s smart enough to know already.

Ask any dyno owner what he sees as clients, and I bet many will tell you they see lots of laptops. Do they see a blown motor from time to time? Of course, but thats no different than setting a car up lean with a screwdriver, or adding a degree too much timing...ot&#39;s just done with a mouse, instead of a wrench.

David, again, this is a big picture deal. It&#39;s optional....nobody&#39;s forcing anyone to spend the money. It&#39;s up to each individual to sit down and self critique. "Whats wrong with me? Is it my prep? My driving? My chassis setup? Or is it my car? My power level?" And, "I am X.XX seconds off the pace. Where is that time coming from?? The corners? The straights? " Only then can you start to draw conclusions, like: "If I spend X$$$ on the chassis, will I gain those X.XX seconds? Or the motor, is that where I am losing all the time?"

Invariably, the answer is spread across all categories, and the smart people look for the biggest gains for the least costs, and leave the incremental and minor things to the end.

[Bill Miller]

Could someone please help me understand the full meaning of what the stock &#39;air metering device&#39; is? I assume for most fuel injected cars that is the throttlebody. Are there other interpretations?

DZ
[/b]

That&#39;s the way I understand it Dave. It sure isn&#39;t the flapper valve in a CIS system. That&#39;s actually an air measuring device, as it measures the amount of air entering the engine through the air metering device (by means of deflection), and adjusts fuel flow accordingly.

[JoshS]

It means air measuring device. The rule means definition #1. The throttle would, I suppose, fit definition #2. From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: me·ter
Function: transitive verb
1 : to measure by means of a meter
2 : to supply in a measured or regulated amount
3 : to print postal indicia on by means of a postage meter

[gran racing]

I have to say, watching the Greg Amy dyno day with an expert ECU tuner there was very, very interesting. I was amazed at just how good the stock ECU did.


I don&#39;t think that will be possible if this rule is passed.[/b]
I just don&#39;t buy into this, although I kinda hear where you&#39;re coming from.


The guys with more cubic $$$ are still going to have an advantage.[/b]

This is true, but&#39;s regardless of this ECU rule. I&#39;ve heard my fair share of one race engines in IT, new autocross tires for each qual. session then new tires for each race, and the list goes on. I am all for doing things to limit the return on people spending big money on IT cars. I could be wrong, but I still think this ECU rule will actually help those of us with smaller budgets. Would I consider spending $1K on ECU/engine tuning this winter if this goes through? Maybe. At the same time if I don&#39;t, I do not believe this is what is keeping me from holding a flag at the end of the day. Sure, maybe I (we?) need to work harder and become a better driver than the other person, but so be it.

Figured I should put a break so you don&#39;t think I&#39;m directing my next comments at you David.

Today, more cars than ever are competitive in each class. I no longer feel like WE are going to get the "not guaranteed to be competitive" crap answer - things will be looked at and listened to. I also honestly believe if people here who feel this is a dumas idea provide real reasons why that&#39;s the case (and not just how it impacts you personally), it will also be listened to.

[Lael Cleland]

3 is good. ITM new class, UPS TRUCKS the big brown trucks :birra: !!

[Bill Miller]

It means air measuring device. The rule means definition #1. The throttle would, I suppose, fit definition #2. From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: me·ter
Function: transitive verb
1 : to measure by means of a meter
2 : to supply in a measured or regulated amount
3 : to print postal indicia on by means of a postage meter
[/b]


Well, a CIS flapper is a fuel metering device. And since they so nicely include metering devices in the definition of sensors, and other sensors can be replaced with equivalent (which I would take to mean &#39;performs the same function&#39;), I guess you can replace the CIS flapper w/ some other type of fuel metering device.

[lateapex911]

. I also honestly believe if people here who feel this is a dumas idea provide real reasons why that&#39;s the case (and not just how it impacts you personally), it will also be listened to. [/b]

Thats what I&#39;ve been saying! But I keep hearing crickets.... ;)

[Joe Harlan]

Well, a CIS flapper is a fuel metering device. And since they so nicely include metering devices in the definition of sensors, and other sensors can be replaced with equivalent (which I would take to mean &#39;performs the same function&#39;), I guess you can replace the CIS flapper w/ some other type of fuel metering device.
[/b]

Dave, The arguments have been presented for almost a year now. Some of us are just tired. This rule only effects me in that I will make a lot of money from it. (yet I choose to fight against it) Once you take the proceeds from your book and you buy a pro motor with a full Sequential direct injection 3d EFI system and your making more HP than your car was ever considered to make in the current process. You can then tell me it was a fair and good idea that won&#39;t hurt the entry level status of the classes we are effecting. The ITAC and the CRB had a chance to do the right thing and stuff the genie back in the bottle where it should be but instead went ahead and dumped the whole can-o-worms on the table.

Jake the only reason you hear crickets is cause you don&#39;t want to listen to anyone with a different opinion than yours.

[solo914]

Hey guys,
I have been on this board lurking for a few years but just recently made the jump into ITA with a Miata. I have been a Solo competitor for 9 years and over that time had many great conversations about ECUs with Solo BOD, SAC(Stock AC) and STAC(Street Touring AC). members. I have heard them mention many of same arguments that I have heard hear that are for and against opening up ECUs and recently they have been making a huge push to determine how the want to shape the ECU rules in all of their classes. The single biggest issue that I have heard mentioned by them and not on this board is POLICING.

Even if I did agree that the rules should have left the ECU as completely STOCK I can see now that there are cars being manufactured today that allow you to make all the adjustments you want to the STOCK ecu, very cheaply without any visable/physical change. We are talking about hidden maps within the stock ecu. Policing this would be a nightmare.

I see the current rule as a compromise where they are basically saying "Hey, we know that it is possible for you guys to do this without us knowing, so go ahead and do it, but keep it in the stock box)

I don&#39;t see the new rule proposal as rule creep as people are already taking advantage of fully programmable or semi-programmable ecus. Heck, there is someone on this board who looks to have spent thousands and thousands working to manufacture a fully programmable ecu that fits in the stock box of a ITA RX-7. I believe the cost of his kit was going to be north of $1500 which is right in the ballpark of most aftermarket EFI kits.

As for the argument about people spending the $$$ on a complete MOTEC system and gains you can get with area under the curve. Lets not forget that we are talking about semi-stock engines and cars where you cannout mess to much with compression, porting, cams, cam timing etc. If there were any gains at all between MOTEC and any other aftermarket ECU on an IT car it is going to be less then .5%. MOTEC shines as an all inclusive system where you are using it for all your functions: fuel, spark, timing, data acquisition/telemetry, lap timing etc.

Just a humble observation coming from a new competitor.

Kyle

[JeffYoung]

Kyle, good post.

[lateapex911]

Hey guys,
I have been on this board lurking for a few years but just recently made the jump into ITA with a Miata......

I don&#39;t see the new rule proposal as rule creep as people are already taking advantage of fully programmable or semi-programmable ecus. Heck, there is someone on this board who looks to have spent thousands and thousands working to manufacture a fully programmable ecu that fits in the stock box of a ITA RX-7. I believe the cost of his kit was going to be north of $1500 which is right in the ballpark of most aftermarket EFI kits.



Just a humble observation coming from a new competitor.

Kyle [/b]

Kyle welcome to the fray, LOL. Good points. One item though...my ITA RX-7 has NO computer. Adding a stopwatch adds infinite computaional power, LOL. I think the item you are referring to is for the 2nd Gen ITS car, and IIRC it&#39;s going to sell in the $500 range. It&#39;s a great option for those cars, and will make life a lot easier for anyone who takes advantage of it. Sounds like a smoking deal to me.





.... Once you take the proceeds from your book and you buy a pro motor with a full Sequential direct injection 3d EFI system and your making more HP than your car was ever considered to make in the current process. [/b]

Joe, exactly how will Dave go to a direct injection system and remain legal. Please illustrate the method that can be exploited to attain that system that the rules allow. Just curious.

(My understanding of the term direct injection is the industry standard, (Currently being used on certain Audis, etc) I believe, where the injectors fire directly into the combustion chamber, at significantly higher pressure than a conventional injection system which injects into the intake runner, upstream of the valves, and I assume definition is the same.)

[Eagle7]

.... Heck, there is someone on this board who looks to have spent thousands and thousands working to manufacture a fully programmable ecu that fits in the stock box of a ITA RX-7. I believe the cost of his kit was going to be north of $1500 which is right in the ballpark of most aftermarket EFI kits.... [/b]

Thousands and thousands? Pure speculation.

ITA RX-7s don&#39;t have an ECU. ITS RX-7s do.

You&#39;re off by a factor of 3 - $500 cost.

But the point is that it would be cheaper yet without the stock box requirement.

[solo914]

Kyle welcome to the fray, LOL. Good points. One item though...my ITA RX-7 has NO computer. Adding a stopwatch adds infinite computaional power, LOL. I think the item you are referring to is for the 2nd Gen ITS car, and IIRC it&#39;s going to sell in the $500 range. It&#39;s a great option for those cars, and will make life a lot easier for anyone who takes advantage of it. Sounds like a smoking deal to me.
[/b]

Stopwatch, LOL! You are right, ITS RX-7, I knew that. Its pretty amazing that our cell phones today have more computing power then the cars of 10 years ago, heck, some phones have more then then cars of 5 years ago. I also knew there was an ECU being worked on in the $500 range, but I thought there was a more expensive one available right now. You are right though, it is going to be a great option with or without the new rule.

thanks for the welcome!

[Knestis]

...This rule doesn&#39;t "fix" anything. All it does is make it cost $4-5k more to maintain the status quo. ...[/b]

...which is great, because it would cost twice that to accomplish the same thing right now. And it CAN be accomplished under the current rule.

Do you NOT believe that it is possible to engineer ultra-adjustable Motec into some IT cars?

Or do you just think that because it&#39;s massively expensive right now, it&#39;s effectively prohibited?

Or is it just that you think nobody in your class/pond is doing it and want to keep it that way?

Kirk (who&#39;s still waiting for someone to explain what huge advantage the new rule provides that the current one does not)

[solo914]

Thousands and thousands? Pure speculation.

ITA RX-7s don&#39;t have an ECU. ITS RX-7s do.

But the point is that it would be cheaper yet without the stock box requirement.
[/b]

Yep, you are right, I really don&#39;t know what he spent. I do know that I have done a bunch of research for the 1.6 Miata ECU(Very very similar) and if I didn&#39;t do the work myself or have friend do the work at a discount it would probably be up in that range.


Kyle

[Eagle7]

Kirk (who&#39;s still waiting for someone to explain what huge advantage the new rule provides that the current one does not)
[/b]

That rotting engine harness goes in the trash?

[Joe Harlan]

Kyle welcome to the fray, LOL. Good points. One item though...my ITA RX-7 has NO computer. Adding a stopwatch adds infinite computaional power, LOL. I think the item you are referring to is for the 2nd Gen ITS car, and IIRC it&#39;s going to sell in the $500 range. It&#39;s a great option for those cars, and will make life a lot easier for anyone who takes advantage of it. Sounds like a smoking deal to me.
Joe, exactly how will Dave go to a direct injection system and remain legal. Please illustrate the method that can be exploited to attain that system that the rules allow. Just curious.

(My understanding of the term direct injection is the industry standard, (Currently being used on certain Audis, etc) I believe, where the injectors fire directly into the combustion chamber, at significantly higher pressure than a conventional injection system which injects into the intake runner, upstream of the valves, and I assume definition is the same.)
[/b]


Jake you know exactly what I am talking about so don&#39;t play games. sequential port FI and now he has full 3d timing and ignition maps to work with. Truct me there will be big gains in the PGM controlled car he is driving. You need to just step back jake and listen to others rather than trying to shout them down all the time. As far as you and your industry understanding you should stick to an industry you understand.

[RSTPerformance]

With this new rule, where is the limit? What would prevent somone from having a digital laptop type dashboard where they can adjust things while driving, sorta like the indy cars? It still just doesn&#39;t make sence that this entire thing can be left completely open to basically allow us to do whatever we want.

I am not going to pretend to have any knowledge in this area so I can&#39;t give you any technical data to tell you why I don&#39;t like the rule change. All I can say is I am afraid of what it opens up people to be able to do. The rule is scary IMO because it offers ZERO limitation. The justification people have is that it will cost people less to achive the same thing they are doing now... but what else will it allow them to do?

This all sort of reminds me of the remote resevoire shocks/struts... why were those allowed and then soon after removed from the rulebook? Remote resevoires don&#39;t do anything different than a traditional type super expensive shock/strut to they?

Instead of proving why we don&#39;t want the rule change can someone give the reason that we need to make the rule change, if as you claim it doesn&#39;t change anything?


Raymond

[Eagle7]

Jake you know exactly what I am talking about so don&#39;t play games. sequential port FI and now he has full 3d timing and ignition maps to work with. [/b]

Nice sidestep on the direct injection thing. <_<

Joe, I asked this the last time we were kicking this around and didn&#39;t get an answer. Please explain how sequential injection gives a major HP increase when the injectors are open 80% of the time. Not much time for sequencing there.

Question - what is a 3d timing map? Is it more than advance entries in a load vs RPM table? Another variable?




With this new rule, where is the limit? What would prevent somone from having a digital laptop type dashboard where they can adjust things while driving, sorta like the indy cars? [/b]

What would they adjust? The only thing I can think of is mixture, and the only reason I can see is to try to cut power to save fuel.

[planet6racing]

Raymond and Joe:

This has been asked by many, but I&#39;ll try to do it calmly:

What stops anyone from doing any of the things you have pointed out from doing so now?

Example: My Saturn. I could spend the money to shoe horn an ECU into the factory box. A MOTEC will fit. Creating the adaptor to go from the stock wiring plug to the MOTEC is actually fairly easy (just need a donor stock computer). Then Dyno time (yeah, like there is anyone else with a baseline MOTEC program for a Saturn!), at least 1 engine (though I&#39;m a test engineer, the limits do need to be explored), and other assorted stuff. All told, it will probably cost about $10K to put a MOTEC in the car, under the current rules.

Under the new rules, things can change a little bit. I can now run a megasquirt n spark (it wouldn&#39;t fit into the stock housing before. Believe me, I looked, modeled it in CAD, tried using a shoehorn...) and can get a baseline Saturn program that will at least make the engine run. Combine that with a DAQ system, and I can now adjust the fuel mixture on the track/street (I&#39;d mount it all in my daily driver to see if it works). Sure, I will probably spend some money on the Dyno, but I will have a good baseline to start with. Based on my estimates, this will reduce the cost of the ECU by at least 50% (not including DAQ, which I&#39;m going to ask Santa for this year), leaving me extra money for a Skip Barber school (which will probably improve my times more than the damn computer).

There are no flash programmers for a Saturn. There are no performance chips for a Saturn. Saturn has not and will not release the encryption codes for the computers. Am I complaining? No. It&#39;s my fault for not understanding this better when I built the car. Would I like the new rule to go through? You betcha! But, if it doesn&#39;t, oh well. It&#39;s not going to change where I finish.

Anyway, that&#39;s my $0.02. Please answer the first question.

[ddewhurst]

***Jake the only reason you hear crickets is cause you don&#39;t want to listen to anyone with a different opinion than yours.***

Now, that ^ for sure is not an original thought. ;)

Jake, there are a couple more folks seeing black helicopters over head. :o

The BEST thing about this thread is that it has brug some people out of the woodwork. :023:

[bldn10]

So, w/ this new rule can I make a mount for the stand-alone ECU that extends through the floorpan so I can jack my car up off it? :lol:

[lateapex911]

Here&#39;s the thing Joe, I&#39;m willing to listen, but I expect intelligent and specific answers, not misused tech talk with little factual basis.

Your "You know what I mean" comment is classic. Yes, I know what you mean...direct injection is direct injection. You used words, I understand them, therefor, THATS what you mean.

from Wikipedia:
Gasoline direct injection or GDi is a variant of fuel injection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_injection) employed in modern two-stroke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-stroke) and four stroke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-stroke_cycle) petrol engines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrol_engine). The gasoline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline) is injected directly into the combustion chamber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion_chamber) of each cylinder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cylinder_%28engine%29), as opposed to conventional multi point fuel injection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_injection#Multi-port_fuel_injection) that happens in the intake valve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poppet_valve), or cylinder port injection in two-strokes, and utilizes a high pressure single-piston injection pump and common rail fuel line.


If thats NOT what you meant, then WHY did you use it???? It only serves to confuse, or to mislead.

Then you tell me to stick to an industry that I have knowledge of??? Well, sir, if YOUR knowledge of your industry is defined by your use of the direct injection term above, then i wouldn&#39;t throw stones, if I were you.

Stick to real facts, and your case is stronger than a bunch of "Trust me on this"s, and incorrect terminology.

[Joe Harlan]

Raymond and Joe:

This has been asked by many, but I&#39;ll try to do it calmly:

What stops anyone from doing any of the things you have pointed out from doing so now?

Example: My Saturn. I could spend the money to shoe horn an ECU into the factory box. A MOTEC will fit. Creating the adaptor to go from the stock wiring plug to the MOTEC is actually fairly easy (just need a donor stock computer). Then Dyno time (yeah, like there is anyone else with a baseline MOTEC program for a Saturn!), at least 1 engine (though I&#39;m a test engineer, the limits do need to be explored), and other assorted stuff. All told, it will probably cost about $10K to put a MOTEC in the car, under the current rules.

Under the new rules, things can change a little bit. I can now run a megasquirt n spark (it wouldn&#39;t fit into the stock housing before. Believe me, I looked, modeled it in CAD, tried using a shoehorn...) and can get a baseline Saturn program that will at least make the engine run. Combine that with a DAQ system, and I can now adjust the fuel mixture on the track/street (I&#39;d mount it all in my daily driver to see if it works). Sure, I will probably spend some money on the Dyno, but I will have a good baseline to start with. Based on my estimates, this will reduce the cost of the ECU by at least 50% (not including DAQ, which I&#39;m going to ask Santa for this year), leaving me extra money for a Skip Barber school (which will probably improve my times more than the damn computer).

There are no flash programmers for a Saturn. There are no performance chips for a Saturn. Saturn has not and will not release the encryption codes for the computers. Am I complaining? No. It&#39;s my fault for not understanding this better when I built the car. Would I like the new rule to go through? You betcha! But, if it doesn&#39;t, oh well. It&#39;s not going to change where I finish.

Anyway, that&#39;s my $0.02. Please answer the first question.
[/b]

Bill Last time I answer this. It is not about now or then. The issue is the rule should have been changed back to stock flashed boards and chips.

Marty, No side step there. Jake just tried to dick with a bad choice of words. As far as sequential V batch firing, the gains come from being able to tune each cylinder individually You are able to directly control each injection and its opening and closing points. we have seen small gains in peak but the big gains are in torque and average HP across the middle.

[planet6racing]

***Jake the only reason you hear crickets is cause you don&#39;t want to listen to anyone with a different opinion than yours.***

Now, that ^ for sure is not an original thought. ;)

[/b]

Kettle: "Hello, Pot?"

Pot: "This is Pot"

Kettle: "You&#39;re Black!!! <click>"

[JeffYoung]

My understanding is that this is already possible with Motec right? You can essentially "run" each cylinder as its own separate "engine" so long as you have as many 02 sensors as cylinders.

That "what has changed" is a relevant question, because scream all we want, we aren&#39;t going back to stock ECUs. I personally would prefer that as well, but the fact is the majority of the folks racing IT expressed their opinions -- and they didn&#39;t want that. Dead issue. Not sure why we are discussing it.

[Joe Harlan]

Here&#39;s the thing Joe, I&#39;m willing to listen, but I expect intelligent and specific answers, not misused tech talk with little factual basis.

Your "You know what I mean" comment is classic. Yes, I know what you mean...direct injection is direct injection. You used words, I understand them, therefor, THATS what you mean.

from Wikipedia:
Gasoline direct injection or GDi is a variant of fuel injection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_injection) employed in modern two-stroke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-stroke) and four stroke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-stroke_cycle) petrol engines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrol_engine). The gasoline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline) is injected directly into the combustion chamber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion_chamber) of each cylinder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cylinder_%28engine%29), as opposed to conventional multi point fuel injection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_injection#Multi-port_fuel_injection) that happens in the intake valve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poppet_valve), or cylinder port injection in two-strokes, and utilizes a high pressure single-piston injection pump and common rail fuel line.
If thats NOT what you meant, then WHY did you use it???? It only serves to confuse, or to mislead.

Then you tell me to stick to an industry that I have knowledge of??? Well, sir, if YOUR knowledge of your industry is defined by your use of the direct injection term above, then i wouldn&#39;t throw stones, if I were you.

Stick to real facts, and your case is stronger than a bunch of "Trust me on this"s, and incorrect terminology.
[/b]

Jake, please tell me how many EFI systems you have actually installed and or tuned. Please share your direct experience on fuel injection. You can dick with my poor use of the english langauge all day long I will give you that but as I said your direct knowledge of EFI has more to do with your ability to make a reasoned choice on this rule.

[gran racing]

Once you take the proceeds from your book and you buy a pro motor with a full Sequential direct injection 3d EFI system and your making more HP than your car was ever considered to make in the current process. You can then tell me it was a fair and good idea that won&#39;t hurt the entry level status of the classes we are effecting.[/b]

Want to buy the rights to my book and assume the bank loan Joe? <_<

I still do not understand how this will make racing more expensive for people, and my lack of knowledge does make me a bit nervous of what the true impacts might be. Will this truly allow people to accomplish more than they can now by stuffing a MoTec or other expensive unit in an OEM box? Or will it allow more people to afford to control their ECUs? If more people are able to afford it, others will feel like it is a necessary modification to their car in order to keep up. That I get although it really isn’t a valid argument no matter how much I try to convince myself otherwise. (Ray, stop doing stuff to your car darn it!)

[planet6racing]

Bill Last time I answer this. It is not about now or then. The issue is the rule should have been changed back to stock flashed boards and chips.

[/b]

So, just so everyone here is clear, Joe:

You&#39;re problem is not with this specific rule change. Your&#39;s is with the rule in general. You feel that the cat should be put back into the bag and ECU&#39;s locked down again, right?

Based on that, why are you arguing about direct injection and the like (not trying to tell you how to argue :) )? From what I&#39;ve read, I really thought you were discussing why not to change from the current rule to the new rule...

[AntonioGG]

"Furthermore, I&#39;m trying to understand the rationale behind some "allowances" (such as allowing stuffing an ECU into the stock box because the stock ECU has a speed limiter, or limp mode, etc.) when for some others, the answer is always tough nuts if the car has some handicap that puts it at a disadvantage compared to other cars."
Do you really believe a car classed in IT should have a rev limiter? Do you also believe it should go into limp mode after sensors that are mandated to be removed make it undrivable. Think about your statement for a minute--sound stupid yet?? :rolleyes: This has nothing to do with "the car you decide to race" if it can not be made to run under the rules. Somehow we got alternate carbs in the early days of IT for some cars--wonder why?? The stock unit was unable to be tuned. See anything similar yet.


[/b]

Thanks for calling my post "stupid" Steve.

I&#39;ll return the favor....do you really think I was saying an IT car should race with a rev limiter. Now does your post sound stupid? :blink: :P

[RSTPerformance]

This has been asked by many, but I&#39;ll try to do it calmly:

What stops anyone from doing any of the things you have pointed out from doing so now?
[/b]

I will answer calmly as well... I have NO FRIGGEN IDEA!!!

and I will ask again calmly:
If you can do it now, then WHY DO WE NEED TO CHANGE THE FRIGGEN RULE?

Raymond "I don&#39;t see why the "rule is clearly written as is"... I just don&#39;t get it" Blethen

[planet6racing]

To make the option available to POOR people, like me!!

[JLawton]

If you can do it now, then WHY DO WE NEED TO CHANGE THE FRIGGEN RULE?

[/b]


In reality, the only thing it changes is the expense of doing it............That&#39;s all!!

I have to admit, I had to grill a few people becasue I couldn&#39;t understand the difference either. I thought I was missing something........


I&#39;m going out to clean my air filter...........That should see the same gains as paying $10K for a MegaMotec ECU...... :rolleyes:

Actually, if people spent this much time and money on improving their driving skills, they&#39;d be MUCH faster!! If people are slow and want to blame it on not having a $10K ECU......They will always be slow.........

[RSTPerformance]

I don&#39;t think we want to make a list of rules that we should change, just to make things more affordable for individual causes...

Raymond "A fellow poor racer" Blethen

[seckerich]

On a national level there is some chance of enforcement of the old "stockECU rule" but not on a regional level. There is zero chance of an inspector having the knowledge and equipment to test them. Almost impossible for Topeka unless they have the "code" for the manufacturer to even tell what is stock. The chip and piggy back boards are so easy to get around as to make it laughable as a happy medium.

You can all remember with fondness the good old days all you want. Wish every car had an easy to police carb,ashtrays, and full interior. Cars, drivers, and the rules have changed with time. Good or bad can be discussed all day with 10 different opinions. What really matters is the wishes of the majority of the drivers actually running IT TODAY who have a real vested interest in the class and their investment in equipment. That is what was asked for by the comp board and the ITAC and I would expect them to listen. If you were so concerned about this then I hope you wrote a letter or called --I did. I asked anyone I raced with to do the same-Did you? Everyone does not read this forum but it was in fastrack. If they don&#39;t pay attention to fastrack and care what goes on in their class-- Oh well. A little late to give a crap now.

[Conover]

In reality, the only thing it changes is the expense of doing it............That&#39;s all!!

I have to admit, I had to grill a few people becasue I couldn&#39;t understand the difference either. I thought I was missing something........
I&#39;m going out to clean my air filter...........That should see the same gains as paying $10K for a MegaMotec ECU...... :rolleyes:

Actually, if people spent this much time and money on improving their driving skills, they&#39;d be MUCH faster!! If people are slow and want to blame it on not having a $10K ECU......They will always be slow.........
[/b]

Right, and the fact that some really couldn&#39;t do it, because the wicked expensive stuff people were shoving into their ECU&#39;s wasn&#39;t compatible with their wiring harness, and/or sensor. For that matter the cheap stuff that would get them half way there wasn&#39;t going to work either, so this rule is proposed to help that situation.

[gran racing]

A little late to give a crap now.[/b]

While I agree people should have taken the time to provide their feedback when originally asked (I did), I wouldn&#39;t go this far either. It&#39;s out there now. If people have valid reasons why it shouldn&#39;t happen, they should be given this opportunity to be heard. Send in your e-mail to the appropriate place(s).

[Eagle7]

If you can do it now, then WHY DO WE NEED TO CHANGE THE FRIGGEN RULE?


Raymond "I don&#39;t see why the "rule is clearly written as is"... I just don&#39;t get it" Blethen
[/b]

Same reason they allowed the threaded body shocks after they had been banned. Prices on them came way down and people were jumping through hoops to legally use the now much less expensive TB shock, so why not make it cheaper and easier and just allow them.

[Ron Earp]

There is another really good reason to do it that is not brought up so much. It is called ITR.

ITR is part of IT now, like it or not. Many of these cars will not be racable due to their ECU stepping in and stopping the party due to various factors ranging from traction control (which is illegal by the way) to rev limits to timing, airflow parameters, etc. Sure, some you can work around with reflashes and chips and other devices, but other issues are not avoidable and will cripple some of the ITR cars unless they have an aftermarket standalone ECU.

This rule change is an enabler for ITR the way I see it. And, it doesn&#39;t force anyone to do anything that is already racing IT and likes their setup the way it is.

R

[tlyttle43]

Maybe I shouldn&#39;t raise this question after all the fun discussion so far, but.... For most cars, how much extra horsepower do you REALLY get from a full-blown MOTEC system versus your basic, re-chipped, stock ECU or even a stock ECU. I don&#39;t have much recent, real-world experience, but when I did, the answer was not very much. So is the current answer, what -- 5, 10, 15 HP? When I was having an engine done by one of the big name builders several years back, the gains just weren&#39;t all that much over even a stock ECU (once you got rid of the rev limit.) The explanation I got was - outside of the operating conditions seen on the Federal (emissions) Test Procedure (i.e., idle, low or moderate accelerations, no speeds over 62 mph) the engines are basically tuned at the factory for close to optimium power already. In other words, where we operate our IT cars, they&#39;re close to maximum power when they come out the factory door (with almost all the increases that we see over stock due to open exhausts, free air cleaners, etc.)

If it really doesn&#39;t make much difference, that leads me to two conclusions. The people who want to spend $5000 on a Motec will spend the $5000 on some thing else that will provide them a similar, small incremental benefit. The people who don&#39;t want to, won&#39;t, just like the don&#39;t now.

Or am I missing something, and there are really large gains over stock? And, yes, I know 15 HP is a real advantage and even 5 is useful. But I&#39;m not sure I&#39;d spent $5000 for it versus buying tires more often or some other improvement.

Tom Lyttle
IT7 Mazda
ITS Nissan 200SX


P.S. I run mostly in IT7, so the new rule doesn&#39;t affect me one way or the other.

[trhoppe]

There has also been some talk about this hurting the "middle back" guy. The buy who has been running a stock ECU and now will have to spend $10K for a motec.

My POV is that the rules are NOT WRITTEN for the "middle back" guy. No matter what the rule is, he won&#39;t maximize it anyways. He never maximized the previous rule, why would he maximize this one?

The rules are written for the POINTY END of the field. This rule makes it easier then it was before to make it to the pointy end of the field. This rule allows for less cheating at the pointy end of the field then if you had a "stock ECUs" rule put into effect.

I would MUCH rather have open ECUs then have "stock ECUs" as a rule and have to police the fact that people are flashing them or hiding some sort of management.

For example, for honda/acura products, this rule changes nothing. We already have a great $500 system, Hondata, that is going to be just as good as a $10K motec for an IT car. Sweet! Someone spent the TIME and EFFORT to design that. Sounds like someone is also doing that for the ITS RX-7. Hell, if your car doesn&#39;t have that and oh my, you HAVE to buy a $10K motec, take the time and effort to design and build something that works. I&#39;m really surprised that there isn&#39;t such a product for a Mazda Miata. Of all the mazdas that are out there, I figure Mazdata or somethinng similar would be out. Maybe its time for that to happen :)

-Tom

[zchris]

A large fear of mine is the problems that can be encountered when installing any aftermarket ECU. I spent 1.5 years and more money than I care to admit converting my GT2 car to fuel injection. I bought a new TEC3 from Electrmotive and suffered 1.5 years of hell with them before I got a fully funtional unit. And that was only because on the 4rth time at the dyno with the engine running poorly the ECU went up in smoke. They dyno shop happened to be an Electromtive dealer. They called Electromotive and had a hard time getting them to fess up to replacing the ECU. I lost out on almost 2 years of racing chasing down a bum ECU that they repeatedly refused to replace. And this is one of the largest ECU manufacturers in the US. Most of these ECU suppliers have horrible at best customer service poeple. Look on the various boards about the problems encountered. Be careful what you wish for.
Chris Howard

[stevel]

A large fear of mine is the problems that can be encountered when installing any aftermarket ECU. I spent 1.5 years and more money than I care to admit converting my GT2 car to fuel injection. I bought a new TEC3 from Electrmotive and suffered 1.5 years of hell with them before I got a fully funtional unit. And that was only because on the 4rth time at the dyno with the engine running poorly the ECU went up in smoke. They dyno shop happened to be an Electromtive dealer. They called Electromotive and had a hard time getting them to fess up to replacing the ECU. I lost out on almost 2 years of racing chasing down a bum ECU that they repeatedly refused to replace. And this is one of the largest ECU manufacturers in the US. Most of these ECU suppliers have horrible at best customer service poeple. Look on the various boards about the problems encountered. Be careful what you wish for.
Chris Howard
[/b]

I agree. A lot of people are going to run into lots of problems. My plan of attack would be to stay on a stock ECU next year, you&#39;ll end up winning by attrition. Lots of people will be blowing up motors cause they dialed in too much timing or not enough fuel (or both) or will have ecu issues (could be user based, software based, or hardware based) and will either be limping around the track or not even make it in. Stock ECU FTW!

I think the rule is what the majority wanted, but I think it&#39;s going to be difficult for a lot of people to get fully functioning. This stuff is not easy, so many things can go wrong that are not obvious or simple to diagnose.

Good luck!

[Knestis]

...so you and anyone else that feels that way say "no, thanks" and opts out. It&#39;s not a requirement - any more than pro-built engine internals, balancing, or anything else might be.

K

[trhoppe]

I&#39;ve never used one, but I would be suprised if a $Texas Motec or Electromotive ECU wouldn&#39;t have the same "self tuning" options that a Hondata or most new stock ECUs have. No way you can blow your motor, as the ECU will tell through the wideband how lean you are and adjust itself for the perfect mixture :)

-Tom

[Banzai240]

Same reason they allowed the threaded body shocks after they had been banned. Prices on them came way down and people were jumping through hoops to legally use the now much less expensive TB shock, so why not make it cheaper and easier and just allow them.
[/b]

Not exactly... The end result of changing the shock rules to make sense, as they do now, was NO change in the performance of the shock... People just didn&#39;t have to buy their Penskes, machine the threads off, then add the sleeve... They can just use them straight up... SAME performance...

This ECU thing is an entirely different level of rule adjustment... NOT the "same reason" at all.... I know.... I was there...




...so you and anyone else that feels that way say "no, thanks" and opts out. It&#39;s not a requirement - any more than pro-built engine internals, balancing, or anything else might be.

K
[/b]

They COULD have said that WITHOUT the rule change... Now if they do, however, the tradeoff is MUCH larger...

[Joe Harlan]

I&#39;ve never used one, but I would be suprised if a $Texas Motec or Electromotive ECU wouldn&#39;t have the same "self tuning" options that a Hondata or most new stock ECUs have. No way you can blow your motor, as the ECU will tell through the wideband how lean you are and adjust itself for the perfect mixture :)

-Tom
[/b]
They do and its about resolution. Its also about aftermarket ECUs having the ability to do more than the OEM stuff ever thought of. GO do a search on the web.



Not exactly... The end result of changing the shock rules to make sense, as they do now, was NO change in the performance of the shock... People just didn&#39;t have to buy their Penskes, machine the threads off, then add the sleeve... They can just use them straight up... SAME performance...

This ECU thing is an entirely different level of rule adjustment... NOT the "same reason" at all.... I know.... I was there...
They COULD have said that WITHOUT the rule change... Now if they do, however, the tradeoff is MUCH larger...
[/b]

As far as threaded body shocks go they effect all cars about the same (all cars have shocks) Not all cars get the benefit on fine tuning that aftermaket ECU&#39;s bring.

[RacerBill]

OK, I&#39;ve read 8 pages on this subject, and I still can&#39;t decide which side of the fence I would land on.
This here is my opinion and only mine and I am not passing judgement on anybody elses argument, logic etc.

BTW, my car is 1983 and carburated, so any decision that is made will only effect me when I decide to retire or move to something else. Add the fact that my car will be more obsolete and therefore the even less desirable except to some other nut who likes Shelby Chargers.


Probably, the least probable solution is to put the cat back in the bottle, or the genie back in the bag, whatever. It&#39;s the solution I would like to see, but realize that it is a :dead_horse:

I&#39;ve read all the arguments about costs, and I do agree that the proposed rule change would make the same performance improvements that are available today available to more cars at a lower price. Whether or not this is a good thing is another issue. I&#39;ve changed my own mind five times just writing this!

I am not sure if this rule change is really going to effect as many cars as we thought. How many cars are out there with the ECU mods that are allowed today (you know, the kazillion dollar jobs in the stock housing). Are you losing to these cars? If you are, then you are probably going to take advantage of the proposed change. If not, are you going to break open the wallet just cause you can afford it now? Or are you going to wait until the guys who ran behind you this year bite the bullet over the winter and now you feel you have to go this route just to keep the status quo?

In any event, yes, the decision to spend more money is an individual one. So, will the proposed rule cost everyone more? Absolutly not. Will there be more money spent? Absolutly yes! Keeping up with or getting ahead of the Jones&#39;s has been around since the first family named Jones!

I think the real issue to condsider in deciding to support or oppose this change is what effect it will have on IT racing in general. Will the ability to use these aftermarket ECU&#39;s attract new drivers or will it turn them away? Will it attract more drivers than will decide not to race anymore? I don&#39;t know and don&#39;t pretend to.

I see three things with the proposed change. One - this effects only certain cars, and not all of them. From that standpoint, I guess I am against the change. Two - this change brings us closer to Production/Prepared level of preparation which is against the spirit of the class. And three - more people are going to spend more money even though it might be less than what they would have spent, or even because it IS less than what they would have had to spend.

OK, again. I had to step away from the keyboard for a minute here at work, and look what you guys do, post some arguments that make me change my mind again. So, if there are cars currently classed in IT that go into limp mode if sensors that are required by the GCR to be disconnected are, then they need ECU&#39;s that allow that function to be disabled.Can this be done by any other means, at a reasonable expense? If there are no currently classed cars with this need, then we need to address the issue when a popular car attempts to be classified. Would it be feasable to include a list of authorized replacement ECU&#39;s to limit the number of functions controlled in order to minimize the unintended consequence of performance gains (that is if you really support the proposed rule change on the basis of eliminating the &#39;limp mode&#39; by its self?

I am really open to all arguments as long as they are friendly. I am very willing to listen to all points of view as long as you are willing to listen to mine. This thread has brought up many good points. But there has been a lot of bitterness and disrespect. Free expression of ideas benefits everyone.



They do and its about resolution. Its also about aftermarket ECUs having the ability to do more than the OEM stuff ever thought of. GO do a search on the web.
As far as threaded body shocks go they effect all cars about the same (all cars have shocks) Not all cars get the benefit on fine tuning that aftermaket ECU&#39;s bring.
[/b]

There you go again - two more reasons why I am against the proposed change!!!!! (I agree with you, Joe on these two issues).

But keep up the good work. I don&#39;t want to make a decision about the resolution and then later say "I never thought of that!!!!!"

[Hahn63]

Ok .... we have talked about fuel, spark...lets see, we are missing somthing....um oh yea AIR. All that other stuff to play with but it still has to go thur the same holes as before. Wasn&#39;t enough of it then and won&#39;t be any more of it now! Better respone and drivability..yes, tuneable yes.. Major HP gain ....nope.


Roland

[Joe Harlan]

Ok .... we have talked about fuel, spark...lets see, we are missing somthing....um oh yea AIR. All that other stuff to play with but it still has to go thur the same holes as before. Wasn&#39;t enough of it then and won&#39;t be any more of it now! Better respone and drivability..yes, tuneable yes.. Major HP gain ....nope.
Roland
[/b]

Roland, How long are we at peak HP in what we do? Do you not feel that the HP that drags you out of a corner is every bit and likely more important that peak HP numbers? How bout I showed you a 15HP increase from the middle with a 2 HP peak gain. Which would you find more important. For me races are won and lost at the corner exit. I will take 15 more down low over 2 at the top always and these are the average gains that will be made on a 200HP.

[Renaultfool]

The reality is that this rule may benefit more cars than it leaves out.
There are not many people building 25 year old cars anymore. (the ones with carbs)
Most new cars being built now are into the computer/ECU age. If you are building certain popular Honda/Acuras and BMWs, maybe there are chips and daughter boards available. In the Nissan, Toyota, and Mazda camps there is even less available. If you want to build any of the less popular models of these makes or hold that thought, something different, there is nothing available.

Of course, if you have enough money to invest with Joe or some of his type, they will develop a one off for you. But now with the new rule you may be able to adapt something else that will get you to where you need to be happy. May cost Joe or someone some of their income, but so be it.

The chip rule/daughter board option only rewards those with the mega popular cars for which there is a chip or daughter board available. The stock rule eliminates modern cars from ever being able to race due to the rev limiters, limp modes, etc. Putting it in the stock box only increases cost, but does not eliminate it. Keeping the stock harness with connectors just makes it more expensive. (I am still waiting for someone to send me a roll of fast wire)

None of these make it impossible, just expensive. Some reward car choice, ie chips and daughter boards.
The new rule gives everyone a chance, to spend or not spend, but at least it is an equal chance.
Wait, maybe that is the real problem here, no more perceived advantage by car choice.
Anyone know where I can buy a hot chip for my Renault Renix computer? Darn.

I am happy with the new rule and I think it levels the field for all in IT. Carb guys you have always been able to tune, so quit crying and sweep up the rust under your car.
If I can ever find a decent affordable 71-73 Pinto body I will put my carb car back together too.
Carl

[Eagle7]

Roland, How long are we at peak HP in what we do? Do you not feel that the HP that drags you out of a corner is every bit and likely more important that peak HP numbers? How bout I showed you a 15HP increase from the middle with a 2 HP peak gain. Which would you find more important. For me races are won and lost at the corner exit. I will take 15 more down low over 2 at the top always and these are the average gains that will be made on a 200HP.
[/b]

What you say may be true, Joe, but how much of that 15 HP could you wring out of the stock ECU with a rechip? I think it would be pretty enlightening to see a dyno comparison of a top-notch rechip to a top-notch aftermarket ECU on the same engine with no other changes. I would fully expect to see essentially the same AFR curves and the same timing curves - and the same torque (power) curve. The resolution you talk about would allow some minor improvements, but nothing major. It would just be a lot harder ($) to actually do the development work with the rechip environment. Probably beyond the capability of nearly all of us racers and even the dyno tuners - takes a specialty shop to do it right.

[Joe Harlan]

The reality is that this rule may benefit more cars than it leaves out.
There are not many people building 25 year old cars anymore. (the ones with carbs)
Most new cars being built now are into the computer/ECU age. If you are building certain popular Honda/Acuras and BMWs, maybe there are chips and daughter boards available. In the Nissan, Toyota, and Mazda camps there is even less available. If you want to build any of the less popular models of these makes or hold that thought, something different, there is nothing available.

Of course, if you have enough money to invest with Joe or some of his type, they will develop a one off for you. But now with the new rule you may be able to adapt something else that will get you to where you need to be happy. May cost Joe or someone some of their income, but so be it.

The chip rule/daughter board option only rewards those with the mega popular cars for which there is a chip or daughter board available. The stock rule eliminates modern cars from ever being able to race due to the rev limiters, limp modes, etc. Putting it in the stock box only increases cost, but does not eliminate it. Keeping the stock harness with connectors just makes it more expensive. (I am still waiting for someone to send me a roll of fast wire)

None of these make it impossible, just expensive. Some reward car choice, ie chips and daughter boards.
The new rule gives everyone a chance, to spend or not spend, but at least it is an equal chance.
Wait, maybe that is the real problem here, no more perceived advantage by car choice.
Anyone know where I can buy a hot chip for my Renault Renix computer? Darn.

I am happy with the new rule and I think it levels the field for all in IT. Carb guys you have always been able to tune, so quit crying and sweep up the rust under your car.
If I can ever find a decent affordable 71-73 Pinto body I will put my carb car back together too.
Carl
[/b]

Carl, don&#39;t kid yourself this rule will make me money. That is not part of the issue that even we need to be discussing. Look back at all the threads and you will see that nissan,toyota and mazda are all well covered in how to chip and flash.

[Bill Miller]

Joe gets it.

This is all about the area under the curve and the shape of the curve. You want a better indicator of the true power of a car? Integrate the HP curve from 1500 rpm to redline. Now do the same for the torque curve.

There&#39;s your measure of what the engine will do. We know it can only make so much power, based on the amount of air that it can flow, but how long are you w/in 80% - 90% of the max?

[JeffYoung]

I agree.

In fact, I think we all agree on a few items.

A free ECU is an advantage for an EFI car. The new rule makes this advantage available to more folks. free ECUs are not in line with the original intent of IT. The majority of the present day IT community want free ECUs.

So where does that leave us? Abiding by the will of the majority or having the minority&#39;s viewpoint control because it is more in line with the founder&#39;s beliefs? Geez, this is a lot like first year law school constitutional law.

[Joe Harlan]

What you say may be true, Joe, but how much of that 15 HP could you wring out of the stock ECU with a rechip? I think it would be pretty enlightening to see a dyno comparison of a top-notch rechip to a top-notch aftermarket ECU on the same engine with no other changes. I would fully expect to see essentially the same AFR curves and the same timing curves - and the same torque (power) curve. The resolution you talk about would allow some minor improvements, but nothing major. It would just be a lot harder ($) to actually do the development work with the rechip environment. Probably beyond the capability of nearly all of us racers and even the dyno tuners - takes a specialty shop to do it right.
[/b]

And that is the point if everybody was limited to rechip then the playing ground is a lot closer to fair including the carbed cars Marty. Think about the difference in going from a stock 8/16 bit system to a 32 bit processer with much greater speed and resolution. Yes there is a difference. being able to adjust fuel and timing trim in ecah cylinder will produce more HP. You are never going to get this in an OE system because the hardware is not there to support the software.

Sorry Jeff but this not majority rules kind of deal, its about rules and what is good for the catagory, There is already a place for free ECU&#39;s it&#39;s called Prod or GT, If that kind of tuning is your bag then move on over to those classes and leave this class to the folks that are inteersted in more entry level run with the pack kind of deal. IF Technology makes the gap from the front to the mid get to wide then people will give up an dyou loose anyway.

[dj10]

I agree.

In fact, I think we all agree on a few items.

A free ECU is an advantage for an EFI car. The new rule makes this advantage available to more folks. free ECUs are not in line with the original intent of IT. The majority of the present day IT community want free ECUs.

So where does that leave us? Abiding by the will of the majority or having the minority&#39;s viewpoint control because it is more in line with the founder&#39;s beliefs? Geez, this is a lot like first year law school constitutional law.
[/b]

Have them count up the Electoral College. :D

[JeffYoung]

Do we give more votes to the bigger....never mind....lol......


Joe, this is club racing. The club decides what the rules are. Here, the club has, as best can be done, decided.

You guys are obviously passionate about this which is good but a lot of this is getting close to the "I know better than you (the majority) so my view of the rules should control" mentality that a lot of you don&#39;t like about Topeka.

[Joe Harlan]

Do we give more votes to the bigger....never mind....lol......
Joe, this is club racing. The club decides what the rules are. Here, the club has, as best can be done, decided.

You guys are obviously passionate about this which is good but a lot of this is getting close to the "I know better than you (the majority) so my view of the rules should control" mentality that a lot of you don&#39;t like about Topeka.
[/b]

No Jeff again I am sorry, I don&#39;t think I know better I could be completely wrong but history proves that the more we open up a class the sooner it starts to die. The other issue is an informed membership. With out the fastrack being in the magazine we have no gaurantee that the mebership is even informed on this deal. Get that not all of our membership is tuned into the net..(wish i was one of them) I am not trying to be disrespectful to your opinion and yes I am passionate about this set of classes being a place that the front is not out of reach from hard work and good driving that is what entry level is about. Prod and GT while having good cool cars can&#39;t attract the newbies because that level looks out of reach to most, Do we want to look out of reach? Or worse yet actually become out of reach? Look at history it proves what I am saying.

[Chris Wire]

In fact, I think we all agree on a few items.

A free ECU is an advantage for an EFI car. The new rule makes this advantage available to more folks. free ECUs are not in line with the original intent of IT. The majority of the present day IT community want free ECUs.

So where does that leave us? Abiding by the will of the majority or having the minority&#39;s viewpoint control because it is more in line with the founder&#39;s beliefs?
[/b]

50 letters to the CRB and we have a majority? I think we have a sample but I&#39;d hesitate to assume a majority. Like Joe said, I&#39;m sure many IT guys don&#39;t even know this is happening. I haven&#39;t formed a concrete opinion on this issue but I know for certain that I have some reservations about the paradise some think this rule would create.

I watched first hand as an American Sedan competitor not so long ago, the class &#39;evolving&#39; from stock brakes, stock trannies, stock cranks and stock rear ends, etc., to 4-piston racing brakes (safety), Muncie/Tremec custom trannies (reliability), steel cranks (reliability at 7500 rpm), and custom 9-inch Ford rear ends for everyone. My $10k championship-winning Mustang was sold as I watched the bar become $25k - $50k for a proper build with all the new goodies.

I don&#39;t wish the same fate for IT.

[RSTPerformance]

50 letters to the CRB and we have a majority? I think we have a sample but I&#39;d hesitate to assume a majority. Like Joe said, I&#39;m sure many IT guys don&#39;t even know this is happening. I haven&#39;t formed a concrete opinion on this issue but I know for certain that I have some reservations about the paradise some think this rule would create.

I watched first hand as an American Sedan competitor not so long ago, the class &#39;evolving&#39; from stock brakes, stock trannies, stock cranks and stock rear ends, etc., to 4-piston racing brakes (safety), Muncie/Tremec custom trannies (reliability), steel cranks (reliability at 7500 rpm), and custom 9-inch Ford rear ends for everyone. My $10k championship-winning Mustang was sold as I watched the bar become $25k - $50k for a proper build with all the new goodies.

I don&#39;t wish the same fate for IT.
[/b]

Chris-

Very good example...

Raymond

[Bill Miller]

Jeff,

If it really was a case of the drivers determining what they wanted the rules to be, we would never see "inconsistent w/ class philosophy" responses to requests, they would simply be put out for member input.

[JeffYoung]

Guys, I understand the point about "majority" but all I can say it is the best we can do to try and figure out what teh community wants -- put it in Fastrack and post here.

I fully agree that expanding rules TOO QUICKLY kills classes. Here, at least in teh SEDiv, the inevitable -- there is no way to stop it, it happens -- evolution of the rules in IT has not been so rapid as to drive off drivers.

This particular change, from "anyting you can fit in teh box" to any ECU doesn&#39;t seem to me to be too radical a departure from where we are. I don&#39;t think it will cause anyone to leave IT, and it may bring in more folks.

But I do agree it is time for a "pause" in teh rules. We&#39;ve seen a lot of change, let&#39;s let it sit for a while and see how this shakes out.

[Banzai240]

Jeff,

If it really was a case of the drivers determining what they wanted the rules to be, we would never see "inconsistent w/ class philosophy" responses to requests, they would simply be put out for member input.
[/b]

Exactly Bill...

Those of you with kid&#39;s... especially teenage kids... How many of you would let your kids make their own rules??? ... or set their own curfew??? ... or decide what&#39;s best to have for dinner... WHEN have they ever listened to your wisdom and knowledge, gained through years of experience and "been there, done that"???

If one could rely on each driver taking a completely objective view at the situation and doing what was best for the category... Well... what are the chances of THAT happening???

I seem to recall many of Kirk&#39;s conspiracy concerns over the "Process" and worrying about letter-writing campaigns getting rules changed... Hmmm... Maybe he had a point... :blink: :rolleyes:

[JeffYoung]

Darin, I like you and respect you but what you posted above makes my point.

You have decided you are the parents, and that the rest of the guys racing IT you disagree with are the kids.

The hubris!

Seriously man, look at what you just wrote. You are basically said that you and a few others who "know better" should run things. Trust me, that&#39;s been tried before. Usually leads to really bad results.

[Joe Harlan]

Darin, I like you and respect you but what you posted above makes my point.

You have decided you are the parents, and that the rest of the guys racing IT you disagree with are the kids.

The hubris!

Seriously man, look at what you just wrote. You are basically said that you and a few others who "know better" should run things. Trust me, that&#39;s been tried before. Usually leads to really bad results.
[/b]

Jeff you choose to ignore history. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. History proves this case out. Darin has some history to look back at and say this isn&#39;t a good deal.

[JeffYoung]

Sure, I understand that. I understand that rules creep kills classes. But history also shows that rules stasis kills classes too.

What I am really having trouble with is that a few folks seem to think they "know what&#39;s best" for the group. Like I said, history has seen that one before too. And it usually ain&#39;t pretty.

[Joe Harlan]

Sure, I understand that. I understand that rules creep kills classes. But history also shows that rules stasis kills classes too.

What I am really having trouble with is that a few folks seem to think they "know what&#39;s best" for the group. Like I said, history has seen that one before too. And it usually ain&#39;t pretty.
[/b]

But hat works both ways does it not? As stated without the fastrack being sent to all of our members not just the ones that go online and get it, are you not sampling a technology weighted sample of the 50 letters you got on the subject. I look at all of the threads here and I see a fairly big divide on this deal. Even you are divided and conflicted on what the rules should be. Stasis is not a problem in this case because major changes have been made over the last 3 years and many good ones at that. In my opinion the right thing to do was to step back to chips and flashing because the largest part of the catagory has not gotten there yet. History shows once you have enough people with expensive parts you will never take them back and rules creep moves forward. I would venture to say that Monoballs could have been taken back years ago if there was a will to go after it. So please don&#39;t think my being vocal is trying to be the "i know best" guy. If this is gonna happen there will be nothing I can do about but you can bet that I am being vocal so more people see what they are getting into and not the watered down version half of them have not even seen yet. After many conversations today it is my understanding that this is not a done deal.

[Knestis]

Yeah, Darin - I still have those same worries today. If you asked me about most any new allowance in IT, I&#39;d take the same position as always.

But each of these issues is both a cost-benefit analysis and an exercise in policy making. Sometimes even if the policy is the "best" by objective measures, the act of MAKING the policy is constrained - even to the degree that if the right decision is made in the wrong way, the net result is negative.

Think Vietnam War. At some point, there were policies that would have helped but they couldn&#39;t be made in the context, time, etc.

That&#39;s the case with the ECU question. It&#39;s not possible to do the "right thing" - the thing consistent with what is arguably a majority view of what the category should be. Technology is the primary problem. My first choice has always been the lowest-tech answer available. In this case for many cars that means a plug-and-play chip.

Problem is, to my mind the membership needs a solution for ALL cars, to serve the greater goal of avoiding an ITCS that has separate rules for every car. One rule that applies across as broad a swath of spec lines as possible, and considers the foreseeable future as best it can.

I don&#39;t see a better choice considering all of these bigger issues than the one that&#39;s been presented.

K

[seckerich]

Everyone reading this board probably has a race in their area soon. Take the time to print some copies of this new rule in fastrack and hand them out to all the IT cars at the race. Do your part to let more drivers know what is going on instead of complaining. Just might get 200 letters this time or see most just don&#39;t really care either way. :023:

[dickita15]

In defense of “parenthood”

I do not think it is wrong for those that here who have spent the effort and time understanding these issues to believe their opinion has more value than those with just a passing knowledge of the topics.

Decisions are made by those that show up. The large majority of racers can’t stand or won’t be bothered with the type of debates involved in this type of rule discussion. I can’t really blame them. I seriously doubt if fastrack being on line made any difference. Most racers never read it anyway. It takes a fair bit of effort to follow the issues though the process and understand the implications. Most just do not care that much, or it makes their head hurt.

I like the fact that those on this forum are better informed than almost anyone on these issues. I have no desire to put more weight on the opinions of the vast majority of racers who really have no understanding of the rules, their origin and the philosophy behind them. As big as a pain some of us on this BB are, no one outside of the ITAC and the CRB puts more thought into the topics that us.

The best argument against democracy is five minutes with the average voter.

[planet6racing]

And that is the point if everybody was limited to rechip then the playing ground is a lot closer to fair including the carbed cars Marty. Think about the difference in going from a stock 8/16 bit system to a 32 bit processer with much greater speed and resolution. Yes there is a difference. being able to adjust fuel and timing trim in ecah cylinder will produce more HP. You are never going to get this in an OE system because the hardware is not there to support the software.

[/b]

I&#39;ll admit that I&#39;m no electronics expert, but I&#39;m willing to bet that someone would find a way to chip a stock ECU to have all of this functionality. All it takes is $$$...

Joe, I think we all just have to agree to disagree. We&#39;re at, what, about 200 posts and, it&#39;s quite obvious, that most people here have their opinions (me too!) and aren&#39;t going to change them (why would I? I&#39;m always right!! :D ).

I&#39;ll be writing my letter in support of my position. Does my position favor me? Yes. Am I looking at the big picture? I certainly hope so, but can admit that I don&#39;t have the history behind me that someone like Kirk does. Nonetheless, I&#39;ll make my position known to the powers that be.

As for the whole thing about FasTrack not being in the magazine anymore and no one reading it: No one read it before. Just like Supplemental Regulations. We (this board) and the prod board are probably the most avid readers of that document and have been since it was in print.

[lateapex911]

One other point, just as information.

This request for feedback occurred over months, and was printed in Fastrack twice. Response was very very strong, perhaps the strongest the ITAC has seen. (Which is why I am surprised when I see people responding to this thread who are shocked, or even enraged ...and who knew about the member request, yet never responded)

But whats really interesting, (and kind of rewarding, as an ITAC member), was that nearly every single letter we got was well reasoned, well written, and in many cases, did NOT align with the writers natural bias. In other words, we saw guys with carbed cars writing in support of an option that, to some here, would hurt their competitive standing. Some lettter writers discussed independent research they had done to come to their conclusion, others suggested tweaks to the option they felt best. To my eye, this was a very informed response.

So I&#39;m not ready to dismiss the result (large majority in favor of open ECUs) based on people not knowing whats really good for them, or mounting campaigns to become a majority.

[Bill Miller]

Exactly Bill...


[/b]

My how times have changed! ;)

Glad to see you posting again Darin, hope all is well w/ you.

[shwah]

My letter was in support of factory ecus/chips.

Since I wrote that letter I gave it more thought and actually believe what is proposed is correct. All the &#39;gains&#39; could be had by at least some cars at very high cost regardless, some cars will not be able to compete without addressing modern ecu nannying. I don&#39;t beleive this will affect my ability to be competitive in ITB one way or another.

There are some very loud arguments taking place on the issue, but loud does not equal right.

[Greg Amy]

I&#39;m against the rule, &#39;cause my NX2000 runs pretty damn good on the stock ECU...

GregA, who won the ARRC on the stock ECU programming (or something damned close) and 2 degrees bumped base timing. Can&#39;t wait to continue tuning with an open ECU...

[cmaclean]

This request for feedback occurred over months, and was printed in Fastrack twice. Response was very very strong, perhaps the strongest the ITAC has seen. (Which is why I am surprised when I see people responding to this thread who are shocked, or even enraged ...and who knew about the member request, yet never responded)
...
So I&#39;m not ready to dismiss the result (large majority in favor of open ECUs) based on people not knowing whats really good for them, or mounting campaigns to become a majority.
[/b]

Jake, the vocal minority will always be heard :) I personally sent my letter to the CRB expressly asking that the ECU&#39;s NOT be open and instead restrict the rules to stock ECU. However, if the majority of the letters to the CRB asked for open ECU then that&#39;s what we should get. I think our time would now be better spent figuring out our options and reading megasquirt tuning manuals :)

[Banzai240]

You are basically said that you and a few others who "know better" should run things. Trust me, that&#39;s been tried before. Usually leads to really bad results.
[/b]

NO, that is NOT what I was saying... what I was saying is that, JUST like was the case with your parents, there are some here with knowledge and background that are willing to share their experiences in an effort to enlighten those with less experience/background, in an effort to help them see the path to success..... and JUST like teenagers, many of you are out getting tatoos and piercings and doing drugs and skipping class...

How many people wanting this change have EVER installed or tried to dial-in an ECU system?? Yet, when those that CLEARLY have speak up... well... a career path through you local McDonalds seems to be the result...


So, again, I&#39;ll ask you to quell my concerns... "replace or modify"... How again is that keeping the system "limited"??

What I&#39;m reading here are people addressing direct concerns, and those who seem to favour this change hit back by dancing around the topic and addressing everything ELSE... (grammer, etc...)...

[Gregg]

Well, I read the proposed rule change, got upset about it and then started thinking about suspensions.

Why suspensions?

Well, the front suspension of my 88-91 CRX, as it comes from the factory, does not have a means of easily changing the front camber. Allowances are written into the ITCS for Macpherson strut cars and many other "double wishbone" types came from the factory with some means of adjustability.

Well, I do have the ability to modify each front corner&#39;s camber. First I pick up a new front knuckle for each corner. That&#39;s $165/corner (http://www.hondaautomotiveparts.com/auto/jsp/mws/prddisplay.jsp?inputstate=5&catcgry1=CRX&catcgry2=1990&catcgry3=2DR+SI&catcgry4=KA5MT&catcgry5=KNUCKLE). Then I take a torch to it, heat it and bend. Then I put it on the car and see what it does. Then I corner weight the car. Wash, repeat. All the while, I&#39;m weakening a critical part of the car. In addition, there&#39;s absolutely no way I&#39;m going to be able to make changes at the track. So, I carry multiple front knuckles, for both front corners, each with their own hub assembly pressed on. Hundreds more dollars.

You see, there&#39;s nothing in the rules that prevents that adjustability. In fact, I can guarantee that there are lots of CRX&#39;s (and Civics, and Integras, and Accords) that aren&#39;t running 0deg front camber. It&#39;s just VERY, VERY expensive to do it, you see--both in parts and labor.

So, why shouldn&#39;t I think it&#39;s not fair that I can&#39;t go and purchase two sets of these (http://store.summitracing.com/partdetail.asp?autofilter=1&part=IEC%2D35720&N=700+115&autoview=sku) for ~ $110 and get easy and cheaper adjustability? After all, it&#39;s not giving me anything that I can&#39;t already do within the rules and it&#39;s allowing me to do it for about the same cost as everybody else.

For years mantra when rejecting rules proposals has been that they "don&#39;t adhere to the class philosophy." Well, by codifying something such as the ECU changes that are soooo far away from the class philosophy because some cars were capable of modification within the rules for far fewer dollars and far less effort than other platforms, the precendent has been set to allow all sorts of changes that completely alter the class philosophy.


9.1.3.B. INTENT
It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car. This class is intended to allow a variety of popular, inexpensive cars to be eligible; however, those determined by the Club to be outside of these parameters will not be classified. Entrants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car, and competition adjustments, other than as outlined in section 9.1.3.C, are not allowed. Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage.

Note: This new statement of purpose and intent eliminates the dual purpose version which does not accurately reflect the current IT technology. In addition, it emphasizes the philosophy that we will give you a place to race your car and have fun, but not guarantee that you will be competitive.[/b]

You choose a car to buy and build knowing that there are going to be simple fixes to complex problems and expensive fixes to complex problems. Each platform has its weakness, each its strengths, both on-track and in the garage, and the printed intent does not guarantee that every platform will be a competitive one. If you want to make it competitive, deal with the hand the platform deals you and adjust. Don&#39;t adjust the rules to make it remove those challenges.

[Domino]

Well, I read the proposed rule change, got upset about it and then started thinking about suspensions.

Why suspensions?

Well, the front suspension of my 88-91 CRX, as it comes from the factory, does not have a means of easily changing the front camber. Allowances are written into the ITCS for Macpherson strut cars and many other "double wishbone" types came from the factory with some means of adjustability.

Well, I do have the ability to modify each front corner&#39;s camber. First I pick up a new front knuckle for each corner. That&#39;s $165/corner (http://www.hondaautomotiveparts.com/auto/jsp/mws/prddisplay.jsp?inputstate=5&catcgry1=CRX&catcgry2=1990&catcgry3=2DR+SI&catcgry4=KA5MT&catcgry5=KNUCKLE). Then I take a torch to it, heat it and bend. Then I put it on the car and see what it does. Then I corner weight the car. Wash, repeat. All the while, I&#39;m weakening a critical part of the car. In addition, there&#39;s absolutely no way I&#39;m going to be able to make changes at the track. So, I carry multiple front knuckles, for both front corners, each with their own hub assembly pressed on. Hundreds more dollars.

You see, there&#39;s nothing in the rules that prevents that adjustability. In fact, I can guarantee that there are lots of CRX&#39;s (and Civics, and Integras, and Accords) that aren&#39;t running 0deg front camber. It&#39;s just VERY, VERY expensive to do it, you see--both in parts and labor.

So, why shouldn&#39;t I think it&#39;s not fair that I can&#39;t go and purchase two sets of these (http://store.summitracing.com/partdetail.asp?autofilter=1&part=IEC%2D35720&N=700+115&autoview=sku) for ~ $110 and get easy and cheaper adjustability? After all, it&#39;s not giving me anything that I can&#39;t already do within the rules and it&#39;s allowing me to do it for about the same cost as everybody else.

For years mantra when rejecting rules proposals has been that they "don&#39;t adhere to the class philosophy." Well, by codifying something such as the ECU changes that are soooo far away from the class philosophy because some cars were capable of modification within the rules for far fewer dollars and far less effort than other platforms, the precendent has been set to allow all sorts of changes that completely alter the class philosophy.
You choose a car to buy and build knowing that there are going to be simple fixes to complex problems and expensive fixes to complex problems. Each platform has its weakness, each its strengths, both on-track and in the garage, and the printed intent does not guarantee that every platform will be a competitive one. If you want to make it competitive, deal with the hand the platform deals you and adjust. Don&#39;t adjust the rules to make it remove those challenges.
[/b]



Gregg ya kinda lost me on this one??! I have eccentric bushings that press into the stock front wishbone. They&#39;re well within the rules. Wish there was an easier way but it is what it is. Got them from OPM a long time ago for $40 a corner. What in the world have you been using?

[iambhooper]

ECM... SCHMEECM... lets get to the MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION regarding the new Fasttrack.... Does this change mean:

"2. Pontiac Fiero GT & Formula V-6 2.8 (1988), p. 320, add to the specs as follows: add the 85-87 model years, Wheel Dia.(in):
14, Gear Ratios: 3.31, 1.95, 1.24, 0.81, Brakes Std.(mm): (F)247 Solid Disc ®247 Solid Disc.
3. Pontiac Fiero V-6 2.8 (85-87), p. 320, delete the spec line in its entirety."

: I can finally take an earlier chassis and install an &#39;88 rear cradle? Never mind the previous updating backdating thing... I&#39;m interested in the interpretaion of them being on the same spec line.

:OLA:

hoop

[Knestis]

I sure don&#39;t know the model specifics but it LOOKS like that&#39;s exactly what you can do. They seem to have just consolidated all of the V6 Fieri on one spec line, allowing up/back-dating across the whole pile.

K

PS - there&#39;s a grass covered Fiero about a mile from Conover&#39;s new shop in Burlington. Call him and he&#39;ll point it out for you, I&#39;ll bet...

[iambhooper]

I sure don&#39;t know the model specifics but it LOOKS like that&#39;s exactly what you can do. They seem to have just consolidated all of the V6 Fieri on one spec line, allowing up/back-dating across the whole pile.

K

PS - there&#39;s a grass covered Fiero about a mile from Conover&#39;s new shop in Burlington. Call him and he&#39;ll point it out for you, I&#39;ll bet...
[/b]


fascinating! :emgift: :cavallo:

hoop

[ScotMac]

ECM... SCHMEECM... lets get to the MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION regarding the new Fasttrack.... Does this change mean:

"2. Pontiac Fiero GT & Formula V-6 2.8 (1988), p. 320, add to the specs as follows: add the 85-87 model years, Wheel Dia.(in):
14, Gear Ratios: 3.31, 1.95, 1.24, 0.81, Brakes Std.(mm): (F)247 Solid Disc ®247 Solid Disc.
3. Pontiac Fiero V-6 2.8 (85-87), p. 320, delete the spec line in its entirety."

: I can finally take an earlier chassis and install an &#39;88 rear cradle? Never mind the previous updating backdating thing... I&#39;m interested in the interpretaion of them being on the same spec line.

:OLA:

hoop
[/b]

:014: :bash_1_:


Hmmm...Why allow the v6 ITA&#39;s to mix and match between the different years, but NOT the ITB 4-bangers?!!?

Guess the ITBers need a better lobbyer!!!

[Gary L]

Fieros: I have to wonder about the intent here... this combines onto one spec line, two entirely different cars that happen to share the same plastic body parts.

Bad precedent, IMO.

[iambhooper]

Fieros: I have to wonder about the intent here... this combines onto one spec line, two entirely different cars that happen to share the same plastic body parts.

Bad precedent, IMO.
[/b]


To be fare, they are not 2 entirely different cars... unless the suspension makes the car. One Fiero space frame is identical to every other Fiero space frame, with the exception of the &#39;88 cars purpose built suspension.

If you tear down an &#39;84 SE to the frame and compare it to an &#39;88 Formula, the only difference will be in the suspension and rear cradle (which is part of the suspension).

[Banzai240]

To be fare, they are not 2 entirely different cars... unless the suspension makes the car. One Fiero space frame is identical to every other Fiero space frame, with the exception of the &#39;88 cars purpose built suspension.

If you tear down an &#39;84 SE to the frame and compare it to an &#39;88 Formula, the only difference will be in the suspension and rear cradle (which is part of the suspension).
[/b]

:blink: This is road racing... I think the suspension has a little to do with it... :unsure: Geometry is important, as is design...

Suspension has placed certain cars in ITB that otherwise might look like they should be in ITA, or ITC as opposed to ITB... It&#39;s kind of an important factor...

[Gary L]

To be fare, they are not 2 entirely different cars... unless the suspension makes the car. One Fiero space frame is identical to every other Fiero space frame, with the exception of the &#39;88 cars purpose built suspension.

If you tear down an &#39;84 SE to the frame and compare it to an &#39;88 Formula, the only difference will be in the suspension and rear cradle (which is part of the suspension).

[/b] Not true, IMO. If I remember correctly, the entire front subframe is different as well. You cannot simply unbolt pieces from the front suspension of an &#39;88 and put them on an &#39;84. I&#39;m not sure you can even swap the rear cradle without running afoul of the IT ruleset... I believe you have to make some modifications to the rear portion of the tub to make it fit?

[benspeed]

I sent in the letter requesting that both cars be on the same spec line. Here was my rationale:

Let all the ITA Fieros run ventilated rotors

Let them all run at 2600 lbs

Updating and backdating of suspension permitted (although the point Gary brings up about the rear cradle needing the tub modified - don&#39;t know about that)

The 88 cars are often being preserved as street cars and are much less available - much fewer were built and the 88 year is the most desireable of all years. This spec line change makes running a non 88 Fiero more attractive - I&#39;ll take the 40 lbs. in exhange.

This is similar to putting the S4 and S5 ITS RX7 on the same line (so I&#39;ve been told - I wasn&#39;t around when that happened).

No unfair advantage given to non-88 cars. They get the same brakes and suspension as the 88 car at the same weight.

[Knestis]

If the resulting spec weight considers the best factors of both "cars," the result is probably not a problem precedent. If the ITAC/BoD just smushed them together thinking they weren&#39;t any potential variables influencing performance, that would be a bad thing. They are always a little bit at the mercy of the folks who really KNOW the differences, particularly with something that&#39;s a bit of an oddball.

Of course, I&#39;m on record as being a little "creepy" on the issue of "what makes a car" (e.g., the VIN number rule).

K

EDIT - my post presumes that we ARE talking about otherwise identical chassis, to which the parts in question may be attached. Modifying a chassis to accommodate a subframe from a different year car, even if it IS on the same spec line, crosses the "creating a model" line in my head. But we all have different tolerances for ambiguity...

[Gary L]

EDIT - my post presumes that we ARE talking about otherwise identical chassis, to which the parts in question may be attached. Modifying a chassis to accommodate a subframe from a different year car, even if it IS on the same spec line, crosses the "creating a model" line in my head. But we all have different tolerances for ambiguity... [/b]

They are most assuredly not identical chassis, which is why I spoke up. Putting an &#39;88 front suspension (or any part of it) on an earlier Fiero involves a cutting torch and a welder, as a minimum. I know of no one that has even attempted this mod. Putting the much more desirable &#39;88 rear cradle on the earlier car has been done many times, but it necessitates a major relocation of the upper end of the struts in the pre-88 rear tub.

Again... these are really not the same vehicle. Leave them on separate lines, and let the early models keep the weight break... they&#39;re going to need it. :D

[ScotMac]

It is obviously not true that the pre-88 and 88 fiero&#39;s are totally different cars. They share alot of parts: engine (including intake, sensors, ecm, ...) , transaxle, central chassis, ...

It is true that they changed the suspension for the 88 fiero. The rear was completely redesigned and the front was partially redesigned (spindles, front shocks are interchangeable). That said, i think that Kirk hit the nail on the head. If you take all the best parts off each of the two cars, in order to create one "best" of all years car, that car still is well w/in the class performance, for *both* the ITA (v6) and the ITB (i4) fieros.

Also note, whereas the 88 suspension is considered better by most, it is not obviously so, and has been the subject of much debate over the years. Especially so for the front suspension, where the unsprung weight is lower for the pre-88 cars.

And, there is no "weight break" for the 84-87 fieros in ITB.

[Gary L]

It is obviously not true that the pre-88 and 88 fiero&#39;s are totally different cars. They share alot of parts: engine (including intake, sensors, ecm, ...) , transaxle, central chassis, ...

It is true that they changed the suspension for the 88 fiero. The rear was completely redesigned and the front was partially redesigned (spindles, front shocks are interchangeable). That said, i think that Knestis hit the nail on the head. If you take all the best parts off each of the two cars, in order to create one "best" of all years car, that car still is well w/in the class performance, for *both* the ITA (v6) and the ITB (i4) fieros.

Also note, whereas the 88 suspension is considered better by most, it is not obviously so, and has been the subject of much debate over the years. Especially so for the front suspension, where the unsprung weight is lower for the pre-88 cars.

And, there is no "weight break" for the 84-87 fieros in ITB. [/b]

Last comment first - I have no idea why there is no weight difference in ITB, but IMO there definitely should be.

Now... if it were a simple matter of sharing some key parts, we could also put the Chevy Citation on the same spec line with the Fiero. The X11 had the same basic 2.8l engine, transaxle, and suspension as the early Fieros. Okay, so the front drive engine and suspension on the Citation ended up at the rear of the Fiero, but what possible difference could that make? :D

Seriously, my point being this is not about a few shared parts. It&#39;s about the front suspension of the &#39;88 having a far better camber curve than the off-the-shelf Chevette (yes... CHEVETTE!) pieces on the early cars. (I&#39;ll gladly trade away the insignificantly lower unsprung weight for a camber curve that works, thank you very much.) And these pieces are all attached to subframes that are NOT interchangeable between the older and newer models. That makes the important parts (the a-arms and subsequent geometry) non-interchangeable as well.

At the rear, the early cars have a nasty bump steer problem that was fixed with the &#39;88 redesign. But you cannot simply bolt an &#39;88 rear cradle/suspension to the early chassis... in order for it to fit, you have to make modifications that are against the IT ruleset - i.e. you have to move the upper suspension attachment points.

Given the limitations of the IT ruleset, these are in fact, different cars. I repeat... combining them would be a bad precedent.

[benspeed]

Gary - I think you fail to make a point that the earlier cars are advantaged. They move up to a higher weight and can use some of the components that an 88 uses - under the rules some part exchanges cannot be done.

I see no issue.

PS - my objective was ventilated rotors so the car would still stop at the end of a race.

[ScotMac]

Gary, the cars are obviously very similar, even given the suspension changes for the 88. Set aside your philosophical argument about precedent for a moment, and lets discuss the issue at hand. The 2 fiero lines. We both agree the main difference between them is the suspension, including the subframe. Let&#39;s assume that the 88 has better suspension all round. Since the central tub is pretty much exactly the same, "same lining" them thus allows the pre-88 fiero to switch to the 88 fiero suspension. What does he get after doing that work? An 88 fiero, no more no less!!! All this does is allow more of the equivalent of the 88 fieros to race, since complete 88 fieros are much much harder to find (not only was it only produced that one year, 88 was also a limited run..about a third of the 84-87 runs).

Oh, and the ITB cars probably have the same weight because they are so similar!!! ;-) Or maybe because fieros are soo far off the pace of the VW&#39;s and Volvo&#39;s that it doesn&#39;t matter!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Gary L]

Somewhere along the line, you guys lost me. Or maybe I lost you? :D

Ben - If you were only wanting to allow the &#39;88 brakes on the early cars, wouldn&#39;t it be better to just add it as part of the &#39;Notes&#39; column? Having said that, have you actually seen this done? I&#39;m not at all sure you can make this work without doing other modifications, particularly on the front. I could be wrong, but I don&#39;t think it&#39;s a simple bolt-on procedure. I know damn well the suspension isn&#39;t, at either end. And BTW, where did I claim the early cars were (or would be) advantaged?

Scot - Go back and read my first (and 2nd, 3rd, etc) posts. This is all about the precedent. Putting both cars on the same spec line would create a conflict with the basic IT ruleset, by allowing you to make major (otherwise unallowed) modifications to the basic &#39;84-&#39;87 chassis to &#39;create&#39; an &#39;88 (or vice-versa, should you be so foolish).

[ScotMac]

Scot - Go back and read my first (and 2nd, 3rd, etc) posts. This is all about the precedent. Putting both cars on the same spec line would create a conflict with the basic IT ruleset, by allowing you to make major (otherwise unallowed) modifications to the basic &#39;84-&#39;87 chassis to &#39;create&#39; an &#39;88 (or vice-versa, should you be so foolish).
[/b]

Gary, right, i don&#39;t give a damn about the precedent, and instead am focusing on whether the change makes sense, from a performance and class perspective. It will not add an undo performance advantage, and could allow more people to want to race. All good.

BTW, i read the rule about not being able to move the suspension attachment points as associated w/ the control-arms attachment points, and other suspension extremities? I guess it could be extended to the entire subframe, i just didn&#39;t think that was the intent.

However, i don&#39;t know that it matters. Either it can be done, and it creates a 88 out of a pre-88, w/ normal 88 performance, or it isn&#39;t allowed by the rules. Either way, no harm.

[iambhooper]

Scott is correct about the tubs being the same, the difference is the suspension.

I do not have hands on knowledge of the &#39;88 suspension, however as I understand it the main modification involves the pickup points on the rear struts. The pickup points need to be relocated to account for the geometry of the rear struts, thus creating a conflict with the stock rear springs binding against the strut tower.

I beleive the GCR states that springs are open, correct?
I also believe that the GCR states that slotting of the strut pickup points are allowed, correct?
Lastly, we all use camber plates to adjust our strut pickup points.

These items should accomidate the installation of the rear cradle into an earlier car.

As for the chevette and citation bit, yes the earlier car is made up of a homolgomation of these suspension parts. In addition, the 5spd mated to the v-6 cars was shared by the Corsica and Beretta... 2 excellent sources for spares (only need to switch brackets and speedo pickup&#39;s). If you really wanted to get into "rules creep" then you would have people swapping larger beretta brakes onto the earlier cars.

hoop

[ScotMac]

Gary, i guess what i am trying to get out is that this is not "law". Instead of worrying that we will create a precedent that will cause other damage down the road, we can evaluate each change to ensure that it is what we desire. If there is no harm here, and there is benefit, i say do it. If in some other case, it gives too great a performance advantage, then don&#39;t do it.

[JeffYoung]

I for one cast a vote in favor of Frankenfiero.


It lives!

[iambhooper]

I for one cast a vote in favor of Frankenfiero.
It lives!
[/b]


Please, no peer pressure... my wallet cant stand it.... but then again, now that we can have Paul Allen design the engine management system (or possibly the fine folks at NCSU :D ) imagine the possibilities... hmmmm.

hoop

[Team SSR]

"PS - there&#39;s a grass covered Fiero about a mile from Conover&#39;s new shop in Burlington. Call him and he&#39;ll point it out for you, I&#39;ll bet..."

There is a grass covered Fiero about a mile from everyones shop. :)

[Knestis]

Hmmm. No.

You CAN&#39;T ignore potential precedents that might be set. Whatever gets done has to be in line with the rest of the category and first assumptions about up/back-dating, "making a model," etc. For example, simply allowing the later vented brakes on cars that otherwise didn&#39;t ever have them (pretend we are pre-new rule for a minute), would require one of those "notes" things that we are supposed to not do anymore - specifically because they open a ball of worms that we will eventually HATE.

The point at which the chassis have to be modified, the question becomes, "are they identical once modified, to the &#39;real&#39; examples of those chassis parts?" If so, maybe but for example, if the front half of the tub ends up being "early" spec, while the back half is "late" spec, then the resulting piece (the tub) is not one that ever existed in nature. Not OK.

K

[ScotMac]

"PS - there&#39;s a grass covered Fiero about a mile from Conover&#39;s new shop in Burlington. Call him and he&#39;ll point it out for you, I&#39;ll bet..."

There is a grass covered Fiero about a mile from everyones shop. :)
[/b]

Right, but is it an 88??!!?? :lol: :lol:

[Bill Miller]

Hmmm. No.

You CAN&#39;T ignore potential precedents that might be set. Whatever gets done has to be in line with the rest of the category and first assumptions about up/back-dating, "making a model," etc. For example, simply allowing the later vented brakes on cars that otherwise didn&#39;t ever have them (pretend we are pre-new rule for a minute), would require one of those "notes" things that we are supposed to not do anymore - specifically because they open a ball of worms that we will eventually HATE.

The point at which the chassis have to be modified, the question becomes, "are they identical once modified, to the &#39;real&#39; examples of those chassis parts?" If so, maybe but for example, if the front half of the tub ends up being "early" spec, while the back half is "late" spec, then the resulting piece (the tub) is not one that ever existed in nature. Not OK.

K
[/b]

I admit that the sum total knowledge about Fieros stems from riding/driving a friend&#39;s &#39;85 4-banger MANY years ago. But, I can&#39;t believe something like this didn&#39;t get the "not consistent w/ IT philosophy" rubber stamp when the letter first hit Topeka. Especially in light of some of the VIN# stupidity that&#39;s gone on in the past (e.g. Rabbit/GTI).

Kirk&#39;s right, it&#39;s the little things that set precedents. Just look at how many people are justifying the new ECU rule based on what&#39;s already in the book.

[JeffYoung]

You sure that car in the weeds isn&#39;t a TR7?

Let me ask a sort of overall question that might relate to both the ECU issue and the Fiero....

Are we better off with:

1. A rigid, inflexible rule set that does not change (and therefore avoids dangerous creep) but that gets outdated and becomes obsolescent over time, killing the class?

OR

2. A flexible rule set that has the ability for too much change, which pisses off competitors, causes cost increasing creep, and ultimately kills off the class or causes it to morph into something completely different from where we started?

Not taking any sides here, just interested in the thoughts. I tend to think that history of racing has shown that ALL classes go either route 1 or route 2 and die, to be followed by the birth of something new to replace it. Meaning that despite which side of the ECU fence you are one, both courses of action will ultimately kill IT.

[924Guy]

Personally, I think #2 is the way to go, based on my experience writing rulebooks... started the NASA GTS Challenge classes, they did morph into something that priced me right out of the competition. But the class structure did survive, because it evolved to serve the market, fill a new niche (rather than fighting others for the same territory), and it&#39;s now one of the most popular NASA classes. But I could never afford to play with those guys.

On the Fiero note - do we need a definitive answer on the suspension swap thing? I know a certain person at GM who worked on the &#39;88 suspension, as I recall, could probably answer that question definitively - but don&#39;t want to bug him if it&#39;s not critical. Lemme know.

[ScotMac]

I admit that the sum total knowledge about Fieros stems from riding/driving a friend&#39;s &#39;85 4-banger MANY years ago. But, I can&#39;t believe something like this didn&#39;t get the "not consistent w/ IT philosophy" rubber stamp when the letter first hit Topeka. Especially in light of some of the VIN# stupidity that&#39;s gone on in the past (e.g. Rabbit/GTI).

Kirk&#39;s right, it&#39;s the little things that set precedents. Just look at how many people are justifying the new ECU rule based on what&#39;s already in the book.
[/b]

Note that Kirk&#39;s point was not that the fiero change should be thrown out as "not consistent ...", but instead that you can not create a model. ie, you can not have portions of the 84-87 tub and portions of the 88 tub. If you mod the 84-84 tub, it must be modded to be a complete 88 tub.