Carburated IT Cars - Balancing the system

[Banzai240]

Guys,

I would suggest that everyone running a Carburated IT car submit a letter similiar to the one I sent in (see below):


Originally posted by Darin E. Jordan

Dear members of the CRB,

With the current opening of the ECU rules, I contend that you have created a situation that will make EFI cars more competitive than carburated cars. Please either allow unlimited alternate carbs for carbureted models or allow carbureted cars to use an aftermarket EFI system. If these are not acceptable choices then please rerun to formula used for classification to include 100lbs for all EFI cars.

Thanks for your consideration on this matter.

Sincerely,
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080


The "Process" does not take into consideration all of the gains in the "middle" that a fully programable ECU can achieve, which NO carburated car ever could... Even a fully "Weber'd" car can only adjust the low, mid, and upper RPM ranges to a certain degree... There is NO way that a Carb'd car will every be able to achieve the tune that an EFI car with fully programable ECU can, so there needs to be some balance regained here...

Since the "Process" works off of estimated "potential" peak HP, and now all the ECU cars will have unlimited tuning potential at every possible RPM range using Stand-alone ECUs and aftermarket computers, etc., there should be some allowance for older cars to upgrade and achieve the same benefits...

Those who disregard the significance of the tune in the "middle" need to go back and re-evaluate what they think they know about car racing... the race is NOT won at WOT... NOT in Road-Racing...

If you have a voice, USE it and see if there can be some measure of "balance" restored to IT...

Good Luck!

[Knestis]

You are totally allowed to disagree with proposals and decisions, and to voice concern but...


With the current opening of the ECU rules, I contend that you have created a situation that will make EFI cars more competitive than carburated cars. ...[/b]
Objection, your Honor - proceeds from facts not in evidence. I've yet to see any explanation of how the proposed change gives anyone any performance that we aren't already allowed. Is the fact that those advantages are not limited to the super-rich under the new rule the real problem? That more people will be able to take advantage of an allowance already in the books?


...Please either allow unlimited alternate carbs for carbureted models or allow carbureted cars to use an aftermarket EFI system. ...[/b]
With whatever size air holes you want, eh? The limiting factor in most engines is how many O2 molecules can get in there before fluid dynamics shuts down the intake system. The proposed ECU (and existing one, not accidentally) both limit EFI cars to the mechanical constraints of the stock intake. You're proposing whatever venturi or throttle body (bodies?) diameter you want on cars that came with carbs? REALLY?


... If these are not acceptable choices then please rerun to formula used for classification to include 100lbs for all EFI cars. [/b]
I love the strategy of presenting two unacceptable choices (see above), then leaving only the option of misusing the existing classification/specification process! If a blanket 100# penalty is assessed on every EFI car, then that isn't a "rerun of the formula used for classification."

Now, if your contention were that the existing "shove it in a black box" EFI rules upset the balance of weight/classifications in IT and that the assumptions behind that system should be examined, THAT idea moves from a sound set of assumptions. It should also have done so when that allowance happened. Or propose that cars not processed in the Great Realignment have their day under the ITAC's calculators - no problem.

K

[charrbq]

Well, to compensate, they could let those of us with carbs adjust our cam timing. ;)

[grjones1]

I remember arguing at some point years ago that newer cars with integrated plastic bumpers have an aero and weight advantage and so older cars should be allowed to remove our non-integrated metal bumpers (if we could remain within weight parameters). I was hit with the old "can't stand in the way of progress" and "no guarantee of competitiveness" rebuttals.

The rich get richer and the remainder can suck it up.

Good luck.
G

[JeffYoung]

Hmmmm....you give me that, and I bolt on 30-40 hp and better throttle response to my S car, and you may actually have a class killer.

Except that if the Z cars get triple Webers, they probably get another 20 hp too.

For me, engine is the "size of the hole" (the intake) going into the "pump" (the size of the combustion chamber) and the parameters of the rube goldberg device that runs the mechanical side of the pump (the cam and valves). Those in IT don't change.

But affecting, modifying and metering the air going in the intake hole is now free, both for carbs and ECU cars. I can do anything I want to my stock needles and jets, I just don't have the tunability that EFI allows. But the concept is the same, no?

Changing the carb would be like changing the AFM and intake on an ECU car.

[lateapex911]

Wow.

[Banzai240]

But the concept is the same, no?[/b]

NO...




I just don't have the tunability that EFI allows.
[/b]


You said it all right there...

Area under the curve guys... area under the curve...

Good Luck!

[JeffYoung]

Darin, I actually agree that EFI is an advantage in tuning under the curve, and getting precise fuel/air mixture at the right time, in the right place -- see KThomas and his development efforts on Z carb tuning, damping of the piston.

But I guess my point was I don't see a fix for the carb deficiency in comparison to EFI that doesn't muck up the system. You pick a carb car, and you are stuck with that carb and intake. That's fair, don't pick the car if you don't want to deal with them. EFI, you get more tuneability. Just how it goes.

[Joe Harlan]

Darin, I actually agree that EFI is an advantage in tuning under the curve, and getting precise fuel/air mixture at the right time, in the right place -- see KThomas and his development efforts on Z carb tuning, damping of the piston.

But I guess my point was I don't see a fix for the carb deficiency in comparison to EFI that doesn't muck up the system. You pick a carb car, and you are stuck with that carb and intake. That's fair, don't pick the car if you don't want to deal with them. EFI, you get more tuneability. Just how it goes.
[/b]

Bull shit Jeff, Most folks picked a carb car long before the EFI stuff was classed. And when the EFI stuff was clssed it was originally limited to tricking sensors. I think the argument should be " Pick EFI and get what you can get"

[JeffYoung]

Um, you're wrong?

Lots of Z cars, my car, and quite a few other carb'ed cars have been built since the ECU rule came into being. Maybe we didn't make informed choices, but we made the choice just the same.

Look guys, I understand and agree with your concept -- the EFI with an open ECU is going to be an advantage over carburetors. Just like a good a-arm suspension is over struts, or an independent rear is over a live axle, or discs are over drum brakes.

You pick a car with carbs, and you are at a disadvantage. This rule doesn't change that, it just makes it easier for the EFI cars to take advantage of that advantage. So, in a purely theoretical sense, I (in my carb'ed car) am no worse off than before.

[Joe Harlan]

Jeff, you are worse off than you would have been had the original rule never be touched to allow the stuff it in the box rule. I admire your rose colored glasses look at things but you are not considering how this will effect the catagory as a whole. Poor rules have driven away car from IT time and time again. Trust me when I say I am not wrong, you chose to take your personal choice as an argument but the fact is that type of carburated car was built long before the first EFI rule was written. Big difference. in the light of today I would NOT built a carbed car for a customer with out them signing a no promise of being competitive agreement. And believe me as far as how this rule will personally effect me....I will make money after money on it...installing and programming so my argument actually takes money out of my home.

[Bill Miller]

I've yet to see any explanation of how the proposed change gives anyone any performance that we aren't already allowed. Is the fact that those advantages are not limited to the super-rich under the new rule the real problem? That more people will be able to take advantage of an allowance already in the books? [/b]

And there we have one of the finest examples of how the rules creep mechanism works. A 'questionable' (bad?) rule gets put in the books. It's not corrected. Then after a certain period of time, its existence is used to justify opening things up even further. People accept the original mistake as correct, and then will move forward from that position.

That's how it works folks.

As somebody said, sometimes you just have to say no, because it's the right thing to do.

Mistakes happen in the rules evolution process. When they do, they should be corrected. Preferably sooner rather than later, but nonetheless, still corrected. It happened w/ engine coatings and RR 3x adjustable shocks in IT. It happened w/ sequential gearboxes in Prod. Things can be fixed, it just takes courage to do it.

Full-blown stand-alone engine mgmt systems are so far outside the IT philosophy it's not even funny.

[JeffYoung]

Joe, just to clarify:

1. We aren't talking about the original rule; we're talking about the change the ITAC just made. In my view, the cat is out of the bag. We are never going back to stock ECUs and that decision was made long ago.

2. Carb'ed cars are plenty competitive. Lots of Z cars still kickin ass here in the SEDiv. Mine has run well this year. 1st Gen RX7s do ok here in the SEDiv in ITA.

But I agree the general trend is that EFI cars have an advantage and that advantage is increasing. That's not unfair, that's just an accurate "picture" of the world of cars circa 1990 or so, which is what IT racing should be focused on.

No real way in my view to preserve the dinosaurs forever, competively.

[Knestis]

So (again) - propose that all carburetor-fed cars that haven't been aligned to the current weight standards be run through the process again, with a critical eye to the assumptions on which the math is based.

Out of curiousness - and because I am pretty sure Joe can tell us - what is the ratio of IT-prepared race power and torque to the manufacturers' stated stock figures for significant carb'd IT cars (e.g., Datsun Z, 510, or ??) For that matter, whatever carb'd cars you are worried about obsoleting...?

K

[JeffYoung]

Kirk, I see where you are going I think....

The older carb'ed cars respond quite well to an IT clean up and removal of smog stuff -- perhaps even more so than the FI cars in pure percentage increase.

Examples I am aware of:

240z -- 150 crank hp per manufacturer (and that is gross) -- 170ish at the wheels in IT trim
260z -- 138 crank hp per the manufacturer (net) -- same
TR8 -- 133 crank hp per the manufacturer (net) -- 160 rwhp on not a full build

Doubt you see gains like that out of the 240sx, Integra, etc.

[lateapex911]

And there we have one of the finest examples of how the rules creep mechanism works. A 'questionable' (bad?) rule gets put in the books. It's not corrected. Then after a certain period of time, its existence is used to justify opening things up even further. People accept the original mistake as correct, and then will move forward from that position.

That's how it works folks.

As somebody said, sometimes you just have to say no, because it's the right thing to do.

Mistakes happen in the rules evolution process. When they do, they should be corrected. Preferably sooner rather than later, but nonetheless, still corrected. It happened w/ engine coatings and RR 3x adjustable shocks in IT. It happened w/ sequential gearboxes in Prod. Things can be fixed, it just takes courage to do it.

Full-blown stand-alone engine mgmt systems are so far outside the IT philosophy it's not even funny. [/b]

Well, Bill, I'm not privy to info of the ITACs and the CRBs workings 4 or 5 years ago, (or more) when the "in the box" thing hit the rulebooks, but i can tell you I wasn't pleased. It was one of my main reasons for pushing for the whole process and adjustment thing so hard. I saw it as a post classification competition adjustment.

Since that time, the process and adjustment HAVE occured. Those have essentially cemented in the rocks of the rules as they existed at the time. This new rule is a rewording of an existing allowance.

I appreciate your philosiphical issues. I don't know if you wrote at the time the original "in the box" rule came out, but I saw no letter from you this time urging us to chose any option, (correct me if I am wrong and I will re-search the archives) and the open option was only one. The others were quite different.

Are you suggestig that we:
1- Remove 5 years of installed units from the field. What does your research indicate in regards to the number and cost of installed units?
2- Rewrite the rule allowing NO ECU swapping. (Would you like stock or chips?)
3- Go through the ITCS and adjust every car again?

Do you-
Think that would be better for the customer base? Why, or why not?
Think that is a workable solution two or five ears from now?

I understand your points, but it's not exactly cut and dry. And you are discussing things that have long since gone under the bridge.

[Joe Harlan]

Joe, just to clarify:

1. We aren't talking about the original rule; we're talking about the change the ITAC just made. In my view, the cat is out of the bag. We are never going back to stock ECUs and that decision was made long ago.

2. Carb'ed cars are plenty competitive. Lots of Z cars still kickin ass here in the SEDiv. Mine has run well this year. 1st Gen RX7s do ok here in the SEDiv in ITA.

But I agree the general trend is that EFI cars have an advantage and that advantage is increasing. That's not unfair, that's just an accurate "picture" of the world of cars circa 1990 or so, which is what IT racing should be focused on.

No real way in my view to preserve the dinosaurs forever, competively.
[/b]

NO Jeff once again you are having a conversattion all by yourself cause I have been talking about putting the rule back to where it should have been from the begining. Please stop trying to confuse that. The same thing goes for Kirk. It is not about this being better different or anything wlse its about fixing the original screw up without killing the catagory.

[JeffYoung]

Actually Joe, everyone seems to be talking about the new rule vis a vis the old one, and recognizes we ain't going back to IT circa 1988. I know it was great and all, but dude, I was just in diapers......

[Bill Miller]

Jake,

I don't have all the old GCRs at my fingertips, but IIRC, it's been more like 3-4 years that this 'stuff it in the box' BS has been around. And you know what, yes, if the rule is wrong, you change it and make people take the stuff out. Or, as a concession to not wanting people to throw away a ton of $$$, you add xxx lbs to a car (or xx % of spec weight) if you're running anything other than a stock/flashed/chipped ECU. I know that some will cry comp. adjustment, but that's exactly what was done when the whole thing was allowed to begin with.

Oh, and I didn't send a letter because I'm not a member.

BTW, I did notice how you totally avoided the fact that what's happened w/ this is rules creep at its finest.

And I really don't know how you can say that this is just a re-wording of an existing rule. Adding MAP sensors? Modifying the harness and connectors? Please. I'll refer you to that story about ears and rain.

BTW, I was one of the early people on this site that pushed for a 'process'.

[Joe Harlan]

Actually Joe, everyone seems to be talking about the new rule vis a vis the old one, and recognizes we ain't going back to IT circa 1988. I know it was great and all, but dude, I was just in diapers......
[/b]


OK I see talking too is worthless. At times I believe you may still be wearing diapers. From the beginning this deal has been about going back to chipping or reflashing. Now we can load on a bunch of hardware half these cars never came with. As for the ITA 240SX making gains wait and see once this rule goes through. As I have said this is not about this beeing better or worse than the last rule is about both being outside the intent of the class.

[RSTPerformance]

I agree with Bill-

If the ITAC and current members think the rule was wrong to be changed in the begining then it needs to be changed back. It was done with remote resevoirs if I remember correctly so it can be done with this as well.

Now on topic... Don't forget to give the CIS VW/Audi's something as well, we didn't get anything out of this new rule. Maybe SCCA will get just carb and CIS type cars a discount on something similar as all I see people argue is that nothing changed, it is just less expensive now.

Raymod "Where is my chance to save money?" Blethen

[JeffYoung]

Raymond, if I remember correctly, when this was put out for member comment, one of the options was to go back to the stock ECU rule. I'd prefer that too, but the members of the IT community wanted something different. Between the stuff in the box rule that in my view made it harder on those with fewer $$$ and the new rule, the new rule sure looks a lot more fair to me.

[ggnagy]

If its no big thing for open ECUs then it should make no difference to allow all cars the option of converting to EFI, so long as they use the same intake area and number, right? I mean, isn't IT all about the bolt on anyway?? :P :P :P

[tom_sprecher]

Please either allow unlimited alternate carbs for carbureted models or allow carbureted cars to use an aftermarket EFI system.
[/b]

All I want is a couple of jacking plates so I don't keep f'ing up the bottom of my car and actually add weight! ;)

[924Guy]

While I can see why the EFI guys would want to do this, I have to agree, I don't like the threat of a balance shift this represents.

If the current rule is fundamentally, philosophically wrong, and at odds with IT's current philosophy - does that justify throwing up our collective hands and saying "anything goes?" Two wrongs don't make a right.

Seems to me that the only way this makes sense is to allow open season on carbs and with CIS systems... recontour the bowls? Ditch stock WURs and replace with high-end computer-controlled tuneable pressure regulators? Maybe completely ditch your Lamdba ECUs and replace them with some kind of funky MOTEC Lambda hybrid?

If this proposed change raises more questions than it answers, perhaps it's not a good idea... or maybe it is a good idea, but poorly implemented.

I'm making my comments here, because I feel they would be lost in the other thread... and because I feel I have a lot more in common with carb guys than EFI guys, at this point - mainly, left out!! :026:

[seckerich]

Any of the ITAC members can correct me if I am wrong, but didn't all the carb cars go through the process. Did the process not expect the EFI cars to be full prep to the current "in the box" rule? If so then it was assumed we all had the max this rule allows already. Last I checked the Z cars shed some weight as did a lot of the carb restricted cars. What is the big deal now? If some were missed in the original alignment they need to be run through the process if this rule is passed. Would that be fair??

Joe--If there is no allowance for additional wires to the injectors how will it be converted from batch to timed? Only wire I see allowed is for a map and a tps. Am I missing something? Not being a smart--- < just asking.

[Joe Harlan]

Any of the ITAC members can correct me if I am wrong, but didn&#39;t all the carb cars go through the process. Did the process not expect the EFI cars to be full prep to the current "in the box" rule? If so then it was assumed we all had the max this rule allows already. Last I checked the Z cars shed some weight as did a lot of the carb restricted cars. What is the big deal now? If some were missed in the original alignment they need to be run through the process if this rule is passed. Would that be fair??

Joe--If there is no allowance for additional wires to the injectors how will it be converted from batch to timed? Only wire I see allowed is for a map and a tps. Am I missing something? Not being a smart--- < just asking.
[/b]
Improved Touring
Item 1. Effective 1/1/08: Change section 9.1.3.D.1.a.6 and add a new section 7 as follows:
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.
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.

No longer a limit to use OE harness... You need an ignition signal for tach and a sync signal for sequential I promise it is not hard for those that want it.

[JoshS]

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

No longer a limit to use OE harness... You need an ignition signal for tach and a sync signal for sequential I promise it is not hard for those that want it.
[/b]
Joe, the fact that it offers "modified" and "replaced" as options, but not "added" or "removed", is deliberate. It still might be possible to convert batch to timed if the wiring is right, but the new rule does not permit adding a whole bunch of wires that weren&#39;t already there.

[Banzai240]

... but the new rule does not permit adding a whole bunch of wires that weren&#39;t already there.
[/b]


:blink:

Just what exactly do you think people are going to think "replaced" means??? It&#39;s pretty open-ended, to say the least...

Also, wasn&#39;t "modifed or replaced" the exact verbage used in the ECU rule you are trying to change... If that was ACCEPTED to mean "stuff in a Motec"... what makes you think that people aren&#39;t going to take the same verbage to stuff in as many wires as they need??? :rolleyes:

They "removed" the stock ECU board, and "replaced" it with a Motec... I would think the same would apply to the wiring...

Nice try... B)

[Joe Harlan]

Joe, the fact that it offers "modified" and "replaced" as options, but not "added" or "removed", is deliberate. It still might be possible to convert batch to timed if the wiring is right, but the new rule does not permit adding a whole bunch of wires that weren&#39;t already there.
[/b]

Modified opens up a whole world Josh.....How did we get to motec in the box? Lets set we don&#39;t have to run these 4 items any longer so we now have 4 free wires. You think you can&#39;t police ECU&#39;s how many times you gonna cut a harness open to see if it has the correct number of wires?

[lateapex911]

Any of the ITAC members can correct me if I am wrong, but didn&#39;t all the carb cars go through the process. [/b]
All cars got looked at during the great re-org. If they weren&#39;t out significantly, they were left alone. Some were significantly off, and got adjusted.

Did the process not expect the EFI cars to be full prep to the current "in the box" rule? If so then it was assumed we all had the max this rule allows already.[/b]
Yes, ECu gains are part of the picture, and are built into the process.

If some were missed in the original alignment they need to be run through the process if this rule is passed. Would that be fair?? [/b]
The ITAC gets the occasional, "Does this car really meet the process" letter, and encourages anyone who feels their car was overlooked to request the car get run through the process. Regardles of if itis carbed or injected.

[Joe Harlan]

All cars got looked at during the great re-org. If they weren&#39;t out significantly, they were left alone. Some were significantly off, and got adjusted.

Yes, ECu gains are part of the picture, and are built into the process.

The ITAC gets the occasional, "Does this car really meet the process" letter, and encourages anyone who feels their car was overlooked to request the car get run through the process. Regardles of if itis carbed or injected.
[/b]

Well it is interesting that the previous ITAC chairman has as much concern about the equal application of this rule as many others are. I submit you have no way of even guessing the gains on some cars since you have no idea what they are currently limited by. You are welcome to post up the information you used in the process to figure all of these cars out cause I would be intersted in learning something.

[seckerich]

Thanks Jake, that was my understanding from the outset of this discussion.

[Joe Harlan]

Thanks Jake, that was my understanding from the outset of this discussion.
[/b]


So Steve if thats the understanding then why is Darin asking the question?

[seckerich]

So Steve if thats the understanding then why is Darin asking the question?
[/b]

I guess because I believe that the members of the ITAC are in that position because they are qualified to do so. I leave the personal crap out of the discussion and have no ax to grind. I make my arguements in what I hope is an informed manner and try to convince others I am right. Sometimes it works and other times I am in the minority. I do not know you and can clearly see this is very personal on some level. I don&#39;t think this helps your arguement. I see much closer racing since the changes made by this ITAC and car counts are growing in our area. I do not see the sky falling or the black helo&#39;s you see--sorry. I build to the max of whatever rules the majority of our class wants and do my best to win. A bad day at the track beats a good day anywhere else. :D

[Joe Harlan]

I guess because I believe that the members of the ITAC are in that position because they are qualified to do so. I leave the personal crap out of the discussion and have no ax to grind. I make my arguements in what I hope is an informed manner and try to convince others I am right. Sometimes it works and other times I am in the minority. I do not know you and can clearly see this is very personal on some level. I don&#39;t think this helps your arguement. I see much closer racing since the changes made by this ITAC and car counts are growing in our area. I do not see the sky falling or the black helo&#39;s you see--sorry. I build to the max of whatever rules the majority of our class wants and do my best to win. A bad day at the track beats a good day anywhere else. :D
[/b]

Steve, I have no personal ax to grind, I do believe in IT racing and the general philosophy of the catagory. Believe it or not I had a great hand in coming up with the process in use today. Darin and Andy worked hard to make it work.( not taking away from others on the ITAC I just had more direct contact with them) When the past chairman and others share my same concerns on this dal then it needs to be looked at. I have had conversations with CRB and BOD folks that are not on board with this idea so maybe majority doesn&#39;t and shouldn&#39;t rule, Maybe when you have developed to the max in IT and you want more it is time to move on over to a class that has more and give others the same entry level shot at rising to the top. Maybe not Maybe it is better to constantly change the rules until the class is dead and then move on to something new.

[Ron]

How aout letting the carb cars run a holley 350 two barrel carb. There cheaper than a weber 32/36 breath a little better and every circle track tuner around the country can tune one, unlike the 32/36. How about that?

[Banzai240]

:blink:

Just what exactly do you think people are going to think "replaced" means??? It&#39;s pretty open-ended, to say the least...

Also, wasn&#39;t "modifed or replaced" the exact verbage used in the ECU rule you are trying to change... If that was ACCEPTED to mean "stuff in a Motec"... what makes you think that people aren&#39;t going to take the same verbage to stuff in as many wires as they need??? :rolleyes:

They "removed" the stock ECU board, and "replaced" it with a Motec... I would think the same would apply to the wiring...

Nice try... B)
[/b]

Come on guys... I&#39;m waiting for someone to address this... After all the assurances that there are "limits" and that the playing field will be "more equal/fair"... Please explain to us how "modified or replaced" does NOT mean "add" or "remove"... especially in this context... especially when the rule it&#39;s replacing, which is also being used to justify the change, uses that exact same language... Show us where the "limits" are... Please... :unsure:

[GKR_17]

All cars got looked at during the great re-org. If they weren&#39;t out significantly, they were left alone. Some were significantly off, and got adjusted.
[/b]

This is old news, but I think you should have said all common cars were run through the process. A great example of the rejects are the ITS Alfa Milanos, same weight, but one gets a lot more motor. As I recall, there are several oddball cars more than 200 lbs off of process weight, neglecting the subjective adders.





Come on guys... I&#39;m waiting for someone to address this... After all the assurances that there are "limits" and that the playing field will be "more equal/fair"... Please explain to us how "modified or replaced" does NOT mean "add" or "remove"... especially in this context... especially when the rule it&#39;s replacing, which is also being used to justify the change, uses that exact same language... Show us where the "limits" are... Please... :unsure:
[/b]

My take on the wiring: As long the injectors are stock, you can run whatever wires you want to them, and control them in any way you want.

I guess nobody noticed: the carb guys can run custom ECUs also (with no sensor restrictions except crankfire), only for ignition though, not fuel or cam timing.

[shwah]

How aout letting the carb cars run a holley 350 two barrel carb. There cheaper than a weber 32/36 breath a little better and every circle track tuner around the country can tune one, unlike the 32/36. How about that?
[/b]
Allowing more air into the motor is different issue than how you control the fuel into the motor.

[Ron]

I just meant more air and fuel, a few more HP. Sure it will not be as good under the curve a as good ecu set up. I was just looking for a simple and as the ECU guys want a cheaper way. Holley 350&#39;s are way cheaper than a good weber set up, jet changes on the outside and parts in every circle track catalog. It is just a quick way to give us old timers something. I don&#39;t have an idea for CIS cars, on BMW&#39;s we always took off CIS and went to weber side drafts. ( 1970&#39;s vintage stuff)

Just to be clear I have no problem with the the new ECU rule. Cheating would be too easy if we went back to the "stock ecu" way. I choose to run a carb because it is simple. I might give up a little but it has been super dependable

[Knestis]

Come on guys... I&#39;m waiting for someone to address this... After all the assurances that there are "limits" and that the playing field will be "more equal/fair"... Please explain to us how "modified or replaced" does NOT mean "add" or "remove"... especially in this context... especially when the rule it&#39;s replacing, which is also being used to justify the change, uses that exact same language... Show us where the "limits" are... Please... :unsure:
[/b]

Sorry, Darin - I got lost. What is the concern exactly? Rule says...

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

The worry is that someone will use a new combination of wires to come up with a killer system using the stock injectors?

K

[Joe Harlan]

Joe--If there is no allowance for additional wires to the injectors how will it be converted from batch to timed? Only wire I see allowed is for a map and a tps. Am I missing something? Not being a smart--- < just asking.
[/b]
K the response was in regard to this question. The fact is yes there will be some cars that will see large gains. And yes once people start to take hold of "modified or replaced" the will be some interesting arguments over it.


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

Stock to what?

[Knestis]

...Stock to what?
[/b]
Que?

Stock to the car in question? I&#39;m afraid I just don&#39;t see where this is headed. Or are you suggesting that the wording invites people to make a case for chucking, say an e36 M3 "air metering device" into their e30 318 ITA car, because "it&#39;s still stock - I haven&#39;t changed it?"

Seriously? Or am I confused.

Even if this IS the point, it&#39;s an enforcement issue at that point - not a rules writing issue.

K

[Joe Harlan]

Que?

Stock to the car in question? I&#39;m afraid I just don&#39;t see where this is headed. Or are you suggesting that the wording invites people to make a case for chucking, say an e36 M3 "air metering device" into their e30 318 ITA car, because "it&#39;s still stock - I haven&#39;t changed it?"

Seriously? Or am I confused.

Even if this IS the point, it&#39;s an enforcement issue at that point - not a rules writing issue.

K
[/b]

So why write a rule that cannot be enforced? I am sure if Dr Amy were feeling playful he could give you more examples. The wiring harness is free now by the replaced rule.

[Eagle7]

So why write a rule that cannot be enforced? [/b]

I&#39;m totally lost, Joe. The proposed rule says you can&#39;t change your air metering device. You&#39;re saying that restriction can&#39;t be enforced? Well if that&#39;s the case, maybe I should take my son&#39;s (joking) advice and put that 350 small block into the RX-7. :D



On the other hand, if you&#39;re seriously concerned about enforcability issues, requiring a stock ECU with only rechip/reflash allowed would be a nightmare. :dead_horse:

[Knestis]

Sorry - not getting how this one in particular "cannot be enforced." And if it&#39;s a blanket statement about enforcement, i don&#39;t know what to tell you. That&#39;s another thread entirely. :)

And, yeah - the engine harness is free. That should thrill the guys with &#39;70s and early &#39;80s cars that have rot and replacement issues. I&#39;m struggling to see how connecting the stock parts together in some automagical way is going to generate some big gain in power. Even area under the curve, etc., in a way that can&#39;t already be achieved.

OR if you are arguing that the existing rule should never have been made, just stick to that agenda. ;)

K

[Joe Harlan]

Sorry - not getting how this one in particular "cannot be enforced." And if it&#39;s a blanket statement about enforcement, i don&#39;t know what to tell you. That&#39;s another thread entirely. :)

And, yeah - the engine harness is free. That should thrill the guys with &#39;70s and early &#39;80s cars that have rot and replacement issues. I&#39;m struggling to see how connecting the stock parts together in some automagical way is going to generate some big gain in power. Even area under the curve, etc., in a way that can&#39;t already be achieved.

OR if you are arguing that the existing rule should never have been made, just stick to that agenda. ;)

K
[/b]


Your still right the existing rule should have never been made,

Marty actually if we were to limit to chipping and flashing at least you would be limited to functions that weren&#39;t beyond the stock hardware. So even if you rubbed on it really hard it could do more than the existing hardware it came with. Example: a batch fired ECU does not have the hardware or abilty to be converted to sequential injection. most of these cars cannot do traction control on the stock board. And in the enforcement side a protest can be resolved by opening the box and comparing the hardware to an OE unit.

[shwah]

Joe, you need to stop typing and start printing some money with this new rule! I keep reading your references to building cars for people, but you are perpetually posting on this and other forums. Do you just not sleep, or are there Umpa-Lumpa&#39;s involved?

All joking aside, can someone offer some data on the performance differential between batch fire and sequential fire, at racing engine speeds (lets say 4k up). That would be interesting to see.

[Joe Harlan]

Joe, you need to stop typing and start printing some money with this new rule! I keep reading your references to building cars for people, but you are perpetually posting on this and other forums. Do you just not sleep, or are there Umpa-Lumpa&#39;s involved?

All joking aside, can someone offer some data on the performance differential between batch fire and sequential fire, at racing engine speeds (lets say 4k up). That would be interesting to see.
[/b]


Chris its all of the above. I work all the time don&#39;t sleep and post way too much on this forum. oh and have a couple if lumpa&#39;s the umpa&#39;s wanted to belong to a union...:) There is lots of decent information all over the web on Sequential V batch fire injection. At peak the gains are small it is from the middle up to peak and how far you can hold peak that makes the largest gains.

[Knestis]

Do we need to set the traction control thing free? It&#39;s my understanding that rev rate-of-increase modules are available and pretty cheap, that can be run within even chip-only rules, just like a rev limiter in even a relatively simple ignition system.

K

[lateapex911]

Fot the umpteenth time, the fear mongerers keep bringing up traction control. TC won&#39;t exist in any form that doesn&#39;t exist now, unless people decide to cheat, and that is a whole different issue.

[Joe Harlan]

Fot the umpteenth time, the fear mongerers keep bringing up traction control. TC won&#39;t exist in any form that doesn&#39;t exist now, unless people decide to cheat, and that is a whole different issue.
[/b]


Jake, to start with im not a fear monger second traction control will be used more than it is now once you make it easy and once you make it part of the FREE ecu how are you goin gto say its illegal? Once it becomes part of the allowed engine management system i don&#39;t think there is anything you can protest.

[shwah]

One reason that it is nice to only be racing an ITB car. I can&#39;t spin the tires in the dry, unless I specifically try to.

Traction control! :lol:

On the batch vs. sequential, I was just wondering if anyone here had actual hands on knowledge of the benefit - in our operating conditions. How much hp/tq at which rpms? I understand the theory behind it, but don&#39;t have a good feel for the order of magnatude the difference is.

[jlinfert]

On the batch vs. sequential, I was just wondering if anyone here had actual hands on knowledge of the benefit - in our operating conditions. How much hp/tq at which rpms? I understand the theory behind it, but don&#39;t have a good feel for the order of magnatude the difference is.
[/b]

The biggest benefit of sequential injection is fuel economy. The power/torque improvements are small, 2-3% an average, but are across the entire power band. Some engines do respond better than others and typically an increase in the WIDTH of the powerband is the best thing that happens.

[Banzai240]

The power/torque improvements are small, 2-3% an average, but are across the entire power band. [/b]


Small??? "2-3%" on average "across the entire power band"... (remember "area under the curve"??? )

Let&#39;s see... If a car makes 150hp in IT trim, and can gain a "small" 3% increase in HP, that&#39;s an additional 4.5hp... Spread that across the "entire power band"...

Those cars making 200hp... that&#39;s an additional 6hp...

In ITA, for example... 4.5hp is worth about 65lbs... 6lbs in ITS is good for around 75lbs...

ALL of which seems quite significant to me... And that&#39;s just ONE of the potential benefits of this new open ECU/Wiring rule... as well as just an "average" increase... What hidden gems are still waiting out there to be found... (Here is a hint... NEONs, HONDAs, etc...)


It&#39;s all "fair and balanced", however, because now EVERYONE "get&#39;s" to spend the $1,000+ to do it...

Perfect... :blink:

[shwah]

OK - guess I&#39;ll bite.

What I know about sequential injection is that it helps low rpm/idle smoothness, provides small improvement in emissions and economy, and provides very small if any power gain. It has been included in modern production cars for emissions and smoothness.

This is why I was asking if anyone had actual data about batch vs. sequential injection. At the engine speeds we compete at, we are in the meat of the &#39;load table&#39; for our engine. We are at our max duty cycle in terms of injector performance (typically 75-80%). This means that regardless of system, the injector is spraying away on a closed intake port for more time than an open one (what is the average valve open time for a stock cam - 180-220deg? out of a 720deg cycle). If you wanted to try to only spray on an open valve you would need larger than stock injectors to do so, which is not legal.

Basically I don&#39;t buy the claims that this will provide a significant (in racing lap time terms) gain to change from batch to sequential. Not unless we institute a 3000rpm rev limit for all competitors.
EDIT - you also gain the ability to tune the amount of fuel to each individual cylinder... this is the one are that in certain cases of badly balanced intake flow, it is conceivable to me that someone could gain power.

That is what I think, but I don&#39;t have real world numbers to back it up. Can someone chime in and correct me with data?

Of course all of this assumes that the car you are working with has a cam position sensor so that you can properly operate a sequential system.

[Eagle7]

At the engine speeds we compete at, we are in the meat of the &#39;load table&#39; for our engine. We are at our max duty cycle in terms of injector performance (typically 75-80%). This means that regardless of system, the injector is spraying away on a closed intake port for more time than an open one (what is the average valve open time for a stock cam - 180-220deg? out of a 720deg cycle). If you wanted to try to only spray on an open valve you would need larger than stock injectors to do so, which is not legal.

Basically I don&#39;t buy the claims that this will provide a significant (in racing lap time terms) gain to change from batch to sequential. Not unless we institute a 3000rpm rev limit for all competitors.[/b]

:023:

[Z3_GoCar]

Besides, as Jake and Josh have said all along, when the class realignment was performed the ECU was open, with only one caviot which was as long as it fit in the stock box and used the stock wire harness/connectors. The hp/torque potential was already adjusted for the difference between EFI and a carburetor. This changes nothing. The odd ball guys should welcome the toss of the stock motor harness. I know of one case where a guy totaled his Z3 because of a burned harness, and this is from a car less than ten years old. Now how about addressing the secondary and terterary computers? You know the computer that runs the ABS and brakes each wheel independantly to keep you out of a skid, operates the pyro&#39;s on the seat-belt tensioners, and fluffs the air-bag for you....

James

[Banzai240]

...when the class realignment was performed the ECU was open, with only one caviot which was as long as it fit in the stock box and used the stock wire harness/connectors. The hp/torque potential was already adjusted for the difference between EFI and a carburetor. This changes nothing. The odd ball guys should welcome the toss of the stock motor harness. [/b]

This is completely absurd, for any number of reasons already mentioned above... :rolleyes:

That&#39;s a pretty damn big caviate, dude... The hp/torque potential was adjusted based on an optimized STOCK system... Now with the additional wiring and sensors that can be added, complete reprogramming of the injection sequencing, additional mapping, additional controls, etc... Ya... "nothing changes"... :blink:

[Joe Harlan]

This is completely absurd, for any number of reasons already mentioned above... :rolleyes:

That&#39;s a pretty damn big caviate, dude... The hp/torque potential was adjusted based on an optimized STOCK system... Now with the additional wiring and sensors that can be added, complete reprogramming of the injection sequencing, additional mapping, additional controls, etc... Ya... "nothing changes"... :blink:
[/b]

Haha, there must have been a complete redo of the redo after you left the ITAC.... :eclipsee_steering:

[Z3_GoCar]

Then name one.

The map&#39;s already been changed, you&#39;d allow that with a chip swap in the old system(maybe), if you&#39;ve got a system&#39;s got hidden check-sums to prevent tamper then you can&#39;t. How about VANOS/VVTi/ect... Nope sorry the stock system already adjusts this, again if you&#39;re sytem is cracked you can change it too, if not then sorry..

Nope, nothing changes, the stock measuring orfice stays, the stock cams and lifters stays, the stock head and valves stays, the stock manifold stays. Do as you will to the fuel and timing maps(which btw you&#39;d allow with the chip/software swap if you can and not everyone can) you&#39;re not getting any more hp or torque than you get air, or do you like to run with a 8:1 a/f ratio? :lol: Been there done that, got the black soot on the trailer.

Maybe I should take a cue from Joe, how many of these have you installed?

I have one, and I did ask about stuffing an ECU (not the system I installed) into the oem housing. My tunner never heard of it, the ECU stuff that is. There&#39;s no way I could stuff my current system into a stock housing as it&#39;s integral with the coil packs, which are open and allowed to be anywhere in the car, even off of the head as the stock motor has the coils mounted directly on the plugs. As for sensors, it&#39;s got one manifold pressure sensor, one narrow band O2 sensor(reading only 3cylinders), a particular timing tooth pattern, and fires the injectors and spark in pairs. Why is this system clearly not allowed in IT?? You&#39;re reason is as clear as the Mississippi river after the Missouri river floods in Spring.

James

[Banzai240]

Maybe I should take a cue from Joe, how many of these have you installed?

[/b]

That&#39;s funny... Since Joe happens to be my best friend... and I&#39;ve been involved in installing several of these systems... Joe... How many has it been??? ;) Also happen to be an EMBEDDED SOFTWARE Engineer, who minored in EE, and DESIGNED one as a class project in 2001 (didn&#39;t quite reach MOTEC status, however... :P )... Also am the former CHAIRMAN of the ITAC who has gone round and round about this topic for several years prior to this new rule... But I can&#39;t POSSIBLY have a clue... :rolleyes:

And... once again, the justification in your argument for this new bad rule are the precedents set by the exising bad rule... PERFECT! :blink:

If you don&#39;t think that an open wiring harness, allowing the addition of MAP sensors, etc., is going to make a performance difference then I guess you can relax and save your money... No reason to upgrade... Right?? :wacko: I&#39;m certain that Sunbelt, Rebello, and Bimmerworld aren&#39;t going to change a thing in what they do, right??? <_<

My thoughts on IT when I started on the ITAC was that it needed ONE major realignment to get things more in balance and correct misclassifications of the past, and then a series of SMALL adjustments or tweaks to get some inconsistencies in the rules corrected... I approached/would have approached the ECU rules the same way... They needed to have some wording REMOVED, adjusted, or otherwise re-authored, so as to put some of the genie back into the bottle... Blowing the rule wide open, was NOT an option... It&#39;s inconsistant with IT class philosophy, and BAD for the class...

... but what do I know... :unsure:

[shwah]

Darin,

It sounds like you and Joe have plenty of empirical data to support your position on this matter. Why not share some of it and make your case. Is it because the monster gains are not present unless you make other changes to the system?

I want to see actual numbers of a car running programmable management with stock components.
I want to see actual numbers of a car making a measurable power gain running sequential vs. batch fire injection with stock components.
All of my experiences have been with modified engines - at minimum eliminating all oem intake piping and changing cams, at most adding a turbo system and changing compression. Obviously I have always seen large gains. These have also always been set up as batch fire, so I don&#39;t have empirical data to share there.

Let me qualify that 4 years ago, or whenever the ecu debacle began, I wish I was paying enough attention to try to stop it. This change was not correct for the class. However at this point today, I don&#39;t think it is reasonable to go back in time. I also don&#39;t think that open ECUs will really upset the apple cart.

[cherokee]

Me thinks, the Genie is out of the bottle guys and I doubt you are going to like what he does.

I would bet it will not be long before people want to replace injectors and all kinds of other bits short of TB&#39;s. And don&#39;t say it is against everything IT stands for, so was all this crap 6yrs ago.

Look where you are heading and you don&#39;t have to look far, I doubt you are going to like it.

I don&#39;t think this is a good idea, just like I did not think the other ECU rule changes where a good idea.

I also think that Joe is correct the bullet has left the gun god only knows how far it is going to go.

[shwah]

Sorry, I don&#39;t see any logical reason that this allowance will create a cry for open injectors, throttle bodies and the like, and if it did, I have no reason to believe that any requests would be honored.

People also want different bearings, hubs, brakes, cams, etc. etc. - however they don&#39;t get those things just by wanting them. There needs to be, and is some logic behind the changes that are made to our rule set. I wish the genie could be put back in the bottle, but I think that would do more harm than the propsed rule to the class at this time. This is the key point - we have been traveling along the 4th dimension for quite a ways since the original ECU rule change, and thus the situation is very different, with lots of fellow members taking advantage of the rule, AND with an increasing number of IT eligible cars requiring ECU replacement to function properly in IT legal trim.

I am all for maintaining the sanctity of the class, but I have not yet been convinced that the sky is falling on this one. The weird thing is that I honestly don&#39;t have much of a vested interest in this particular rule - I am just not comfortable with the over exagerated arguments being presented as cons to the proposed change. Logic and data, not what if&#39;s, and might be&#39;s might do a better job to convince me otherwise.

You missed the timeframe to fight open ECUs by a few years, that is not what this issue is about. This issue is allowing competitors to perform an allowed modification for a fraction of the investment, and allowing those that made the big investment to continue using their current systems.