2008 GCR ONLINE!

[cmaclean]

Open ECU for next season is officially a go!

http://scca.com/documents/Club%20Rules/ImprovedTouring.pdf

Please list any other changes here so we can have them in one place :)

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.

[tom91ita]

let the winter games begin!

[Greg Amy]

let the winter games begin![/b]
Indeed.

You guys notice, of course, that the "wiring and connectors" part is an independent line from the ECU part, and is not restricted to only when you "alter or replace" the ECU...? Let your mind wander...

[RacerBowie]

Can I get a "Hell yeah!"?

[gsbaker]

Can I get a "Hell yeah!"?
[/b]
Hell yeah!

[tom91ita]

Indeed.

You guys notice, of course, that the "wiring and connectors" part is an independent line from the ECU part, and is not restricted to only when you "alter or replace" the ECU...? Let your mind wander...
[/b]

as near as i can tell, one could rewire/gut the whole engine harness if they were of such an inclination.



Open ECU for next season is officially a go!

http://scca.com/documents/Club%20Rules/ImprovedTouring.pdf

Please list any other changes here so we can have them in one place :)

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]

for replacement of existing sensors, what exactly does "equivalent" mean?

equal in specs, equal in size, equal in location, equal in function?

can i put in a wide-band O2 sensor for the stock one? my personal interpretation is yes based on the above and it does not seem to be a tortured interpretation. at least i wasn't gritting my teeth when i read it or typed this.

not sure if i need to or want to. i need to read the rest of the rules over the long weekend.

tom

[BlueStreak]

I'm just happy that there is no specification as to whether "engine management computer" is electrical or mechanical. Wait 'til yall see what CIS can do! :026:

[keycom]

I'm just happy that there is no specification as to whether "engine management computer" is electrical or mechanical. Wait 'til yall see what CIS can do! :026:
[/b]

Without electronic injectors, aren't we now officially screwed?

[AE86ITA]

Open ECU for next season is officially a go!

http://scca.com/documents/Club%20Rules/ImprovedTouring.pdf

Please list any other changes here so we can have them in one place :)

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]

If a MAP sensor can be installed why in the world would one want the factory MAF left in placed(Does it has to be in working order?)

Thanks,

Efrain

[BlueStreak]

Without electronic injectors, aren't we now officially screwed?
[/b]

Think outside the box - stew on it a bit....


Why is 9.1.3.s still there?

s. The engine management computer or ECU may be altered
provided that all modifications are done within the original
housing.

[x-ring]

Without electronic injectors, aren't we now officially screwed?
[/b]

Not as screwed as I am. Or Ron. Or Mike. Or...

[JeffYoung]

But not me...one Motec powered 3.5 liter V8 Bosch L-Jetronic motor coming your way this spring or summer.

This could be good.

[77ITA]

RIP: carbureted IT cars

[joeg]

I suppose us carburetor guys can gut the engine wiring harness and save all that weight?

[ScotMac]

I suppose us carburetor guys can gut the engine wiring harness and save all that weight?
[/b]

Yep. In fact, that is all it takes to keep the carburated cars competitive. A slight spec-line weight reduction, to account for the fact that the "process" must now change its weighting w/ respect to Injection vs carburated cars.

[Ron]

I guess I was hopping that us old carb guys would have a bone tossed our way. I guess I could go FI or ask for the carb rule to change and give us somethig a little better. Maybe a holley 350 or the Weber 38 or just be happy I can race and have fun chasing Pablo. Granted it will be harder to see him.

[ScotMac]

It looks like the "samelining" of the 85-88 ITA Fiero's made it in also. I continue to find it interesting that the ITA Fiero is samelined, but not the ITB Fiero. Doesn't hurt me, since i believe the my 88 is the best of the bunch, but seems pretty contradictory.

[Gary L]

It looks like the "samelining" of the 85-88 ITA Fiero's made it in also. I continue to find it interesting that the ITA Fiero is samelined, but not the ITB Fiero. Doesn't hurt me, since i believe the my 88 is the best of the bunch, but seems pretty contradictory.
[/b]Contradictory, indeed. And yes, the '88 is clearly the car to have, in either class.

But the irony of this? The build of an '87 ITA car that prompted this change has been abandoned. :)

[lateapex911]

Guess what guys, the process used to spec the weight of injected cars assumes you can fit a full tilt booogie system in your stock box. This rule is to make it easier for you to actually do that...across the board. Some will find that their stock system actually works best, others find the diminishing returns not worth it as they have great chip options, and others will have fun with their laptops.

Now if you're complaining that it was better before, because it made people spend more, which means you saw fewer such systems, well that's your perspective. But delta Hp shouldn't bump up drastically as has been suggested here.

I know cars..... real cars that I share the track with....in ITB, ITA and ITS that have full on systems. You might too, but you didn't realize it.

[ScotMac]

Guess what guys, the process used to spec the weight of injected cars assumes you can fit a full tilt booogie system in your stock box. This rule is to make it easier for you to actually do that...across the board. Some will find that their stock system actually works best, others find the diminishing returns not worth it as they have great chip options, and others will have fun with their laptops.

Now if you're complaining that it was better before, because it made people spend more, which means you saw fewer such systems, well that's your perspective. But delta Hp shouldn't bump up drastically as has been suggested here.

[/b]

Yes, Jake, you are correct. ie, the "process" should be spec'ing cars based on the ultimate build, and the ultimate build was whatever $100,000 of ECU you could fit in the stock enclosure. And yes, as we have hashed over and over, this rule change does make it easier for "everyone" to get those benefits.

However, why did we need to make this change? Because the perception was "only the privileged *few* could acquire that $100,000 custom ECU". So, are the carb cars currently on a par w/ those privileged *few* or the more widespread closer-to-stock ECU *many*? I would guess the latter, and that was the reason for my above statement. But, hell, i could be wrong.

[JLawton]

The "sky is falling" crys about the open ECU have me scratching my head............ :blink:


This does not change anything except for the fact it is now less expensive. This isn't "all of the sudden" going to give guys with ECU's 10 more horse power. (I wish) I'm not going to make any changes to my ECU and I don't have any fear of not being competitive any more.

Anyone who thinks this is going to end IT, SCCA and the world as we know it need to go back and re-read the original thread, and read again, and again. It sounds like it's going to be just another excuse on why we're slow.............. :rolleyes:

[JeffYoung]

Area under the curve...........

It will help, me as much as anyone.

[Greg Amy]

Yep, it'll help.

More processing power, finer tuning, using a fully-mapped MAP/TPS system versus whatever crap the factory uses...it all makes a difference. Should we be so inclined, I'd estimate we could see "more" ponies and a wider torque band from the NX with a full-up MAP system...

Granted, you ain't gonna cram more air into the system, and you're stuck with the factory injectors, but the ability to optimize whatcha got can't be underestimated...

[tom91ita]

how much does ignition timing changes with a full done ecu impact the power or area under the curve?

my 1985-87 crx si has an ecu for the fuel injection but does not have the ability to adjust the timing like later FI cars. i set the timing manually and that is it, within the limits of the vacuum advance, etc.

but i would assume that at higher rpm's, the need to advance slightly more might be beneficial.

so for those of you that have done this, will the early FI cars leave some on the table or not? not like the carb'ed cars for sure.

how much is just the injector delivery gains vs. timing?

tia, tom

[Andy Bettencourt]

Couple points:

- This does nothing to the competitiveness of carbed cars. This technology has been legal for years. Now it is just cheaper to get for everyone. (If you take a HARD look at carbed cars and their ability to make 25% or more in 'process power', I think you will find that the vast majority of them overachieve to some extent) The GCR carb allowances are good.

- TR6 was a request to be RE-LISTED from way back when

- You can't GUT the wiring harness, you can modify or replace the wires. People with older cars should be thrilled

- Good catch on the old ECU rule still being ion there

- The factory MAF, AFM etc need to be left in place because they are stock airway restrictions, without them, the performance envelop has the potential to be raised vs. the old rule

[Greg Amy]

Here's where the ugliness - and culture - comes in, Andy. I really, really considered simply taking advantage of such loopholes, but with a sense of fairness (and a sense of "auld lang syne" for the true spirit of the rules)...



- You can't GUT the system, you can modify or replace the wires.[/b]

...with air. Remember, in today's culture, air is a material.


The factory MAF, AFM etc need to be left in place because they are stock airway restrictions...[/b]
Where does it say that the air has to actually flow through them?

9.1.3.D.1.a.4 states, "All air entering the intake tract shall pass through the carburetor or fuel injection air inlet." Define "fuel injection air inlet"; sounds like a throttle body to me.

9.1.3.D.1.c states, "Air intake hoses, tubes, pipes, resonators, intake mufflers, housings, etc., located ahead of the carburetor/throttle body may be removed or substituted." This allows tubes between the throttle body and the MAF to be removed, or substituted... with air?

9.1.3.D.1.c further states, "...the air metering/measuring device (i.e. air flow meter, air mass meter, MAF) must be operational and shall not be modified." This, of course, now directly conflicts with the ECU rule, in that someone can replace the operational functionality of the MAF with a MAP sensor, and electrically ignore the MAF, thus making it "inoperable" and an allowed function.

Unless I'm missing something here, given we can make the MAF non-operable, and the tubes between the throttle body and the MAF can be changed/removed, where in the rules does it now say that air must pass through a MAF if so equipped? "If it says you can, you bloody well can!"

'Scuse me, Ms. Pandora's at the door...

P.S. "Air intake source shall be within the confines of the engine compartment or stock location" is in the rules twice, both in D.1.a.4 and D.1.c - GA

[lateapex911]

With respect to the sky is falling aspect, yes, I have watched cars with full on ECUs compete head to head with ancient carbed cars at the highest level. And I've seen it in more than one class.

As to the verbiage, it appears certain wording made it into print that shouldn't, and we'll take care of any typos and such.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Greg - where does it say you can remove the MAF/AFM from your intake system?

As far as the 'replace with air' stupidity, I am not even going to get into it.

[Greg Amy]

Greg - where does it say you can remove the MAF/AFM from your intake system?[/b]
Who said anything about removing it? It'll still be there, and probably even still plugged in, electrically. Just no hoses attached to it and the ECU will be ignoring it.


As far as the 'replace with air' stupidity, I am not even going to get into it.[/b]
Hey, you know I'm with you, but... I'm just sayin' ::giles::

[Andy Bettencourt]

Who said anything about removing it? It'll still be there, and probably even still plugged in, electrically. Just no hoses attached to it and the ECU will be ignoring it. [/b]

Show me your logic that eliminates the AFM/MAF from the intake system. You can modify or replace the components before and after the unit(s) - but if you remove them, you still have to stick your AFM/MAF directly to your TB...no? Having it dangling there on the premise that you have replaced the intermediary section with air is absolutly assinine and would NEVER get through a protest. It's not part of the culture. Can anyone think of a REAL example of this being acceptable or is it just interweb lore...

The point of it still being there and 'fuctional' is to make sure anything with flapper-doors and the like are not modifed in any way.

[lateapex911]

You know, the "replace with air" thing came from the RX-7 rear bushing situation, and somebody made a joke ..."Air is a material, I could replace it with air!". My car has very soft foam upper bushings that allow the trailing arms to move enough so the suspension doesn't bind...a unique Mazda problem that happens when you lower the rear.

I can not, in any situation, think that a protest wouldn't get laughed from existance by a steward if the defense was "I replaced those wires with air, sir".

[Greg Amy]

Oooookay...you guys sound a lot like one particular fellow who was adamantly opposed to the concept of spherical bearings as suspension bushings... ::waving::

P.S. Is door screen "material"...? Can wires be replaced with Silly String...?

[Andy Bettencourt]

As was I, as you know.

SO lets assume that we take these rediculous items at face value. How would YOU write the rule to accomodate (eliminate) the tortured interpretations?

I can tell you that these types of things won't be tolerated in my patch, I suggest we make the 2008 season a year of 'weeding out the crap'.

[Greg Amy]

How would YOU write the rule to accomodate (eliminate) the tortured interpretations?[/b]
I can't, which is why I was one of the persons pretty much opposed to the ECU rule.


I suggest we make the 2008 season a year of 'weeding out the crap'.[/b]
Well, that's a super idea, but now we're back to that "culture thing" again. We can't do it alone...

[Andy Bettencourt]

I can't, which is why I was one of the persons pretty much opposed to the ECU rule.

[/b]

ECU rule aside, these intake rules have been in place for a couple years. Have at it.

[JeffYoung]

And as I have said before, the intake rules are another example of a disadvantage to carb'ed cars. Read literally, they allow air horns/devices to accelerate the flow of air into the intake track for FI cars, but not carb'ed cars.

Fortunately, I'm moving to EFI land.

That said, I do agree with Andy that older carb'ed cars see a lot of gain, perhaps more than an EFI car, in IT trim. I think the reason is context. Carb'ed cars are older, built at a time when emissions controls systems were crippling to power, and build tolerances were low. They REALLY benefit from an IT build/blueprint/balance/port match, while newer EFI motors do not, as much.

[shwah]

I had planned on changing my fuel injection system this winter if this rule came to be.

However instead I have decided that this will create a nice supply of affordable spares for my CIS-E system as others make that move.

[JamesB]

I thought about going digi, I have the entire system at home in case I do change my mind. As for CIS-E, the way the rule was written allows me to test out a solution using MS that a buddy put together for one of his GRM challenge cars. With some minor rethinking I will test in late winter to see if I can actually make a better tunable fuel map for my CIS-E system. If not ill go with the MS digifart using MAP.

[77ITA]

Guess what guys, the process used to spec the weight of injected cars assumes you can fit a full tilt booogie system in your stock box. This rule is to make it easier for you to actually do that...across the board.
[/b]




This does nothing to the competitiveness of carbed cars.[/b]

I strongly disagree with both of these statements and this is exactly what divides our opinions.

Given the time period in which the "anything within stock box" rule was written and the fact that no current ITAC member was serving then, it is quite the ridiculous assumption to say that the current weights of fuel injected cars are based upon competitors installing aftermarket standalone engine management within the confines of the stock engine controller box. Keep in mind that this can't even be physically accomplished on some F.I. cars and 10 years has led to a lot of changes in technology.

Sure it was possible back then... Motec has been around since '86, but it was not mainstream affordable/accessible stuff then and it was physically larger in size. Like it or not, aftermarket engine management was never the intent of the rule... it was the byproduct of time, creativity, and a loose or poorly written rule. Subsequently the weights of fuel injected cars are not based upon it and I've yet to see something that would lead me to believe otherwise.

For 2008, fuel injected cars have been given a new level of preparation and the resale value of carb'd IT cars has fallen by 300% ;)

note: I could be 100% wrong on this, but I'll need to hear it from someone that worked on the original rule 10 years ago.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I strongly disagree with both of these statements and this is exactly what divides our opinions.

Given the time period in which the "anything within stock box" rule was written and the fact that no current ITAC member was serving then, it is quite the ridiculous assumption to say that the current weights of fuel injected cars are based upon competitors installing aftermarket standalone engine management within the confines of the stock engine controller box. Keep in mind that this can't even be physically accomplished on some F.I. cars and 10 years has led to a lot of changes in technology.

Sure it was possible back then... Motec has been around since '86, but it was not mainstream affordable/accessible stuff then and it was physically larger in size. Like it or not, aftermarket engine management was never the intent of the rule... it was the byproduct of time, creativity, and a loose or poorly written rule. Subsequently the weights of fuel injected cars are not based upon it and I've yet to see something that would lead me to believe otherwise.[/b]

I will disacgree. The 'process' has only been in place for 3 or so years. The current ECU rule pre-dates said process so it most certainly was a factor in the development of the process fundamentals.


For 2008, fuel injected cars have been given a new level of preparation and the resale value of carb'd IT cars has fallen by 300% ;)

note: I could be 100% wrong on this, but I'll need to hear it from someone that worked on the original rule 10 years ago. [/b]

The original intent of the rule has no affect on the rules in place when the process was developed. Frankly, as Jeff stated, carbed cars have a slight base advantage wrt process power as their stock hp rating tend to be artifically low when compared to modern-day examples. Pull off the old-tech smog crap, do an IT-spec build and uprate your carb(s) and jets and off to the races you go.

[77ITA]

I will disacgree. The 'process' has only been in place for 3 or so years. The current ECU rule pre-dates said process so it most certainly was a factor in the development of the process fundamentals.



The original intent of the rule has no affect on the rules in place when the process was developed. Frankly, as Jeff stated, carbed cars have a slight base advantage wrt process power as their stock hp rating tend to be artifically low when compared to modern-day examples. Pull off the old-tech smog crap, do an IT-spec build and uprate your carb(s) and jets and off to the races you go.
[/b]

I refuse to believe that the process set (at any date) accommodated all fuel injected cars as having programmable engine management. The detailed extent of this could not be quantified for use as a process without significant and detailed scientific research or a horribly inaccurate shot in the dark. If this was factored into the process, my guess would be the latter.

I'm not calling you a bold faced liar here, but even from a sheltered distance I can see that this doesn't add up.

Every car (and sometimes specific model years of that car, ala OBD1 and OBD2 split) will be unique in the way it responds to programmable engine management and even more specifically, by how well that programmable engine management is tuned.

You must also keep in mind that some cars can't physically be fitted with programmable management under the current rule due to wiring harness design, sensor type, ECU design, and physical box size limitations. These same vehicles will have free reign for '08 and I sure don't see a list of cars getting heavier.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I refuse to believe that the process set (at any date) accommodated all fuel injected cars as having programmable engine management. The detailed extent of this could not be quantified for use as a process without significant and detailed scientific research or a horribly inaccurate shot in the dark. If this was factored into the process, my guess would be the latter.

I'm not calling you a bold faced liar here, but even from a sheltered distance I can see that this doesn't add up.

Every car (and sometimes specific model years of that car, ala OBD1 and OBD2 split) will be unique in the way it responds to programmable engine management and even more specifically, by how well that programmable engine management is tuned.

You must also keep in mind that some cars can't physically be fitted with programmable management under the current rule due to wiring harness design, sensor type, ECU design, and physical box size limitations. These same vehicles will have free reign for '08 and I sure don't see a list of cars getting heavier.

As far as any cars getting heavier, you could make the arguement that those cars have been underachieving in the HP department vs. their spec weight until now.




[/b]

Jeff,

I am not sure where you got the impression that each car is classed to the Nth factoid. We use a base percentage of 25% gains in IT trim - and that takes into account PFI. Sorry if it isn't more granular than that, but it isn't. Some guys will laugh at you when you tell them their weight is based on an 'estimated' 25% increase because they will swear they can't get there.

Not sure what doesn't add up. The process is not perfect and it is a braod estimate brushed across many cars. It gets up to where we need to be for IT and Regional racing.

[lateapex911]

Right.

And lets not forget the "Grand Re-org" (Feb addendum)..that came out a bit ago. We went through the ITCS, and looked at cars with an eye to how they fit in the class they were in, what they were capable of given the existing rules (Open ECUs), and they were adjusted up, or down, or moved as needed. As Andy points out, there is a certain granularity to be expected in classing 300 cars in the ITCS, and making them all play nice on tracks of all kinds across the country.

Some cars will and do respond better, and there *might* be some that come away from this happy. Will we see a new "Must have" car in ITB, ITA, ITS or ITR due to this?? I highly doubt it.

Also, while you might not be aware of whats under peoples hoods, you might also be surprised. When I started doing research...going to tracks and asking pointed questions, I found quite a few surprises.

I drive an old RX-7...NOT the car to have for ITA. And it is carbed. Yet I was instrumental in getting this ball rolling. Why? Because I felt the old rule was plain old dumb, and after researching the situation, and being involved in the process, I felt that it's upsides far outweighed the potential downsides. Honestly, at NHIS, in a class of 25 ITA cars, I grid about 6th -8th if I am on my game. I anticipate that the new rule could make it easier for some of my buds to realize some HP they haven't been able to crack because of money or impossible fitments, and I might grid up 8th to 10th. And you know, that doesn't bother me. Not because I don't want to be competitive, but because I was having my day in the sun in 6th! In all reality, I shouldn't be that high. (And the issue with the RX-7 is far more complicated than the carburetor status, and I understand that. Thats the way it is sometimes.)

I understand how this can be polarizing, and I used to be in the "Protect the carbed cars" camp, but it's just not that black and white.

I will also say I was VERY pleased with the quality of the responses we got to our request for input on the subject. Not only did people write in with their experiences, and their facts, but many wrote in suggesting a change that, on the surface, would hurt them. Thats the sign of some serious thought going on, and I really repsect those people who voted "out of party". Many offered to take their time to show us what they did, and how they did it, and I took some up on that.

[77ITA]

Jeff,

I am not sure where you got the impression that each car is classed to the Nth factoid. We use a base percentage of 25% gains in IT trim - and that takes into account PFI. [/b]

I don't have that impression, rather I feel it necessary to point out that your "process" could not have quantified the results of utilizing PFI due to the unknown car-specific benefits and the quantity of cars that couldn't even be equipped with such a thing under the "anything inside the box" rule.

There are just too many unknowns and too few people doing it for PIM to have been included in the "process". If it was, then it was a mistake IMHO.

[JLawton]

Area under the curve...........

[/b]




Yep, it'll help.

More processing power, finer tuning, using a fully-mapped MAP/TPS system versus whatever crap the factory uses...it all makes a difference. Should we be so inclined, I'd estimate we could see "more" ponies and a wider torque band from the NX with a full-up MAP system...

Granted, you ain't gonna cram more air into the system, and you're stuck with the factory injectors, but the ability to optimize whatcha got can't be underestimated...
[/b]


I honestly believe that at our level, 95% of the cars and drivers have factors far greater than this one that affects how fast we are. Most people would get a much bigger bang if they took the $4K and spent it on testing and driver coaching than if they did a full blown ECU. And I'm sure 95% of the guys are out there saying, "not me!!"

How many IT cars out there are a 10/10ths build?? 20%?? How many drivers in IT are at a level where they can tell the difference when they increase the area under the curve??? 10%??


People are only fooling themselves...............


Take a look at your car prep
Take a look at your car developement
Take a look at your abilities


Then worry about the area under the curve.


Jeff, this wasn't aimed at you!! Just general observations!! B)

[shwah]

Area under the curve - at every possible set of conditions is a more accurate description of what can be done with programmable management.

Sorry, but if you are far enough outside the desireable operating conditions during a race to need that ultimate refinement in tuning, you screwed something up in the driver seat and are in the wrong gear.

I have plenty of 'area under the curve' in my resistor fooled continuous injection system running fixed timing. It behaves very well in all of my racing conditions - however I do race a fwd car that is set up for lots of throttle upon turnin, and not a lot (if any) throttle modulation...ever. So maybe this point is more salient for rwd or higher hp cars.

Of course I reserve the right to be proven wrong at any time, and change my car prep accordingly. :P

[JTVOLVO54]

:018: Just wondering why some are so excited about the "new IT ECU, wiring, sensor rule" when the 2008 GCR states the same rule/s as 2007. Could someone clairfy this for me?

James

[Z3_GoCar]

:018: Just wondering why some are so excited about the "new IT ECU, wiring, sensor rule" when the 2008 GCR states the same rule/s as 2007. Could someone clairfy this for me?

James
[/b]

James,

Go look again at 9.1.3.D.1.a.6 and a.7, that's authorized modifications, reciprocating engines on GCR page 331. You'll see it there.

James