HP vs. Torque and the System

[Knestis]

The RX8 and V8 conversations in the ITR thread has me thinking again about the "not enough torque to tighten my lugnuts" issue that some cars face, and the impact of that reality on classing/spec'ing IT cars. I'm wondering if maybe we're missing a bet here...

Dynos actually measure torque, right?

Horsepower is a derived value estimate of "work," that considers torque, RPM (for the time factor), and a constant to chase out issues of units. What about the possibility that the Process should actually consider torque instead of HP, perhaps at particular RPM points, or look at where peak torque is in the rev range and consider not only the peak value but the revs at which it occurs...?

We might be able to get away from the subjectivity that gets injected where torque values are out at the ends of the distribution curve - either high or low, well out beyond the mean, since they may be making their peak torque very low, or very high, in terms of revs.

"Oh, but the math might be complicated!" you say. Well, as it is (since the process considers PEAK HP, at just one point on the rev scale), the influence of the location of the torque peak is completely ignored. So yeah, if we want to do a better job of dealing with outliers in an objective, consistent way, then maybe it's worth the extra complexity.

I might also be very confused since my real understanding here is limited to values and manipulating them, rather than the realities that they reflect...

K

[lateapex911]

I would LOVE for there to be a great little apendage that worked within the process to get a better picture of the conflicting power issues.

lets bounce some different formulas about and see how they work.

How about ITS and the E36 ~ RX-7? Anyone care to weigh in with the dyno numbers?

One thing that will come up here is the actual torque curve on some engines is a real peak, while others have a plateau....

[JohnRW]

I would LOVE for there to be a great little apendage that worked within the process to get a better picture of the conflicting power issues.[/b]

Taken out of context, that statement could be quite disturbing.

[lateapex911]

You know, when I saw the "John RW" as the most recent poster on the thread, I thought, "Oh, good, he'll have some good insight and ideas..."

Sigh..........










;)

[Bill Miller]

I would LOVE for there to be a great little apendage that worked within the process to get a better picture of the conflicting power issues.

lets bounce some different formulas about and see how they work.

How about ITS and the E36 ~ RX-7? Anyone care to weigh in with the dyno numbers?

One thing that will come up here is the actual torque curve on some engines is a real peak, while others have a plateau....
[/b]

LOL, you said 'formula'. :P

[Andy Bettencourt]

One thought process by a very wise man is to use a 'power number' instead of HP.

HP + TQ / 2. (This is using JUST published numbers)

ITR RX-8: 238 + 159 / 2 = 198.5. 198.5 * 1.25 = 248.13. Sets the RX-8 weight at about 2790 before any adders (of which I think there are none).

The E36 325's weight in ITR doesn't move much (if any) if you use 189 / 181 from it's stock specs.

(On edit, this would put the S2000 at about 2765...). Maybe the process fails high HP cars with no torque. But I would never say the process 'failed' the 13B ITS RX-7 as it seems to be right on - it would lose over 100lbs using this method) All food for thought. I will admit that as we get higher in the HP numbers, the possibility (probablity?) for errors will go up.

[GKR_17]

Any single torque value is almost meaningless. What is important is the shape of the power curve. A high torque value usually implies a nice flat power curve, but there are clearly a lot of variables involved. Also, good transmission ratios can make up for a peaky power curve (usually low torque motors). If you want to improve this aspect of the process, you will need a full dyno plot for every car and incorporate the transmission data, certainly not an easy task. I have a program that will take several vehicle parameters (dyno plot, aero data, weight, as well as transmission and final drive ratios) to run a virtual acceleration test, but as with anything involving computers, it's only as good as the input data. I wouldn't dare try to class cars with it.

Grafton

[Knestis]

...so the area under the curve.

It seems like a modern dyno could whip that out, no problemo. It wouldn't even have to do calculus to make it happen, since taking a few hundred thousand data points between 0 and 8000rpm wouldn't even make it sweat.

K

EDIT - FWIW, NASA uses an average of peak HP and torque for some of its classes (e.g., GTS) that class cars based on dyno results and race weight. If nothing else, it splits the error that might be imposed by using just one value or the other. Or at least makes it not much worse, if the cards fall that way.

[Ron Earp]

Grafton and Kirk, I was thinking the same thing too If you had the area under the torque curve you'd have an excellent handle on classing a car with respect to engine output. Be extremely hard to do though since you'd need an agreed upon standard dyno type, prep, and so forth.

[JohnRW]

"Area under the curve" was what I was mulling over, before Andy scared me with his "appendage" notion. Yikes.

Given some time, us geeks can come up with some method of quantifying a "factor" for between "area under the curve" and how "# of gears and their inter-related ratios" impact a "cumulative area under the curve", from idle thru red line in top gear.

It's not just how big, flat and fat that torque curve is, but also how ratios will allow you to inhabit the big, flat fat part of that curve.

[chuck baader]

CRAP :bash_1_: Shades of NASA GTS where the average hp and tq to get an artificial number...moved my car to run with ITS and ITR cars.....el toro po po :bash_1_:

Gentlemen...the only measure of straight line performance is the hp or tq applied to the ground. If you are going to develop a formula, you must include the gear ratios because, and I use my car as an example, straight tq numbers are meaningless. Example: Mr. Amy's car makes 160hp, uses (for example) a 4.00 rear gear. Multiply the two and you get 640 applied hp. My car makes 140hp and uses a 3.73 gear(because my red line is 5600) so my applied hp is 522. (This is of course assuming equal top gear and tire sizes.) Now use those numbers to arrive at recommended weights and see where those two cars fall.

My point is, NASA went down the slippery slope and was blinded by cranial rectosis....it takes a very expensive all out build to get to the hp/wt minimum of each class.

Chuck :bash_1_: Baader

[Andy Bettencourt]

"Area under the curve" was what I was mulling over, before Andy scared me with his "appendage" notion. Yikes.


[/b]

???




CRAP :bash_1_: Shades of NASA GTS where the average hp and tq to get an artificial number...moved my car to run with ITS and ITR cars.....el toro po po :bash_1_:

Gentlemen...the only measure of straight line performance is the hp or tq applied to the ground. If you are going to develop a formula, you must include the gear ratios because, and I use my car as an example, straight tq numbers are meaningless. Example: Mr. Amy's car makes 160hp, uses (for example) a 4.00 rear gear. Multiply the two and you get 640 applied hp. My car makes 140hp and uses a 3.73 gear(because my red line is 5600) so my applied hp is 522. (This is of course assuming equal top gear and tire sizes.) Now use those numbers to arrive at recommended weights and see where those two cars fall.

My point is, NASA went down the slippery slope and was blinded by cranial rectosis....it takes a very expensive all out build to get to the hp/wt minimum of each class.

Chuck :bash_1_: Baader [/b]

Gonna be hard to use a 'free' item (rear gear) in any calculation.

[JeffYoung]

When working on teh Mustang proposal, Ron ran a very interesting linear regression that I initially thought to be completely irrelevant -- it showed where on a predicted weight linear graph based on hp a variety of cars fell.

The linear progression worked perfectly for ITR cars using weight. It "proved" the process correct.

The linear progression is ALL OVER THE PLACE for torque for R cars.

To me, it showed that the process doesn't adequately account for torque and that the subjective 100 lbs here, or 50 lbs there is failing us some.

Ron, post those regressions and let's discuss them. The bottom line is I think Kirk is right. We need to be very careful to avoid a torque monster slipping through the cracks in R and being an overdog.

[JoshS]

FWIW, NASA uses an average of peak HP and torque for some of its classes (e.g., GTS) that class cars based on dyno results and race weight. If nothing else, it splits the error that might be imposed by using just one value or the other. Or at least makes it not much worse, if the cards fall that way.
[/b]
They only do that when torque is greater than HP. Otherwise torque is ignored.

[Bill Miller]

For a long time, I've said that peak numbers don't tell the whole story. People have talked about how the open ECU rule isn't going to really increase peak numbers. What it is going to do, is change the shape of the curves, and the subsequent area under those curves.

It would be interesting to see how it would play out w/ published, stock data. While I haven't picked up a copy in years, IIRC, C&D, MT, etc. used to have power plots for cars that they did reviews on. Would be a decent place to start.

At the very least, I think both torque and hp need to be factored in.

Andy,

Maybe there should be an adder for cars that rev significantly higher than most (e.g. RX7/8, S2000)?

[Ron Earp]

The linear progression is ALL OVER THE PLACE for torque for R cars.
[/b]

Now now, the process is working pretty good.......Linear Regression, Linear Regression!! Stat 101!!


While I haven't picked up a copy in years, IIRC, C&D, MT, etc. used to have power plots for cars that they did reviews on. Would be a decent place to start.
[/b]

Whew, Bill, don't date yourself! :018: C&D etc. gave that up many, many years ago. I think the only magazine that actually dynos the test subjects is Cycle World. I've always found that refreshing and it cuts down on the BS claims from the bike makers. they know they'll be rolling bikes on the CW dynos for tests.

http://www.gt40s.com/images/944/plots.JPG

The R squared for the first plot was accidentally left off. It is 0.68, which in the hard sciences isn't so great, but in the humanities is probably a pretty good fit and model. 0.07 in the second plot is poor.

And, not all the R cars are on this plot. I only went for cars near the 3L mark and that were likely to be on track in a short time. In part of writing my Mustang proposal I wanted cars that had somewhat similar torque figures, therefore, the Type R, Celica, S2000, and cars like that I didn't use here. These were more of the heavy weights in R that were likely to see some track time.

[Quickshoe]

Area under the curve with the start and end rpm points to be defined as the RPM at which peak HP occurs less the rpm drop between the closest two ratio gears (3rd-4th in many cars, 4th-5th in some) and the RPM at which peak HP occurs.

The issue then becomes what engines have broad power curves with close ratio transmissions, and which ones have peaky power curves with wide ratio transmissions relative to more ideal situations?

[Bill Miller]

Whew, Bill, don't date yourself! 018.gif C&D etc. gave that up many, many years ago. I think the only magazine that actually dynos the test subjects is Cycle World.[/b]

Told you I hadn't picked up a copy in years! :P

And I guess I am an old fart. I still get a little freaked out by the fact that the 80's were 20+ years ago! :o

[JeffYoung]

Tell me about it. I practice law with kids BORN in the 80s. That be scary sheet man.

[GKR_17]

Gentlemen...the only measure of straight line performance is the hp or tq applied to the ground. If you are going to develop a formula, you must include the gear ratios because, and I use my car as an example, straight tq numbers are meaningless. Example: Mr. Amy's car makes 160hp, uses (for example) a 4.00 rear gear. Multiply the two and you get 640 applied hp. My car makes 140hp and uses a 3.73 gear(because my red line is 5600) so my applied hp is 522. (This is of course assuming equal top gear and tire sizes.) Now use those numbers to arrive at recommended weights and see where those two cars fall.
[/b]

That's not quite right. Available torque is changed by gearing, but the power stays the same (minus drivetrain losses). Power to the ground is what matters, not torque. Gearing is extremely important however since it dictates where you'll be on the power curve in the next gear. A car that only drops 1000 RPM when shifting from 4th to 5th (or whatever gear) has a huge advantage over one that drops 2000 RPM. My point is, gearing is just as important as the power curve, and any single torque value does not fully describe that curve.

Grafton

[Andy Bettencourt]

I hope everyone understands that torque is taken into account during the process in the form of an adder. We may not have it 'exact' but it is a factor.

Bill - adding weight to cars that can rev real high and then subtracting it for no torque doesn't seem productive. I think we all know that the major benefit to tunable ECU's is the expansion of the area under the curve. What people have been saying is that the open ECU rule won't expand the performance envelope from where it is today...because today it's alrady open, just out of the reach of those without significant dollars to spend.

I like the attempts at new and improved number crunching.

[Bill Miller]

I hope everyone understands that torque is taken into account during the process in the form of an adder. We may not have it 'exact' but it is a factor.

Bill - adding weight to cars that can rev real high and then subtracting it for no torque doesn't seem productive. I think we all know that the major benefit to tunable ECU's is the expansion of the area under the curve. What people have been saying is that the open ECU rule won't expand the performance envelope from where it is today...because today it's alrady open, just out of the reach of those without significant dollars to spend.

I like the attempts at new and improved number crunching.
[/b]

Andy,

Where does it say that you can add a MAP, change the sensors, and modify the wiring harness? IF the new rule was intended to only make it easier to implement a MoTec like system, w/o having to go to the expense of stuffing it into the stock housing, why they need for all that other stuff? That 'other stuff' will give people the ability to optimize it even more, which WILL expand the performance envelope. That doesn't necessarily mean that they'll make more power, but I bet it does increase the area under the curve.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

Where does it say that you can add a MAP, change the sensors, and modify the wiring harness? IF the new rule was intended to only make it easier to implement a MoTec like system, w/o having to go to the expense of stuffing it into the stock housing, why they need for all that other stuff? That 'other stuff' will give people the ability to optimize it even more, which WILL expand the performance envelope. That doesn't necessarily mean that they'll make more power, but I bet it does increase the area under the curve. [/b]

Bill,

The ECU I have right now is inside the stock box, wired into the stock harness and has a MAP sensor integrated into the ECU. The technology is out there already.

Now the Squirt guys can do the same thing I can for 1/4 the cost. No difference in performance...but you didn't realize that under the current rule I can do everything the new rule allows...

[lateapex911]

What Andy said +1, and..........

Bill, did you know that there are cars out there in ITB that are running full ECU systems with a MAP? And they've been doing it for a couple years now. The allowance of a MAP sensor was to ease the installation of some alternate systems, as they don't always talk to the stock sensors. Now, that's not to say that any system can't be made to work with any sensor, but, it was thought that to not allow an alternate sensor would defeat the purpose of the rule change. And it was also felt that allowing a MAP sensor wasn't going to allow the engine to breath better, and any performance changes resultant from that sensor change would be extremely minimal, if any at all.

[mom'sZ]

Without turning this into an ECU thread, I think the most important part of the new rule is that it gives the opportunity for any EFI model car to easily use any aftermarket ECU. Changes nothing, just makes it easier.
Now back to your regularly scheduled process thread
(btw, great discussion)

[Bill Miller]

Without turning this into an ECU thread, I think the most important part of the new rule is that it gives the opportunity for any EFI model car to easily use any aftermarket ECU. Changes nothing, just makes it easier.
Now back to your regularly scheduled process thread
(btw, great discussion)
[/b]

How does the ability to add a MAP sensor and essentially rewire the entire engine bay 'change nothing'?

And whatever happened to the 'every car has it's pluses and minuses, you pick your car knowing what they are'?

[Andy Bettencourt]

How does the ability to add a MAP sensor and essentially rewire the entire engine bay 'change nothing'?
[/b]

BECAUSE BILL, you can buy an ECU NOW for HUGE money that has those capabilities - that is perfectly legal. I have one.

[Eagle7]

How does the ability to add a MAP sensor and essentially rewire the entire engine bay 'change nothing'?

And whatever happened to the 'every car has it's pluses and minuses, you pick your car knowing what they are'? [/b]


BECAUSE BILL, you can buy an ECU NOW for HUGE money that has those capabilities - that is perfectly legal. I have one.
[/b]Um..., not to quibble, but how do you get the MAP to the sensor?

[shwah]

Many aftermarket (most?) ecus have a map sensor mounted on the board. If the car has a vacuum line going to the ecu box it can use that to bring a signal to the ecu sensor. Many cars have a map sensor from the factory. Those cars can use that one.

However not all cars have a map sensor, or a vacuum line going to the ecu, thus those are far more restricted in what ecu they can run. Opening up the map sensor is intended to make it equally easy to install an aftermarket ecu into any electronically injected car. The same holds true for the TPS.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Um..., not to quibble, but how do you get the MAP to the sensor? [/b]

Not sure I understand your questions.

[Greg Amy]

Um..., not to quibble, but how do you get the MAP to the sensor?[/b]



If the car has a vacuum line going to the ecu box it can use that to bring a signal to the ecu sensor. Many cars have a map sensor from the factory. Those cars can use that one.[/b]

My eyebrows raised on that one, too.

Andy, what I think Marty's asking is the same thing I immediately thought of when I read that post of yours: I can only assume you added a MAP sensor to your car that didn't exist before - clearly outside the original intent of the rules - and you routed a non-standard vacuum line to your ECU, also clearly against the intent of the rules. From Chris' post above, I infer he agrees with that as well, that adding a MAP sensor and a vacuum line to a car that didn't have one before is outside the original intent of the rules. I'm further assuming you routed that vacuum line into the ECU without making additional holes in the housing (maybe using an existing screw hole or something like that), thereby meeting the "letter".

Now, in reading the words ("letter") of the rules, I can certainly "justify" what you did, but only in the same way I can "justify" spherical bearings (original rule), modified VW CIS (current new "engine management computer" rule), Motec-in-a-box, and a host of other controversial items. But I also believe that in doing so you've violated the spirit of the rules.

On the other hand, given MoTec-in-a-box...tit-for-tat?

If my inference is incorrect, I apologize. But if my inference is correct I suggest you've lost any basis for chiding others for twisting the words contrary to the original intent and towards your own...just 'cause others have done it doesn't make it right... - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

My eyebrows raised on that one, too.

Andy, what I think Marty's asking is the same thing I immediately thought of when I read that post of yours: I can only assume you added a MAP sensor to your car that didn't exist before - clearly outside the original intent of the rules - and you routed a non-standard vacuum line to your ECU, also clearly against the intent of the rules. From Chris' post above, I infer he agrees with that as well, that adding a MAP sensor and a vacuum line to a car that didn't have one before is outside the original intent of the rules. I'm further assuming you routed that vacuum line into the ECU without making additional holes in the housing (maybe using an existing screw hole or something like that), thereby meeting the "letter".

Now, in reading the words ("letter") of the rules, I can certainly "justify" what you did, but only in the same way I can "justify" spherical bearings (original rule), modified VW CIS (current new "engine management computer" rule), Motec-in-a-box, and a host of other controversial items. But I also believe that in doing so you've violated the spirit of the rules.

On the other hand, given MoTec-in-a-box...tit-for-tat?

If my inference is incorrect, I apologize. But if my inference is correct I suggest you've lost any basis for chiding others for twisting the words contrary to the original intent and towards your own...just 'cause others have done it doesn't make it right... - GA [/b]

All good questions.

The ECU I have has the MAP sensor integrated as part of the unit. I added 'nothing outside the OEM box'. I ran a vacuum line to that sensor through an existing hole in the box. No modifications needed. While the vacuum tube is certainly not stock and it attaches to a 100% stock vacuum source with no modification, I believe it falls under George's "If it says you can, then you bloody well can" rule, since the MAP sensor is integrated into the 'free' hardware. If the MAP sensor was a seperate unit that I had to install in the engine bay, I would agree with you 100%.

What is your take now?

[ddewhurst]

***since the MAP sensor is integrated into the 'free' hardware.***

Been enjoying this engagement, but this ^ begs a question.

Is this "free hardware" rule you speak of the same rule as per 9.1.3.D.1.0. ? :rolleyes: If not which hardware rule do you reference ?

Have Fun ;)
David

[JeffYoung]

The one that allows you to replace your stock upper links with custom tubular ones perhaps?

[Andy Bettencourt]

***since the MAP sensor is integrated into the 'free' hardware.***

Been enjoying this engagement, but this ^ begs a question.

Is this "free hardware" rule you speak of the same rule as per 9.1.3.D.1.0. ? :rolleyes: If not which hardware rule do you reference ?

Have Fun ;)
David [/b]

The 'free' hardware I refer to is the ECU. Some have questioned the addition of a MAP sensor and it's legality. I agree that it is currently not legal to add a seperate MAP sensor into the engine bay in order to make your ECU work. This ECU has the MAP sensor integrated, therby (IMHO) making the argument moot. It's all done inside the factory ECU housing as per the rules.

[Greg Amy]

What is your take now?[/b]
I completely agree and understand what you did; it is exactly as I assumed.

My "take" is that you took advantage of the way the rules were written, in contrast to its original intent, just as the MoTec-in-a-box guys did. I'd say that what you did is completely "legal" under the current mindset of the rules, as well as the "interpretive culture" of the category and the Club in general. I wouldn't even think of protesting you, as I believe what you have is completely "legal".

But - and the reason I put "legal" in quotes - I believe it's contrary to the intent of the rules. From the wording of the rules - and I was a competitor during the last re-write of the rule, as, I believe, were you - the clear intent of the rule change was to allow simple internal ECU housing modifications such that folks could re-program the "chip" and/or add a daughterboard to so do. Verbiage such as "...stock (unmodified) OEM ECU connection to the wiring harness..." and "...in no way permits the addition of wiring, sensors, or piggybacked computers outside of the OEM ECU housing" and "...stock (unmodified) wiring harness must be used" clearly indicates that the rules writers had no intention of allowing additional non-stock sensors, wiring - yes, even vac lines - that weren't on the original car, such that someone can do something that the original ECU couldn't (other than re-programing).

But, that ain't the way the rule was written, was it? Thus, it begat MoTec-in-a-box and Andy Bettencourt adding sensors and vac lines that never existed in the original car, which soon led to full-up opening of the ECU rules (leading us back to that "camel's nose under the tent" argument).

So, all I'm sayin' is that you are just as guilty as any of us of taking unintended advantage of poorly-written rules, resulting in rules changes that were NEVER intended 10 years ago, yet you are usually the first one leading the charge against those that do that...

There are several lessons here:

- One, write the rules correctly. See my prior topic.
- Two, we have a club culture that promotes and rewards "creative interpretation", literal reading of the rules to gain an unintended advantage, a culture that's unlikely to ever change. Remember that when doing One.
- Three, we're all human, no one is immune and "above" doing such things. And we're all going to do it. So let's not pretend we're not.
- Four, camel's nose under the tent, slippery slope, Pandora's Box, whatever you want to call it: one seemingly simple change soon leads to unintended - and ultimately undesired - consequences.

- GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well, we can agree to disagree as usual.

What I lead the charge against is the torturing of rules. 'Replacing with air' and other BS you trot out as the 'brave new world'. Plain and simple. I have no problem with people working inside the rules as written in a creative way...like your rear 'sway bar'. Outside the intent? Uhhh, yup. Creative and legal? You bet. Problem with it from me? Nope.

If I was on the ITAC when the current ECU rule was written, I would have pushed back, asked them for their intent and helped them convey that intent to the best of my ability. Maybe we would have just chips and reflashed now...but I still believe 100% that there would be a huge gap in performance envelope because of it and we would be looking at opening it up in order to narrow that gap now that the costs are managable.

[Greg Amy]

What I lead the charge against is the torturing of rules...I have no problem with people working inside the rules as written in a creative way...[/b]

Care to explain the difference?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Care to explain the difference? [/b]

Are you looking for MY definition or are you saying there is no difference?

[Greg Amy]

Are you looking for MY definition or are you saying there is no difference?[/b]
Either/or...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Either/or...
[/b]

You've lost me Greg. If you want me to point out some creative applications vs. some torturing of the verbage because you want to know my opinion, fine. If you are saying there is no difference, I won't get into it with you.

[Eagle7]

The 'free' hardware I refer to is the ECU. Some have questioned the addition of a MAP sensor and it's legality. I agree that it is currently not legal to add a seperate MAP sensor into the engine bay in order to make your ECU work. This ECU has the MAP sensor integrated, therby (IMHO) making the argument moot. It's all done inside the factory ECU housing as per the rules.
[/b] Except that the vacuum hose that you ran into the ECU is not "all done inside the factory ECU housing". I think your setup was illegal, solely because of the vacuum hose.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Except that the vacuum hose that you ran into the ECU is not "all done inside the factory ECU housing". I think your setup was illegal, solely because of the vacuum hose. [/b]

I understand the issue, but let me pose this question to you:

You are allowed any fuel pump. Where does it say you can add wire to run it?

You are allowed additional gauges. Where does it say you can add wire to run them?

See where I am going? If the installed piece is legal, you can 'hook it up'. The vacuum line in this case is no different than the wiring you need to add to get your allowable gauges up and running. As long as you don't do an illegal mod to facilitate the legal one...right? If I had to modify my intake to grab a vacuum source or if I had to drill a hole in the firewall to run the line, etc.

The George R. "If it says you can, then you bloody well can" rule.

YMMV.

[mom'sZ]

Did you leave out a screw to run the vac line? IIDSYCTYC... oh wait... hardware is free. OK, say I got an aftermarket ECU with a tiny little nitrous oxide bottle mounted on the board. I run tiny little braided steel lines through a screw hole. Oh never mind....
I thought about the run a vac line through the screw hole idea. I didn't think it was fair to my competitors. Legal... maybe, within the intent of the rule... I don't think so, within the spirit of the entire rule set and in keeping with the gentlemenly nature of club racing... NOT
Picking the rules apart word by word and creatively interpreting them so as to allow a clearly unintended modification = torture

Andrew Rowe

[DavidM]

Wheeeee :OLA:

I would've protested a new vacuum line going into the ECU box. You had to use the stock wiring harness, but adding a vacuum line was ok? Doesn't matter now.

If this is the kind of stuff that went on with the old rule, what do you think is going to happen with the new one?

David

[Knestis]

...say I got an aftermarket ECU with a tiny little nitrous oxide bottle mounted on the board. I run tiny little braided steel lines through a screw hole. Oh never mind... [/b]
Who says your ECU has to be so small that the Noz bottle is TINY? :)

K

[ddewhurst]

***The one that allows you to replace your stock upper links with custom tubular ones perhaps?***

Please Jeff :) , that issue was brought to a successful agrement conclusion. The rule allows Susko upper links & Dewhurst lower links. ;) You know, goose & gander thing.

Besides that I moved on to Spec Miata where things get a little more stringent when you slide the rules.

[lateapex911]

The interesting point here is that anyone who would protest this line (forgetting whether it is grey, legal or illegal for a moment) would be doing so because.........????

...........Because the ECU he chose works better with the MAP sensor..as in easier to integrate..than with the stock sensor?

He could have utilized the stock sensor, and spent days and buckets of money, but he chose not to, thinking his method was legal....and the on track...and on dyno result would be...........the same.

It's curious to hear of people wanting to protest such an item, when I look around and find grevious offenses pretty darm easily...ram air, cut header panels for cold air intakes, and on and on. Yet, those mods...clearly illegal and performance enhancing...... don't get paper thrown at them, yet this one would?

And if the reason is "because I think it is clearly illegal, and a malicious cheat, and whether the result is a performance gain or not is irrelevent", fine. Fair enough. But, I hope that the same sharp eye is writing all other spotted infractions as well.

Also, I give Andy credit for beign straight up on this, as it is clearly an item that opinions differ on. But...I can tell you, he is not the first guy to do this. I know guys in other classes who have done the same exact thing. And they felt the method of implementation was legal as well.

[mom'sZ]

You are right Jake, and I think we are back to Greg's idea about creating a "culture" of not excepting creative interpretations of the rules.
Hey, when I first started working on my car, I took a stroll through the padock at Moroso and spotted one IT guy with a lawnmower battery mounted on the floor where the back seat used to live. Nobody said a word.

[shwah]

Andy I do think that your vacuum line was outside the previous rule. You could use any ecu, but you had to work within the stock components, which did not include said vacuum line.

However, I also think this is a case of people not seeing the forest for the trees. How does the stock Miata system determine engine load? However that was accomplished, I see no reason that an aftermarket solution could not be configured the same. So yeah technically not right, and actually one of the reasons that the new rule makes sense, but I don't see anything in the old rule that actually prevented a programable system in the Miata, or any other electronically injected car.

[Andy Bettencourt]

While I most certainly think my set-up is legal to the letter (we could argue original intent or spirit all day) and most certainly not a 'tortured interpretation', I would have no problem defending it in front of a protest committee. Everything done to my car has that possibility in mind.

The bigger issue IS the protesting. I suppose I am part of the problem because I only protest when there is an issue that has a large performance increase - AND I GET BEATEN. The battery example above is a good one. I would never protest it, nor would I even say anything to the guy - until I had a solid enough relationship with him/her that I felt comfortable bringing it up.

Maybe we can start some sort of grassroots movement that centralizes all of our 'nitpicky' issues with each others cars and gets them distributed in a non-offensive way? Like a drivers rep who points out individual issues to competitors based on feedback? Could be a tech guy, a fellow racer - who knows? Just brainstorming. Can we change the culture? How do we do it?

[DavidM]

The interesting point here is that anyone who would protest this line (forgetting whether it is grey, legal or illegal for a moment) would be doing so because.........????

...........Because the ECU he chose works better with the MAP sensor..as in easier to integrate..than with the stock sensor?

He could have utilized the stock sensor, and spent days and buckets of money, but he chose not to, thinking his method was legal....and the on track...and on dyno result would be...........the same.

It's curious to hear of people wanting to protest such an item, when I look around and find grevious offenses pretty darm easily...ram air, cut header panels for cold air intakes, and on and on. Yet, those mods...clearly illegal and performance enhancing...... don't get paper thrown at them, yet this one would?

And if the reason is "because I think it is clearly illegal, and a malicious cheat, and whether the result is a performance gain or not is irrelevent", fine. Fair enough. But, I hope that the same sharp eye is writing all other spotted infractions as well.

Also, I give Andy credit for beign straight up on this, as it is clearly an item that opinions differ on. But...I can tell you, he is not the first guy to do this. I know guys in other classes who have done the same exact thing. And they felt the method of implementation was legal as well.
[/b]
*I* would protest because I think it's illegal (under the old rule) and has the distinct possibility of being a performance enhancement. More accurately, I would probably say something to the car owner first. This is gray enough, that they could probably say they think it's legal. At which point I'd say I'm going to file a protest and we'll see what the stewards say. I would also do the same thing for the other items you mentioned.

A better question would be why aren't *you* filing protests against these people with the overtly illegal mods you see? I can't say that I know the rule book well enough to know right off hand if something is illegal or not, but if I suspected something was illegal I would say something.

David

[lateapex911]

*I* would protest because I think it's illegal (under the oldrule) and has the distinct possibility of being a performance enhancement. More accurately, I would probably say something to the car owner first. This is gray enough, that they could probably say they think it's legal. At which point I'd say I'm going to file a protest and we'll see what the stewards say. I would also do the same thing for the other items you mentioned.

A better question would be why aren't *you* filing protests against these people with the overtly illegal mods you see? I can't say that I know the rule book well enough to know right off hand if something is illegal or not, but if I suspected something was illegal I would say something.

David [/b]
David, please read the following with all due respect. I'm not trying to be a jerk...you wrote:

*I* would protest because I think it's illegal (under the oldrule) and has the distinct possibility of being a performance enhancement.

Taken literally, that is an "and" statement...in other words you would not protest if the performance enhancement aspect was not there. How do you determine that there is a performance anhancement due to his choice of using the MAP sensor instead of the stock version? (Keeping in mind his stock air flow meter/tps/whatever is still hooked up as stock)

As for the part about me protesting, I'd wage a bunch of bucks that i have written more paper than 95% of the members here. (Search "A Protest Story" on this site for a pretty in depth illustration of how the process works. As to why I didn't protest the infractions I saw, it was because I wasn't registered for that event in any way...I was just observing on a weekend that i could get away, but couldn't race.

[Bill Miller]

I understand the issue, but let me pose this question to you:

You are allowed any fuel pump. Where does it say you can add wire to run it?

You are allowed additional gauges. Where does it say you can add wire to run them?

See where I am going? If the installed piece is legal, you can 'hook it up'. The vacuum line in this case is no different than the wiring you need to add to get your allowable gauges up and running. As long as you don't do an illegal mod to facilitate the legal one...right? If I had to modify my intake to grab a vacuum source or if I had to drill a hole in the firewall to run the line, etc.

The George R. "If it says you can, then you bloody well can" rule.

YMMV.
[/b]

That's where you're wrong Andy, and what you've done is not legal.

Here's what the rule says, from the '07 ITCS


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

Please take note of the bolded parts of the rule (they say the same thing twice). Please tell me how you are allowed to add a non-stock vacuum line connection to the new ECU? It doesn't matter if you're new, whiz-bang computer has a MAP on it, if you can't talk to it through the stock (unmodified) OEM ECU connection you can't just run a new vacuum line to it, through an existing hole or not.

And if you want to really noodle on the language, look at this sentence:

The allowance to modify the ECU in no way permits the addition of wiring, sensors, or piggybacked computers outside of the OEM ECU housing.[/b]

One way of reading that is that you are not allowed to add any wiring or sensors. In addition, you are not allowed to add any piggybacked computers that are outside the OEM ECU housing. I wasn't an English major in college, but I believe that is the correct grammatical interpretation of the sentence. If so, it doesn't matter if that MAP is part of your new, whiz-bang computer, you can't add it. That whole 'permitted mod, prohibited function' thing.

Since Jake loves to argue 'intent' of the rules, I'd like to explain how he sees the intent of the above rule allowing additional sensor(s) and additional connections to them.



It's not legal Andy, I don't care how you spin it.

[Knestis]

Okay - I've been on the fence on this question, able to see both sides as reasonable. Or maybe, unable to see either side as compelling.

My initial thought was that the vacuum line was over the line, so to speak. However, I think the gauge/wiring argument IS sound: We accept drilling holes, running wires, adding brackets, hell - even tie wraps, as acceptable means to accomplish allowed modifications all the time.

However, regarding...


...Only the stock (unmodified) OEM ECU connection to the wiring harness may be used. ...[/b]

This is a case of the damned "specifying what we CAN do" trap. I'm afraid that I don't buy Bill's contention that this prohibits the VACUUM connection, since all the bold bits talks about is the wiring harness. It doesn't say - or doesn't necessarily say - that the stock wiring harness is the only connection allowed. I take it to mean that the only connection to the wiring harness must be as stock.

What's the line? "You can't put too much water in the nuclear reactor!"

If I take my initial read of that line, it's restricting my electrical connection to the ECU but specifically NOT excluding additional OTHER connections.

Yeah, it's a moot point from here on but it's a great case study.

At the end of the day? It's about enforcement and not the rules. And enforcement requires protests and they are rare. That's the end of the story - for now.

In terms of changing the culture, we're going to be in touch with Beran Peter before the ARRC next year, ask if he's coming, and ask if he wants us to point out the problems that were visible on his car THIS year. If he says, "yes," then we will. If he declines, then we face a decision but we won't assume that post-race tech will take visible illegalities into consideration. That was first-ARRC naiveté at work.

An open-hood, on-jackstand "parc exposé" in impound would help a lot, I think. The idea of a "class rep" or something similar might work too but that would require a lot of buy-in, to avoid that person becoming a Nazi and/or pariah - even if he/she is just a messenger for questions or concerns. I like the idea of everyone in a class putting an issue in a hat, then someone draws the "issue du jour" and EVERYONE gets checked for that, by everyone else in the class en masse. But again, everyone needs to want it.

Cultural/organizational change is very hard, particularly when there are strong incentives for being a member of the culture as it currently exists. If a core group of drivers in a class were to implement any of the above ideas, and full-on ostracize anyone who didn't play, there could be movement. Peer pressure is always powerful.

K

[Bill Miller]

How about this one Kirk?


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.[/b]

Where does it specifically allow the alteration of the vacuum connection? The alteration that Andy has made was certainly for the purpose of gaining a competitive advantage, vis-a-vis the hook up of his heretofore not present MAP sensor.

[JoshS]

An open-hood, on-jackstand "parc exposé" in impound would help a lot, I think.
[/b]

Last year, I wrote a letter to the CRB proposing exactly that (I proposed it at national races). solo has been doing this for years and I think it's been very successful.

The outcome was that they published the concept in Fastrack (October '06), asking for member input. Nothing happened after that. I wonder how many wrote in?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Where does it specifically allow the alteration of the vacuum connection? The alteration that Andy has made was certainly for the purpose of gaining a competitive advantage, vis-a-vis the hook up of his heretofore not present MAP sensor. [/b]

I didn't alter any vacuum connection. Nothing was modified or added to the attachment point. I obviously agree with Kirk's assessment. From a core perspective, I believe I installed a legal part and 'hooked it up', just like you would an allowed gauge.

Either way, the point is moot. However, I want to drill down on how we would turn the culture around so that anyone would feel comfortable in protesting something the didn't think was legal - like a few think on this item. And not only on items like this rather major one, how about the little ones.

We need to create a new culture - how do we do it? The culture needs to get to the point where people actually THINK about the short shift kits, the lightened flywheels and the small batteries BEFORE someone says something. An open hood and trunk policy is awesome. We did it once last year and half the field had no prop rods or piston rods to hold their hoods or trunks open...

[Bill Miller]

Andy,

You didn't alter it? It sure as hell wasn't connected to that ECU when it left the factory.

And I'm sorry, the point isn't moot. You've got the guy that's supposed to be guiding the ship, from an IT perspective, twisting the crap out of the rules. You want people to worry about all those other things, but you were totally ok w/ stuffing a MAP in your ECU housing and running a non-stock vac. line to it? Talk about your double standards.

Andy, I like you, and up until today, had a high level of respect for you.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

You didn't alter it? It sure as hell wasn't connected to that ECU when it left the factory.

And I'm sorry, the point isn't moot. You've got the guy that's supposed to be guiding the ship, from an IT perspective, twisting the crap out of the rules. You want people to worry about all those other things, but you were totally ok w/ stuffing a MAP in your ECU housing and running a non-stock vac. line to it? Talk about your double standards.

Andy, I like you, and up until today, had a high level of respect for you. [/b]

Bill, the ECU I have has a MAP sensor ON BOARD. I did not jamb a 3rd party map into the stock ECU housing and call it 'part of the ECU'. IIRC, Greg and I talked about this exact solution and agreed it was legal to the letter...

Loss of respect? That is a shame. A shame I am willing to put every ounce of information anyone asks me out here on this forum for people like you - who don't even race in IT - to pick apart, complain about and stay as far away from the 'solution' as possible. I always thought it was part of the job. Full disclosure. That's fine - I'll play it your way from now on...

[Greg Amy]

...need to create a new culture - how do we do it? The culture needs to get to the point where people actually THINK about [creative/tortured interpretations] BEFORE someone says something.[/b]
First, as the instigator for this (kinda unintentional) sheistfest, let me make it explicitly clear: Andy's ECU mods are "legal" to the current environment of IT rules interpretations. In point of fact, it is this EXACT solution that I was prepared to pursue with The Aborted MR-2 Project. "Right" to the spirit? Not. Legal to the words? Absolutely.

I brought this up *not* to target Andy specifically, but to shine the light on the fact that we as a group have really led ourselves "into the darkness" (what was it that Pogo said? "I have seen the enemy, and he is us..."?) This isn't specifically about the old ECU rule nor is it about any one particular person; it's about "us".

Andy's point above is very important. And it should be rhetorically considered by every person reading this board, and passed along to those that don't. How many times have you read a rule, looked at its real-world application and said to yourself, "Wow, that's not what I had in mind, but it sure seems clever/reasonable/interpretative/whatever?" Each time you do that (e.g., Motec, sphericals, splitters, MAPs in ECUs, whatever) that should be a clear sign that somethin' just ain't right. But yet, we as a group accept and tolerate it! There is where the change needs to be made: not in the words, but in our attitudes.

Andy, you asked how to change the culture. Culture change for *any* environment comes from the top, from the leadership. That&#39;s you, that&#39;s me, that&#39;s Jake, that&#39;s George (assuming he&#39;s still alive ! <wink>), that&#39;s everyone who is either a formal or a figurative leader, elected, chosen, or whatever. It comes from you and me saying, publicly, privately, and in words and deed, "this is not right, and this is not acceptable". It means forgoing competitive advantage in the pursuit of excellence; it means using the "correct" ECU in lieu of the optimal, and it means foregoing the weight balance advantage of a bridge superstructure masquerading as a rear swaybar. EVERYONE is guilty of this, not just one person; and once we agree collectively to follow the "spirit and intent" of the rules then everyone will follow.

For therein lies the dirty laundry we all tend to overlook: while proclaiming we want to clean up the wash we find ourselves as individuals looking the other way for our own. That, in a nutshell, is blatant hypocrisy; it is and obvious to everyone around us, and they follow suit.

So, time to look within: what are we going to do about it? THAT is what we have to decide.

GA

[Eagle7]

Bill, the ECU I have has a MAP sensor ON BOARD. I did not jamb a 3rd party map into the stock ECU housing and call it &#39;part of the ECU&#39;. [/b] But evidently you did choose a 3rd party ECU that included said MAP sensor. I&#39;ve had drivers asking me how to put a Megasquirt into their non-MAP based cars for a couple years, and my answer had always been "you&#39;re screwed". Doesn&#39;t seem like a grey area to me. There was no allowance to modify anything outside the ECU enclosure in order to use that aftermarket ECU. Running the vacuum hose into the ECU required a modification. No way does it qualify under the gauges/instrumentation allowance, nor as an alternate fastener.



Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I&#39;ll admit that I sometimes left my wideband O2 sensor and my Palm Pilot connected to my ECU during events so I could log data. Two years running that turkey and I still don&#39;t have it tuned to my satisfaction.



I really like the open hood/trunk approach to impound. Let&#39;s encourage drivers to examine the other guy&#39;s stuff. The more we can stimulate these kinds of discussions at the track the quicker we&#39;ll change the culture.

[JoshS]

I really like the open hood/trunk approach to impound. Let&#39;s encourage drivers to examine the other guy&#39;s stuff. The more we can stimulate these kinds of discussions at the track the quicker we&#39;ll change the culture.
[/b]
To those of you who really like this idea:

Write your support to the CRB. You can cite the 10/06 Fastrack, page F-40. Better late than never.

MEMBER ADVISORIES

GCR

2. The CRB is considering allowing open visual inspections by competitors of vehicles at impound and invites input from the membership.

[Knestis]

>> No way does it qualify under the gauges/instrumentation allowance, nor as an alternate fastener.

That&#39;s not the argument. The gauge example was an analogy. Anyone here seen an IT car with a oil pressure gauge connected to the engine by a hollow tube full of oil? There&#39;s no allowance for that either. We (and I include all of my personalities and the mouse in my pocket when I say that) just want to ascribe more importance to this application of the logic than to the ones we&#39;ve been seeing forever.

And that&#39;s part of Greg&#39;s point, too I think. We get inured to the stuff that doesn&#39;t meet the letter of the rule if we see it all the time - if it gets accepted by the culture as de facto legal. That&#39;s NOT a good test. Then when something comes along that&#39;s new to us, that might well apply the same kind of tests, logic, or interpretations, we freak out...

...for a while. Until the new becomes accepted. Coilovers. Removed undercoating. Funky "traction bars." Spherical joints. Vacuum lines. Greg is right on. We decide what we are OK with, individually then collectively. Some of the creeps get codified as OK, via "technical bulletins" for example. (Pee-eww, that was a stinker.) Others get slapped down - internal coatings or RR shocks. Most get left in limbo without ever having to pass a test to see if THEY stink, too and we tend to be OK with that.

K

[GKR_17]

To those of you who really like this idea:

Write your support to the CRB. You can cite the 10/06 Fastrack, page F-40. Better late than never.

MEMBER ADVISORIES

GCR

2. The CRB is considering allowing open visual inspections by competitors of vehicles at impound and invites input from the membership.
[/b]

I like the idea, but it doesn&#39;t hold much weight since you can&#39;t file paper at that time.

[lateapex911]

On the other hand...

..........while I certainly understand what some are driving at regarding the stretching of boundries&#39; common sense and proper rules decorum, I&#39;d like to point out that several issues have come up this season that have been wild stretches of rules that many thought actually met the letter of the rule(s). The CRB and the ITAC have been reading the rules and examining the real world possibilities, and quietly, with little fan fare, adjusting things to close loopholes and to clarify language as needed to align intent more closely with reality.

Now, where does this "mindset" of rules stretching come from??

I rember Kurt Weiss telling me of a car at the Runoffs ...a Prod car...that had it&#39;s "selectable" reverse gear selected by climbing under the car and using tools. A 5 speed transmission had been turned into a 6 speed. What about the 7/8ths scale race car form the 60s? Or, well...you get the idea.

I submit that when a category/class gets popular, not only does it become more expensive to compete from a finacial perspective, it also increases the temptation to seek ALL advantages, whether they meet the "intent" or not....

[Bill Miller]

Andy and Greg,

We will agree to disagree.

Andy,

I&#39;m wondering if you floated your idea by Jeremy T. or any of the CRB members? And it really doesn&#39;t matter if the MAP was integral w/ your ECU or not, as long as it fit inside your stock housing. What&#39;s at issue here, is your ability to run a vac. line to it, even if it was through an existing hole in the ECU housing. There is nothing in the rules that permits creating an additional connection to the ECU housing, or anything inside of it. And please stop w/ the melodrama. BTW, Greg made a very good point about leading by example. You know what you did was not right, regardless of how you justified it through some mutual admiration society.

Jake,

That &#39;functional reverse gear&#39; thing at the Runoffs was a travesty, and a classic case of the &#39;old boys club&#39; protecting one of their own. Did you notice how the PCS was changed the next year?

[Bill Miller]

One more thing Andy.

What you did was alter that stock vac. connection by connecting it to a non-stock part (the MAP on your new ECU) for the purpose of gaining a competitive advantage (the ability to use said MAP). THAT is expressly prohibited by the rules. What&#39;s the logic you use to get around that?

[mom'sZ]

Only the stock (unmodified) OEM ECU connection to the wiring harness may be used.

Thank you Bill
There it is.... ONLY ONLY
Only the stock ... harness may be used. Only seems pretty cut and dry.

[Eagle7]

To those of you who really like this idea:

Write your support to the CRB. You can cite the 10/06 Fastrack, page F-40. Better late than never.

MEMBER ADVISORIES

GCR

2. The CRB is considering allowing open visual inspections by competitors of vehicles at impound and invites input from the membership. [/b] Letter sent.

[bldn10]

As if you needed another voice on this one ...



"My initial thought was that the vacuum line was over the line, so to speak. However, I think the gauge/wiring argument IS sound: We accept drilling holes, running wires, adding brackets, hell - even tie wraps, as acceptable means to accomplish allowed modifications all the time."



Here&#39;s why/where the gauge analogy fails: if the ECU rule simply said that you could modify or replace the ECU w/i the box and nothing more, it would indeed be similar to the rules allowing addition of gauges, fuel pumps, etc., and the necessary sensor connections would be part of it. But, it goes further and adds a number of restrictions including NOT adding any such wiring and mandating connection via the OEM harness. Conversely, the gauge rules have no such limitations. If the gauge rules said, e.g., that you could add any gauge or sensor but that you had to use existing OEM wiring to the dash, then you obviously could not add a gauge [well, you could add it but not wire it up] that required additional wiring. I.e. the allowance of the gauge would not bootstrap the addition of new wiring in the face of language to the contrary. Likewise, you cannot bootstrap a sensor wire or vac line or anything else via the allowance to mod the ECU if the wire or line wasn&#39;t there to start w/.



Therefore, IMO if a car does not have an existing vac line to the ECU, you can&#39;t add one, period.



As to rule culture, I think this discussion does speak to it because it raises the bootstrap argument that arises not infrequently. Another rule, e.g., that I have some concern w/ is the one allowing after-market fuel pressure regulators. It says you can "install" one but it does NOT say that you can remove or disable any OEM regulator. It does not even say replace the OEM regulator - only install an "external fuel pump pressure regulator." The absence of language allowing modification/removal of the OEM regulator may have been as oversight or the intent could very well have been to allow after-market units only when the car does not have one, or when it can be added w/o messing w/ the existing one. Some of you may remember an old discussion about this; one guy even suggested that since the rule allowed an after-market regulator, he could replace the OEM fuel rail w/ integral regulator w/ a custom rail w/o one. While that interpretration seems extreme, it is the logical extreme of the bootstrap argument.

[pfcs49]

This new information makes me feel terrible- that a person who was instrumental in rewriting the ECU rules was, at the same time, engaged in what I think constitutes clearly illegal modification of his ECM. (running a vacuum source to/thru it) where there was no provision to do so in the rules.
What further exacerbates this/pisses me off, is that Jake Gulick, who has also been so active/opinionated on this subject (ECU rule), and who is a close associate of Andy, posted about this very same situation this year:

Jan 27 2007, 10:36 AM)
"We have one running here in the NE that has a complete system in the stock box. Quite an ingenious setup. I will ask about his power result, but his on track performance hasn&#39;t shown any significant difference. "
QUOTE: Jake Gulick

I have a big problem with a member of the ITAC reffering to something that&#39;s clearly illegal as "ingenious"
Do you understand this stuff Jake?? phil

What exactly is illegal about it? From what I have been told, his solution is legal, and rather ingenious. Prove me wrong, or protest him, but until that point, dragging acccuatrions across the net doesn&#39;t cut it.

(If the info I have gotten is incorrect, and I&#39;m wrong, I apologise, but my info says he&#39;s got a good setup)--------------------

Jake Gulick

Post #260

QUOTE(pfcs49 @ Jan 28 2007, 05:50 PM)
"I could have SWORN I was shooting the breeze with a Volvo guy, and we were talking ECUs...and I really thought I saw a stock vacuum line running to the ECU box...

So, if thats the case, he&#39;s good to go, right?" Jake Gulick, about 3 pages back.

As pointed out previously: how can you get a vacuum liine through an un-modified ECU case without violating the current rule? Clearly it constiutes a modification to the case and clearly it&#39;s illegal. Correct me if I&#39;m wrong, phil.

Jake:
Re read my post. I clearly said "Stock" as in original equipment vacuum line.

Secondly, if the OEM case has holes in it, you can send whatever you want in or out...and sensors are free at that point. as long as YOU don&#39;t mod the case.

if I have been misinformed on the OEM nature of that line, then I stand corrected. But if it&#39;s a stock line, OR if the case has an existing hole, well then that horse is out of the barn.

Jake: all ECUs are installed in tightly sealed cases. There never was an original vacuum line to the Volvo ECU and there is no legal way to install one. phil

Full Edit
Quick Edit Gary L Jan 29 2007, 07:00 AM Post #263

Group: Members
Posts: 217
Joined: 25-June 05
From: Oklahoma
Member No.: 2,372

QUOTE(lateapex911 @ Jan 29 2007, 12:48 AM)

Now, if I have been misinformed on the OEM nature of that line, then I stand corrected. But if it&#39;s a stock line, OR if the case has an existing hole, well then that horse is out of the barn.
Gary:
Naahh... the horse is still in the barn. Sounds like someone in this particular case left the door open though.

For damned sure, there ain&#39;t no stock vacuum line that runs to the D-Jet computer. Also, I&#39;ve seen multiple examples of these ancient devices, and I&#39;ve never seen one with a hole in the case, never mind one large enough to allow a vacuum line through.
--------------------
Gary Learned
Volvo 142E

So, babes of SCCA affairs, this is how the "process" works. And this is how it worked vis a vis the ECM rule. One thing&#39;s for sure, if Andy was losing any sleep about the legality of his ECM then, he ain&#39;t now. I find it impeachable that someone who is cause in the matter of liberalizing a ruleset have such a blatant conflict of interst regarding that very ruleset. Sorry to post this, Andy, but it seems truthful to me. Phil

[Knestis]

I&#39;m NOT arguing this because I think it&#39;s an example of how things should be but...


But, it goes further and adds a number of restrictions including NOT adding any such wiring and mandating connection via the OEM harness. ...[/b]

...which restricts only the wiring. It says zilch about vacuum lines and frankly, since additional wiring is specifically prohibited, one can *reasonably* infer that HAD the rules-makers wanted to restrict vacuum or other connections, they would have said that.

The production car reverse issue is a great example, and Bill makes a very illustrative point about the rules changing the following year. Our system reacts to cheats by dinking with the written rules, rather than by enforcing the ones we have. Someone has to be the grown-up and just say no but because we rely on hundreds of random volunteers spread out around the nation, who don&#39;t receive the same training or information, to enforce what&#39;s written, we are in a bind. Add to that (again, influenced by the volunteer dynamic) the fact that the stewards and tech folks are more than happy to defer the initiation of action to the competitors, and the system truly binds up.


I like the idea, but it doesn&#39;t hold much weight since you can&#39;t file paper at that time.[/b]

We can write paper NOW if we want but for the most part, we don&#39;t. A parc expose would NOT be intended to be an opportunity to find things to protest. Instead, it would be a different approach that encourages discussion - it&#39;s the concept of daylighting: Putting things out in the open so folks feel more involved, rumors can get quashed with actual facts, and people could come to consensus re: some of the illegalities that fall through cracks now. Peer pressure.

We can&#39;t - even with the ITAC&#39;s efforts to root out issues - fix enforcement problems by changing the book. Create a tech inspectors&#39; and stewards&#39; website with binding interpretations. Make appeals precedential. Chuck that system altogether. Who knows but it&#39;s about enforcement.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

So, babes of SCCA affairs, this is how the "process" works. And this is how it worked vis a vis the ECM rule. One thing&#39;s for sure, if Andy was losing any sleep about the legality of his ECM then, he ain&#39;t now. Sorry to post this, Andy, but it seems truthful to me. Phil

[/b]

No issues Phil. We are all entitled to our own opinions. I have not, nor will lose sleep over my ECU. I ran the design by some of the &#39;brightest minds&#39; and key competitors in my Region, and they agreed it was legal to the letter. Over 2 years ago, I had been developing this system and have been on record as saying I would gladly sell it to someone in another class if we could figure out a way to get the horse back in the barn.

Let&#39;s just please seperate one driver who has the challenge of putting together a winning program against some of the top drivers in the country - who is ALWAYS willing to tell ANYONE what is done to his car - with a guy who is trying to cheat the system. I bet I could name 5 Miata guys on this BB whom I have told everything to in order to help them get up to speed. I have nothing to hide. Frankly, there are plenty of drivers who race other brands who know everything about my car. I even tried to help a Teg guy design a Miata with a full build sheet. Agree or disagree with my/Greg&#39;s ECU interpretation but PLEASE do not ever imply that I have manipulated the ruleset for personal gain or the gain of others.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Let me pose one final question as I do respect some of the counterpoints. Let&#39;s use these rules:

1. You can install any gauge you want
2. You must use the oem electrical wiring
3. You want to install a vacuum gauge

What do you do?

[pfcs49]

Like you said, Andy-everbody&#39;s entitled to his own opinion. Given your situation-that you weren&#39;t clear if your interpretation of the rule would pass scrutiny and that you were on the comittee-I believe you should have submitted it to a higher power than "the brightest minds" in your region. I think you either a) shouldn&#39;t have done it, or B) submitted it to national fo a ruling. Pushing the rules into a grey area (in my opinion, a clearly illegal area) while makking the rules isn&#39;t OK in my book. Someone operating in your capacity needs to meet higher standards of conduct. .....but thats just my opinion. Phil

[Andy Bettencourt]

Like you said, Andy-everbody&#39;s entitled to his own opinion. Given your situation-that you weren&#39;t clear if your interpretation of the rule would pass scrutiny and that you were on the comittee-I believe you should have submitted it to a higher power than "the brightest minds" in your region. I think you either a) shouldn&#39;t have done it, or B) submitted it to national fo a ruling. Pushing the rules into a grey area (in my opinion, a clearly illegal area) while makking the rules isn&#39;t OK in my book. Someone operating in your capacity needs to meet higher standards of conduct. .....but thats just my opinion. Phil [/b]

And I agree with your statement - except for my interpretation. I am VERY confident that it is legal. If I wasn&#39;t, it wouldn&#39;t be on my car. In fact, my car is very &#39;left&#39; of the grey when you consider many of the current legality issues that face us all.

We don&#39;t have to agree, and you may think I am full of sheeit, but I appreciate the manner in which you deliver the message.. :birra:

[Gary L]

Let me pose one final question as I do respect some of the counterpoints. Let&#39;s use these rules:

1. You can install any gauge you want
2. You must use the oem electrical wiring
3. You want to install a vacuum gauge

What do you do?

[/b]

Just for the heck of it... :)

Sorry, I don&#39;t see the parallel here. The actual rule regarding guages and instruments specifically states those devices may be added, presumably in their entirety, to include hoses to hook them up if necessary. In contrast, the wording of the 2007 paragraph on ECU&#39;s is to specifically prohibit adding things.

There is no sign of the word "add", or any derivative thereof, in the ECU paragraph... you can alter or replace things inside the ECU to your heart&#39;s content, but there are no "additions" allowed. IMO, this would include adding a vacuum hose to said ECU.

[dj10]

Andy,

Does that vacuum line have any illegal purpose?

Does that vacuum line make more hp or torque and possible give you an unfair advantage in any way?

Is that vacuum line a saftey issue?



Yes to any of these questions and it&#39;s illegal.

No to all of these questions, run the damn thing and forget what anyone else thinks! B)

[Bill Miller]

One more thing Andy.

What you did was alter that stock vac. connection by connecting it to a non-stock part (the MAP on your new ECU) for the purpose of gaining a competitive advantage (the ability to use said MAP). THAT is expressly prohibited by the rules. What&#39;s the logic you use to get around that?
[/b]

Still waiting for an answer to this one Andy.

I&#39;ll give you one thing, you&#39;re sounding more and more like a politician as this thread goes on.

[Knestis]

I dunno, Bill - from a purely academic point of view, since the point is well and truly moot now. I just think it&#39;s edumacational for its potential contribution to future rules-writing.

The rule expressly prohibited modifications to the stock wiring harness and its connector, right? MY POINT (perhaps lost in all of this) is that had the rule stopped short of prohibiting ANYTHING, instead describing as specifically as possible, in as few words as practical, what was allowed, it would take my argument - specious as some of you may think it to be - completely off the table.

At that point, it&#39;s about enforcement - under the current process via a protest, stewards&#39; findings, and appeal. And regarding enforcement...


...I believe you should have submitted it to a higher power than "the brightest minds" in your region. I think you either a) shouldn&#39;t have done it, or B) submitted it to national fo a ruling. Pushing the rules into a grey area (in my opinion, a clearly illegal area) while makking the rules isn&#39;t OK in my book. Someone operating in your capacity needs to meet higher standards of conduct.[/b]
There is no practical, functional "higher power." We can wish all we want but submitting a request to SCCA World HQ for an opinion yields nothing that is binding in any fashion. Even if the vacuum line it question had been through the protest AND APPEAL process, the finding wouldn&#39;t "prove" anything valuable, toward establishing anything like case law or precedent.

Since Andy&#39;s competitors are the ones who&#39;d be required to initiate an action against him, they would be exactly the right people to ask. That&#39;s the kind of spirit that&#39;s behind the open-hood suggestion.

And last I checked, the ITAC doesn&#39;t make any rules. They issues recommendations. Even if we accept that they have some real influence over the RULES-MAKING process, they aren&#39;t as a group in the business of enforcement - of making binding interpretations of what&#39;s OK and what&#39;s not. They have exactly the same power to enforce our rules - as individual racers - as any of us.

It is not fair to ask advisory board members to stop being racers, or to adhere to some different standard just because of their position. We all have our own morals vis a vis these rules issues and Andy is fully allowed to establish his and develop his car to the nth degree, if he so chooses. A different ITAC member might make a different decision, just like any two racers in any class in any paddock might.

K

EDIT - BTW, I think that any language like "for the purpose of gaining a competitive advantage" should be struck out of the rules, too. Write all of the rules presuming that because we are engaged in competition, it is safe to assume that everything any racer, car builder, or mechanic does is for that purpose. Done. At that point, things are either legal or illegal (again, through the protest process) and intent has nothing to do with it. Having that in there merely muddies the water: "Oh, yeah - I did that but I didn&#39;t do it to gain any competitive advantage. I did it to make the car safer, cheaper, and easier to work on..."

[pfcs49]

The rule specifies that all modifications be done WITHIN the OEM stock housing.
My stand is that running a vacuum circuit IN TO the housing is a modification to the OUTSIDE and not legal.
Having been in this club since first racing with it in 1971, and being an agressive rules interpreter and an avid observer of Appeals Court decisions that long, I would lay long odds that Andy&#39;s ECM would be found illegal under the current ruleset. Of course, thats just my opinion. Phil

And PS: I think it&#39;s reasonable to hold officials/advisory rulesmakers to a high standard. If not, then we&#39;re in trouble.......maybe we ARE in trouble.

[shwah]

On the topic of culture and protests. I feel pretty comfortable bringing something I find questionable up to a competitor directly. Most of the time it is an honest mistake of not knowing the rule, and that is what I assume going in. IMO this is always the best first step, then if the problem persists, I would write paper (which I have never done).

Maybe this is unique to CenDiv ITB, but I think the vast majority of my competitors are comfortable taking this approach as well. Unfortunately building an environment like this is about as easy as telling two kids to be friends. It is hard to make happen, it just does so organically. I don&#39;t know what the solution is....

[Andy Bettencourt]

Still waiting for an answer to this one Andy.

I&#39;ll give you one thing, you&#39;re sounding more and more like a politician as this thread goes on. [/b]

Bill,

I an not going to keep typing everything multiple times. I (and others) have laid out why I think it&#39;s legal. You (and others) have laid out why you think it isn&#39;t. I respect most of the thought processes. Don&#39;t take my future non-posting to your demands as a white flag. It&#39;s moot now.

[lateapex911]

So, babes of SCCA affairs, this is how the "process" works. And this is how it worked vis a vis the ECM rule. One thing&#39;s for sure, if Andy was losing any sleep about the legality of his ECM then, he ain&#39;t now. I find it impeachable that someone who is cause in the matter of liberalizing a ruleset have such a blatant conflict of interst regarding that very ruleset. Sorry to post this, Andy, but it seems truthful to me. Phil [/b]

Maybe I&#39;m missing your point, but how is this and example of how the "Process" works in SCCA affairs????

The discussion regarding the volvo running on an aftermarket computer was originally about how the sky won&#39;t fall if we allow everyone to do what a few could and did do. It migrated into a discussion about whether the particular example met the letter of the rules, or not. which is fine, although it didn&#39;t affect the point of the comment in any way.

Now we learn...me too, btw, that another competitor has run an non stock vac line to his ECU...

Are you saying there&#39;s a connection?? If so, there&#39;s not....Andy was running his sytem before the other became public. He made his call and designed his system onhis own, after consulting with his competitors. Which didn&#39;t include me, LOL.

Further, how does Andy&#39;s racing activity create a conflict of interest in his ECU call? He&#39;s been very open about every nut, bolt and vac line on his car...anyone who asks gets a full tour. If he felt it was not cool, which is what I think your are insinuating by the conflict comment (he knows he&#39;s illegal so he&#39;s liberizing the rules to make his stuff legal)... would he be giving red carpet tours of his setup??.

Not to mention a zillion other reasons to not cheat...not the least of which is his integrity, which he values mightily.

As for MY involvement, and my "opinionated support" of the concept, think for a second about what I drive. The only computer in MY old carbed car is a laptop I plop on the rooof from time to time. It&#39;s a car that slips further down the results sheets every year, and will only slip further if my support of this rule change helps everyone acheive what only a few have been able to. In short, I&#39;m am supporting rules change that can only hurt me.

In my opinion, we need MORE people in postions of influence who are willing to hurt their own position for the betterment of others. Forgive me for that comment if it comes across as bragging or pompous.

Now, you have your opinion, and that is fine. Others, (well respected here and not dull) have their opinion too, and it varies from yours. While you may disagree, you have to admit, it&#39;s something that reasonable men are differing about.

There is no smoking gun, no internal wrong doing here.

[dickita15]

I dunno, Bill - from a purely academic point of view, since the point is well and truly moot now. I just think it&#39;s edumacational for its potential contribution to future rules-writing.

[/b]
That is a great point.
Nascar has a long tradition of hiring tech inspectors with a history of, uh pushing grey areas rather than those who are pure as the driven snow.

This modification certainly has brought up a perfect example of why rules in general should not say what you cannot do. If it says you cannot do X it is easy to say you must be able to do Y or the rule makes would have said so.

[Bill Miller]

I&#39;m NOT arguing this because I think it&#39;s an example of how things should be but...
...which restricts only the wiring. It says zilch about vacuum lines and frankly, since additional wiring is specifically prohibited, one can *reasonably* infer that HAD the rules-makers wanted to restrict vacuum or other connections, they would have said that.

The production car reverse issue is a great example, and Bill makes a very illustrative point about the rules changing the following year. Our system reacts to cheats by dinking with the written rules, rather than by enforcing the ones we have. Someone has to be the grown-up and just say no but because we rely on hundreds of random volunteers spread out around the nation, who don&#39;t receive the same training or information, to enforce what&#39;s written, we are in a bind. Add to that (again, influenced by the volunteer dynamic) the fact that the stewards and tech folks are more than happy to defer the initiation of action to the competitors, and the system truly binds up.
We can write paper NOW if we want but for the most part, we don&#39;t. A parc expose would NOT be intended to be an opportunity to find things to protest. Instead, it would be a different approach that encourages discussion - it&#39;s the concept of daylighting: Putting things out in the open so folks feel more involved, rumors can get quashed with actual facts, and people could come to consensus re: some of the illegalities that fall through cracks now. Peer pressure.

We can&#39;t - even with the ITAC&#39;s efforts to root out issues - fix enforcement problems by changing the book. Create a tech inspectors&#39; and stewards&#39; website with binding interpretations. Make appeals precedential. Chuck that system altogether. Who knows but it&#39;s about enforcement.

K
[/b]


Kirk,

It would be equally valid to say that no mention of vacuum or other connections were mentioned as the rule makers consider this an electronic device, and did not consider mechanical connections. I&#39;m curious as to just how many cars listed in the ITCS have vacuum lines connected to their ECUs, as stock equipment.

As far as the functional reverse gear issue, it is my understanding, after having spoken w/ someone involved, that even though most people understood what &#39;functional reverse gear&#39; meant, they had to get even more explicit because some old boys felt that it was open enough to give one of their own a pass. To me, it&#39;s not a matter of dinking w/ the rules rather than enforcing them, it&#39;s dinking w/ the rules because people wouldn&#39;t enforce them. Subtle, but critical difference that I am sure did not escape you.

[Knestis]

Both good points, Bill.

The first gets at one cause of our creep issues - unanticipated evolutions (thinking out of the box) that the rules never considered, so might either implicitly ALLOW or DISALLOW depending on individual intentions.

I&#39;d argue that, where the second is concerned, it doesn&#39;t matter a *whole* lot whether "failure to enforce" is a bunch of stewards not wanting to piss off their old guard buddy when asked to hear a protest, or a bunch of us regular Regional dorks, not wanting to piss off the guys we have to be on the track with by not filing the protest in the first place.

Regardless, more good opportunities to understand how we might avoid future issues.

K

[Bill Miller]

I&#39;ll add another example of additional language that was added (not really a rule change, per se, but more of clarification) because there were people that questioned the legality of something. It&#39;s from the PCS, but it&#39;s the example that&#39;s important. Last year, additional language was added to limited-prep cars, explicitly stating that they were allowed to convert rear drums to rear discs. It was already covered elsewhere in the PCS, but some felt that it was not clear, so additional language was added to remove the confusion.

To me, that&#39;s not dinking w/ the rules, that&#39;s refining the rules to help clarify things and eliminate gray areas. I think that&#39;s a good thing.

I wanted to make a couple of comments on one of your earlier posts.

Here you say:


There is no practical, functional "higher power." We can wish all we want but submitting a request to SCCA World HQ for an opinion yields nothing that is binding in any fashion. Even if the vacuum line it question had been through the protest AND APPEAL process, the finding wouldn&#39;t "prove" anything valuable, toward establishing anything like case law or precedent.
[/b]

And later in the same post you say:

At that point, things are either legal or illegal (again, through the protest process) and intent has nothing to do with it.[/b]

In the first passage, you seem to be saying that the protest and appeal process doesn&#39;t really establish anything, and in the second passage, you say that leglity is determined through the protest and appeal process.

Also, I disagree that a question that goes through the official clarification process (protest/appeal) yields nothing that is binding. It is my understanding that, at the very least, it is binding and establishes precedent until the next issue of the GCR comes out. If it&#39;s truly meaningless, what&#39;s the point of even having the process, much less charging people money for it? I also think you would hard pressed to get a counter ruling in the case of a subsequent protest, given an established official position from Topeka.


As far as the issue w/ Andy&#39;s ECU being a moot point, to some degree it is, as per the new rule, it will all be legal in a couple of weeks. What really gets at me, is that I&#39;ve heard Andy and others argue that the new rule doesn&#39;t allow anything new that wasn&#39;t legal under the old (current) rule. Andy uses his case as an example, and justification, even though its legality has never been established. There are certainly enough people here that disagree that you can&#39;t say that a CoA would rule one way or the other.

What that is, is a textbook case of rules creep, and how it makes its way into the system. Drivers push the envelope, in terms of what may or may not be legal (and yes, that&#39;s what drivers do). Something gets implemented that reasonable people disagree, as to its legality, and then it gets held up as justification for changing the rules, because "it&#39;s already legal to do X". That logic fails, as it moves forward from an invalid assumption (that X really is legal). But once it&#39;s codified, how it got there no longer matters, and gets lost in the noise. THAT is rules creep. What makes it worse, is when you&#39;ve got someone who&#39;s supposed to be guiding the ship, involved in pushing that envelope.

Some have said that folks on the ITAC shouldn&#39;t be held to a higher standard. I disagree. I think that comes w/ the job. It&#39;s no different than those that argue that because people volunteer for something there are different standards that govern their actions than would be the case if they were actually being paid for what they were doing. There are standards for a given job, it doesn&#39;t matter if you are paid to do it, or if you volunteer. If you don&#39;t want to adhere to the standards, don&#39;t volunteer for the job.

Any time you are in a position to influence policy, it&#39;s always better to take the conservative approach when it comes to areas where a potential conflict of interest may arise. It&#39;s all about people&#39;s perception. Why even put yourself in a position where someone can raise the question?

I am one of the Scoutmasters for my son&#39;s Boy Scout troop. We have a policy known as Two-up leadership. It says that you can never have just one leader alone w/ the boys. Is that because all of the leaders can&#39;t be trusted w/ the boys by themselves? No, it&#39;s to help eliminate any claims of impropriety. It&#39;s a conservative approach, but one that we never even think about not conforming to. Again, it&#39;s all about perception (some people use the phrase that perception is reality).

Andy has said that he ran the idea by &#39;some of the best and the brightest&#39; (or something to that effect). Did he run it by the entire ITAC? Did he run it by Jeremy T.? Did he run it by the CRB? While running it by other racers will probably give you a good Kentucky windage, I would think that if you really wanted to reduce the chance of someone crying foul, that you would want to run it by people that were responsible for advising on, and setting policy.

Kinda of like a kid asking his older brother and sister if he can do something, rather thank asking mom or dad.

And while you may have typed a bunch of things Andy, what you have not done is put forth anything that justifies modifying a stock vacuum connection by connecting it to a non-stock MAP sensor. And I still contend that the current rule does not permit the addition of new sensors, regardless of their location (inside or outside the stock ECU housing). I also think that one can make the case that your new MAP does not communicate to the ECU through the stock, unmodified connector. You can&#39;t use the argument that it&#39;s part of the ECU because it&#39;s not. It&#39;s a sensor that just so happens to be attached to the ECU. It is not required, or necessary for the ECU to function.

[JLawton]

This modification certainly has brought up a perfect example of why rules in general should not say what you cannot do. If it says you cannot do X it is easy to say you must be able to do Y or the rule makes would have said so.
[/b]


Agreed, to a point. I still have to go with the fact that just because it specifically mentions something you CAN&#39;T do, doesn&#39;t mean you CAN do everything else. Every decision should be based on: "Unless it says you can, you can&#39;t do it". It doesn&#39;t say: "If it says we can&#39;t do something, we can do everything else".

Sorry Andy, I gotta bring this up. I find it hard to believe that the hole didn&#39;t have to be inlarged or have a rubber grommet in it to run the line through. I wouldn&#39;t mind seeing a picture of the set up and a picture of a stock Miata ECU.



Edit: I wouldn&#39;t bother protesting anyone for this.

[dickita15]

Edit: I wouldn&#39;t bother protesting anyone for this.
[/b]
Jeff, I have to ask why?
Is it because you would not protest a grey area where the owner has a reasonable argument why he thinks it is legal even if you don’t or some other reason.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Agreed, to a point. I still have to go with the fact that just because it specifically mentions something you CAN&#39;T do, doesn&#39;t mean you CAN do everything else. Every decision should be based on: "Unless it says you can, you can&#39;t do it". It doesn&#39;t say: "If it says we can&#39;t do something, we can do everything else".

Sorry Andy, I gotta bring this up. I find it hard to believe that the hole didn&#39;t have to be inlarged or have a rubber grommet in it to run the line through. I wouldn&#39;t mind seeing a picture of the set up and a picture of a stock Miata ECU.



Edit: I wouldn&#39;t bother protesting anyone for this. [/b]

Jeff,

You can look at my ECU housing anytime. Totally unmodified. And if you think it is, you SHOULD protest!

Bill,

I ran it by the guys who WOULD BE protesting me. A guy who fancies himself a rules nerd who has some pretty ingenious stuff on his car. Same guy who won the ARRC in 2006. I think it&#39;s legal and wanted a proactive opinion from people whose rules reading I respect - and will be fighting with for a podium. Not someone 1200 miles away whose opinion doesn&#39;t hold any water with local PC&#39;s. Your anaology is totally wrong. Since my competitors are chartered with enforcement of my car, they WOULD be the ones to get buy in.

As far as the vacuum source, it comes from an unused nipple on the engine. If your definition of &#39;modified&#39; is me just uncapping it to use, I dissagree 100%. I need vacuum to run my &#39;free&#39; computer. Just like you need electricity to run other &#39;free&#39; items allowed. The source is there and I used it unmodified.

I am done. Like minds disagree. And TRUST ME, other than this sheit-storm, my car is built WELL to the left of grey. It HAS to be legal. And I believe it to be 100%. My car IS the higher standard you speak of. I have a ton of time and money ito it to make sure it is.

[Knestis]

...Last year, additional language was added to limited-prep cars, explicitly stating that they were allowed to convert rear drums to rear discs. It was already covered elsewhere in the PCS, but some felt that it was not clear, so additional language was added to remove the confusion. [/b]
Oh, absolutely a good idea! Language explicitly defining what IS allowed - not picking out something and prohibiting it. If it were merely "implied" or "understood" that disc conversions were allowed, it&#39;s wobbly. Now, I don&#39;t know that ruleset at all but if the intent is to allow converting to rear discs off of the same make/model/year, I&#39;d expect the rule to say that. If they want it to be wide open, the language should be a specific as possible to say that instead.


...In the first passage, you seem to be saying that the protest and appeal process doesn&#39;t really establish anything, and in the second passage, you say that leglity is determined through the protest and appeal process.[/b]
I think both statements are accurate, as I understand things. Some clarification by someone more conversant on the topic might be in order but my PERCEPTION is that there&#39;s been a real reluctance in Club Racing to any system of precedent. One CoA can return a finding that might be completely contrary (or appear so) to a previous CoA finding, because they are each considered "on their own merit" - or some such language.

I think we could use a better system, particularly given the power of the interweb to shrink distance and time.

Finally, I coached girls gymnastics for years. You don&#39;t have to make a case to me about perceptions. Been there, done that, dodged the bullets. :)

However, regarding...


...Andy has said that he ran the idea by &#39;some of the best and the brightest&#39; (or something to that effect). Did he run it by the entire ITAC? Did he run it by Jeremy T.? Did he run it by the CRB? ...[/b]
My thinking (again, maybe not well explained) is that even if this particular technical question had been vetted by ALL of those entities, in writing, in triplicate, it would make no difference in terms of anything beyond the symbolic - perceptions. The ITAC could informally vote or come to consensus but as a body they can&#39;t "recommend" anything on the question. Jeremy T. (the focus of my "wish all we want" comment) can have all the opinions in the world, but they make zero difference in a protest or appeal - as far as I understand, anyway. The CRB won&#39;t, as a body, rule on something - they are our legislative branch, not the judiciary. (Again - if I&#39;m off base on functions here, educate me. It&#39;s been a long time since I worried about stuff at that level.)

Now, any or all of those bodies might well LEARN from the inquiry, which might inform subsequent actions on the subject. Since they legislative (ITAC and CRB, anyway), their response will likely be to try to legislate around the problem (dinking). If their dinking makes the allowance more specific, that&#39;s arguably a good thing (per your example). If the response were, "You are specifically not allowed to put a MAP sensor in the ECU and run a vacuum line to it" (hyperbole alert!), they&#39;re going the wrong way in my little opinion.

Now, the more I mull over the point about nobody considering the possibility that an "ECU" - quotes to remind us that "E" stands for "electronic" - might include mechanical functions, the more that argument gains traction in my mind. But that would be for the judiciary to work out.

K

[Ron Earp]

What happened to horsepower, torque, and the system?

[Bill Miller]

Andy,

The modification I have referred to, is connecting that stock vacuum port to a non-stock sensor. And as I pointed out before, you&#39;ve got a sensor that&#39;s talking to the ECU through something other than the stock connection.

Kirk,

I did not mean to suggest that any opinions from the ITAC/Jeremy T./CRB would be binding on anything. But, those people are directly involved in the rules making process, whereas the guys that you race with may not be (most aren&#39;t).

Greg made a very telling comment before. He stated that he did not feel that Andy&#39;s mod met the spirit of the rule. I would imagine that his feelings about this came up in his conversations w/ Andy. What kind of message does it send when you have the chair of the ITAC taking that kind of approach? That may in fact be a test, at least for ourselves, as to where does an interpretation cross the line and become strained and tortured. You have to ask yourself if, while legal w/in the letter of the rules (and I am NOT saying that Andy&#39;s mod is legal, even to the letter of the rule), does it meet what you believe is the intent of the rule. If your answer is no, that&#39;s probably a good indication that your interpretation is at the very least, in the gray.

To clarify the rear disc conversion thing, the PCS states that cars w/ rear drums may convert to rear discs, as long as they are no larger than the front discs. There were entries on the spec lines of the limited prep cars, under the Brakes heading, that said &#39;Factory spec at all 4 wheels&#39;. Some took this to mean that you were not allowed to convert to rear discs. Yet, there were other cars that had the specific size brakes listed (not limited prep cars). Some of those cars had rear drums. The people that argued against the l-p cars being allowed to convert to rear discs did not feel that non-l/p cars that had rear drums listed on their spec line were subject to the same restriction. The language was added to further reinforce the fact that all cars, regardless of prep level, were allowed to convert to rear discs, under the published limitations (size, material, etc.).

[bldn10]

First off, let&#39;s not jump on Andy because he is one of the more straight-up guys here and I don&#39;t think he would ever knowingly cheat. His argument in favor of the vac line is way more legit than many that are bandied about here; I just don&#39;t happen to agree w/ it.

There is no doubt in my mind that the intent of the current rule was to allow you to "alter or replace the ... ECU" inside the box and nothing more: nothing can enter the box that did not enter it in its OEM state; all electrical connections must be via the OEM harness. I think it is important that it expressly states that legal mods done to the ECU DO NOT bootstrap "the addition of wiring, sensors ...." I.e. the fact that your new whatever-in-a-box has the capability of monitoring/controlling functions that the OEM ECU did not, does not mean that you can make other mods to enable same. In this context "sensors" means sending units or input devices and whatever means they use to transmit engine management info to the ECU. That obviously includes wires, but I would suggest also vac lines, fluid lines, mechanical connections like throttle cables, and anything else. Perhaps even radio waves if you could rig up a wireless system! Would anyone here seriously say that if my new ECU could control fuel pressure on the fly that I could run the fuel line through the ECU through existing holes?

Out of curiosity, are there any/many OEM ECUs that receive input other than via electrical wires?

[pfcs49]

There are ECUs that have internal MAP sensors and external vacuum nipples to the vacuum (hose) source.
The only ones I know of are for cars that had original equiptment superchargers or turbochargers.
I wonder why they did it in that if the MAP sensor failed, you needed to replace the $$$ECM. (Audi 5000/100/200Turbo ^91, VW Corrado 89-91)
Many manufacturers have provided ignition "computers" that handled ignition strategy (timing), having built-in vacuum units and inputs for engine temp, etc. As far as I remember, they were always used in conjunction with Bosch CIS injection systems which also had a rudimentry ECM for fuel management. (Volvo 240 ^82, GTI ^87, etc.)
All of which has no relavence to this conversation-the elements of the (purported) illegality of the newly created vacuum circuit is prohibited in the intent paragraph on the first page of the IT rulebook. phil

[Bill Miller]

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.[/b]

Look at it again Bill.

One question is, does the &#39;outside of the OEM ECU housing&#39; modifier apply to only &#39;piggybacked computers&#39; or does it modify all the items in the list? I think you can make the case that it only modifies &#39;piggybacked computers&#39;. If that&#39;s the case, you can&#39;t add additional wiring or sensors, regardless of their location.

The other issue that I mentioned was that the MAP on Andy&#39;s new ECU doesn&#39;t connect to the ECU through the stock, unmodified connection.

Another statement to look at is the one that allows a resistor to be placed between the sensor and the OEM wiring harness. That statement implies that sensors must be connected to the OEM wiring harness. And don&#39;t even try and say that the ECU is the resistor between the MAP and the OEM wiring harness, because that doesn&#39;t fly.

And I&#39;m not trying to pile on Andy. As I said before, I like him. I just think what he&#39;s done is not legal, and I&#39;m disappointed that someone in his position (as chair of the ITAC) would push things so far into the gray and claim that they are legal, when in fact, they&#39;ve never been put to the test.

And Jeff&#39;s comment is indicative of a the way a lot of people think. How many times have we heard "I wouldn&#39;t protest anyone for xxx"? How many people say they&#39;ll go talk to someone before they will file a protest? So, while I think it was a good thing that Andy ran the idea past people he races with, they&#39;re not the ones that determine legality.

[Knestis]

Kirk,

I did not mean to suggest that any opinions from the ITAC/Jeremy T./CRB would be binding on anything. But, those people are directly involved in the rules making process, whereas the guys that you race with may not be (most aren&#39;t). [/b]
...but that&#39;s precisely the conundrum: When we talk about whether something is "legal" or not, we aren&#39;t talking about the rules MAKING process - we&#39;re talking about the rules ENFORCEMENT process. The two are disconnected in our organization, which is arguably the very root of the challenges we face.

The folks who ultimately decide (again, the judicial branch) are left trying to figure out what the letter of the rules says, what the intent of the rule might have been, and even whether they should act on the letter OR the intent. Again, I don&#39;t LIKE IT ONE BIT but the current practice (i.e., for the last 20 years!) is that real-world judgments are based on the letter of the intent. This reinforces the "Hey, that&#39;s clever..." kind of enabling that Greg described.

I&#39;ve used the example before but during the John Bishop era of IMSA, word was he&#39;d literally look at something and say, "Nope - not what I had in mind. You&#39;re illegal." In our system, the guys we race with are pretty much the only ones responsible for initiating rules enforcement actions.

Again - I&#39;m not at all concerned by the vacuum line question, really. If someone doesn&#39;t like it, they can protest it. I&#39;m just interested in how it might inform future rules making and potential changes in rules-enforcement practice.

...and restated for the record: I would LOVE it if we could get back to generally conservative interpretations of intent. I&#39;ve just come to understand that the tide has turned and the dominant paradigm is the one Greg&#39;s described - the Brave New World (aka "be careful what you ask for").

K

[JLawton]

Jeff, I have to ask why?
Is it because you would not protest a grey area where the owner has a reasonable argument why he thinks it is legal even if you don’t or some other reason.
[/b]


OK, ya got me on that one Dick!! :D

1) If a driver was beating me, it most likely isn&#39;t due to a modification like this one (small performance gains).
2) You have to pick your battles
3) Remember, I stuck my neck waaaaay out on a protest last year.
4) I&#39;m about as far away from being a rules nerd as you can get, and wouldn&#39;t have the confidence that I was right.


Andy,
Let me rephrase my request cause I think it came out wrong. I don&#39;t want you to throw up pics so we can all judge you. Send me pics on e-mail. I am just curious to see if I was off base our not.


Yea, what about Torque vs HP and the system????

[JeffYoung]

The folks who are newer to IT (I started in 03, but didn&#39;t really race much until 04) grew up in a culture of $50k turnkey race cars and Motec in a box, etc. We are getting to a point where we, the newer crowd, are for better or for worse in a majority.

A think a lot of us don&#39;t see anyway to go back to the stricter interpreation of the rules based on an intent -- minor mods to a street car -- that gave birth to IT. We&#39;re past that guys. You can&#39;t go home as Mr. Wolfe once said........

So what do we do? I think we need to reevaluate the "intent" of the rules. This is going to be highly controversial, but I think the goal of IT vis a vis other SCCA classes should be the following:

1. No guarantee of competiveness BUT logical car classing using the process. For this reason, I have come to believe that we should publish how each car was "weighed" so it is there for others to see going forward. Yes, folks will nit pick it and this is why I was opposed to it originally, but going forward, I am concerned in 10 years we end up with the story that Bill reminded us of which is that no one even remembers how IT cars were classed before.

2. A stable ruleset. I&#39;ve been having an interesting e-mail exchange with Keith Thomas, crew chief on the famous or infamous to some orange BMW 325is. Illuminating to see things from his side. Rule instability drove them out of IT. First, they got a ruling on engine coatings (the same one that were used in SM) a few years back, that they were legal. SCCA then reversed course. Then, there was remote reservoir shocks. I don&#39;t have the $$ for these, but honestly, when a rule says something is free, well then, let the $$$ be spent -- and the were -- and then that spending was made useless by a rule change. Then there was the SIR. Enuff said.

You couple those two goals with the basic fundamentals of IT prep -- stock cam, stock heads, stock induction, stock body panels, generally free suspension within confines of existing mounting points, stock brakes, and let people have it with the development. Some of what we all love about IT is the ability to innovate. If you take that away, we lose something -- perhaps just as much as we do by "allowing" a tortured interpretation of the rules.

[Z3_GoCar]

Look at it again Bill.

One question is, does the &#39;outside of the OEM ECU housing&#39; modifier apply to only &#39;piggybacked computers&#39; or does it modify all the items in the list? I think you can make the case that it only modifies &#39;piggybacked computers&#39;. If that&#39;s the case, you can&#39;t add additional wiring or sensors, regardless of their location.

The other issue that I mentioned was that the MAP on Andy&#39;s new ECU doesn&#39;t connect to the ECU through the stock, unmodified connection.

Another statement to look at is the one that allows a resistor to be placed between the sensor and the OEM wiring harness. That statement implies that sensors must be connected to the OEM wiring harness. And don&#39;t even try and say that the ECU is the resistor between the MAP and the OEM wiring harness, because that doesn&#39;t fly.

And I&#39;m not trying to pile on Andy. As I said before, I like him. I just think what he&#39;s done is not legal, and I&#39;m disappointed that someone in his position (as chair of the ITAC) would push things so far into the gray and claim that they are legal, when in fact, they&#39;ve never been put to the test.

And Jeff&#39;s comment is indicative of a the way a lot of people think. How many times have we heard "I wouldn&#39;t protest anyone for xxx"? How many people say they&#39;ll go talk to someone before they will file a protest? So, while I think it was a good thing that Andy ran the idea past people he races with, they&#39;re not the ones that determine legality.
[/b]

That&#39;s funny Bill, because when I read that sentance: the wiring is listed with the sensor and piggyback computer outside the box. The piggyback is legal inside as is the wiring(how else is anyone going to hook up a daughter board if it&#39;s not?), why aren&#39;t the sensors legal too?? The fact that they are listed as illegal outside togeather implies that since two are legal inside they all are legal inside too. As for the vacume line, maybe it was there to run the cruise control. Who say&#39;s were a spare vacume line runs? I don&#39;t see anything that tells us that we can block removed vacume lines, and yet we do.

James

[Bill Miller]

That&#39;s the thing James, I believe that if &#39;outside the OEM ECU housing&#39; were meant to modify all the items in that list (sensors, wires, or piggybacked computers), then there should be a comma between &#39;computers&#39; and &#39;outside&#39;. As it is written, I believe it only modifies piggyback computers. And if that&#39;s the case, no new sensors or wiring, either inside or outside the ECU housing.

And the part that you&#39;re missing, is "to gain a competitive advantage". And actually, by the rules, you have to block unused vacuum lines. Theres a rule that says all air entering the engine must pass through the throttle body/carb.

[GKR_17]

Theres a rule that says all air entering the engine must pass through the throttle body/carb.
[/b]

That rule hasn&#39;t been violated in this case.

[Bill Miller]

That rule hasn&#39;t been violated in this case.
[/b]

I never said it was. I simply pointed out to James that there is indeed a requirement that we plug unused vacuum connections.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Greg made a very telling comment before. He stated that he did not feel that Andy&#39;s mod met the spirit of the rule. I would imagine that his feelings about this came up in his conversations w/ Andy. What kind of message does it send when you have the chair of the ITAC taking that kind of approach?[/b]

You&#39;d be wrong.

Now if you were to ask me if the &#39;MoTec in a box&#39; concept was outside the original intent, I would agree wholeheartedly. But that horse has been out of the barn since before many here started racing. Everyone knows it&#39;s legal because teh rules say it&#39;s legal (the concept). If you want to hold me to a standard where I have to significantly handicap myself on pure principle, you are talking to the wrong guy. Argue my application of the concept all you want but don&#39;t expect me to bring a knife to a gunfight because of a poorly written rule from years back.

I will work, and HAVE worked, for the betterment of the majority of the category - even at my own expense...now THAT is what you should expect. Enough of this BS. I have put IT before myself for years. Why don&#39;t you work on some procative solutions.

[Bill Miller]

Then I was wrong. But, seems that it is a moot point, as you already knew that what you were doing was not consistent w/ the intent of the rules. And while each individual has to decide where they want to be w.r.t. letter vs. intent of the rules, that&#39;s where you&#39;re going to get people to hold you to a higher standard, as the chair of the ITAC. If you see that the letter of the rule is not consistent with the intent, I would think you would want to work on getting them more in line, rather than pushing the door even further open. As I said before Andy, it&#39;s all about perception. And it&#39;s about leading by example. If taking a more conservative approach to rules interpretation doesn&#39;t jive w/ how you want to run your racing program, maybe you should rethink your role.

And work on proactive solutions? IIRC, I was one of the early, vocal advocates of a standard, equally applied vehicle classification system. Kirk even dubbed the weight/power numbers, the &#39;Miller Ratio&#39;. That was well before your tenure as ITAC chair, and possibly before your tenure on the committee. I was also a pretty strong advocate for the need to increase the granularity of the classes, and to get more cars classified. IIRC, you asked me to work on the ITR AdHoc. So don&#39;t give me any BS about working on proactive solutions. If I didn&#39;t think this stuff was important, I sure wouldn&#39;t spend my time with it.

[Greg Amy]

Greg made a very telling comment before...I would imagine that his feelings about this came up in his conversations w/ Andy.[/b]
Bill, with respect, please don&#39;t use this as ammunition; it&#39;s non-sequitor. While I don&#39;t doubt it happened, I do not recall this conversation, therefore please do not infer that I made my prior posts in regards to Andy&#39;s ECU mods with this in mind. I&#39;m not saying the conversation didn&#39;t happen; as noted, I had considered doing the exact same thing for my MR2 project so I no doubt expressed this idea/mindset with others close.

At this point, I think everyone&#39;s had their say, and all sides have been expressed. It&#39;s extremely unlikely anyone&#39;s opinions will be changed.

:dead_horse:

[Bill Miller]

Bill, with respect, please don&#39;t use this as ammunition; it&#39;s non-sequitor. While I don&#39;t doubt it happened, I do not recall this conversation, therefore please do not infer that I made my prior posts in regards to Andy&#39;s ECU mods with this in mind. I&#39;m not saying the conversation didn&#39;t happen; as noted, I had considered doing the exact same thing for my MR2 project so I no doubt expressed this idea/mindset with others close.

At this point, I think everyone&#39;s had their say, and all sides have been expressed. It&#39;s extremely unlikely anyone&#39;s opinions will be changed.

:dead_horse:
[/b]

Greg,

Sorry if I inferred something that did not happen, or put words in your mouth. That was certainly not my intent. Doesn&#39;t really matter though, as Andy has already stated that he felt that it was not consistent w/ the intent of the rule. But, I will still apologize for inferring that you did something that you did not do.

And while you may be right, there are certainly others besides myself that feel what Andy did was illegal. Furthermore, Kirk has stated that his position regarding non-electronic connections to the ECU may be changing. So, don&#39;t be so quick to dismiss this.

[pfcs49]

Andy-while I respect your comittment to serving ITs future, I disagree with the course you&#39;ve set.
I find the idea of $50,000 IT cars obscene for a starter class that worked so well as envisoned 23 years ago.
The washer bottle argument is still around because it expresses better than most the "priciple" of IT rules.
You&#39;ve "thrown the management system out with the washerbottle" to strain a phrase. My stand is that your rationalization that you can express manifold pressure to a sensor in the ECM is exactly the same as the argument about removing washer bottles. This has been a touchstone of IT rule integrity for years!
And you crossed that line. I&#39;m starting to think too many have drunk the cool aid. If it doesn&#39;t say you can do it, you can&#39;t!! (Kirk-where are you when we need you?) That&#39;s why we still have original washer bottles in our cars! Make a rule that says you can (remove a washer bottle or create a performance enhancing
vacuum circuit) and it&#39;s legal. This is a perfect example of rules-creep and how it happens. I&#39;m 60years old now, I ran the very first east coast IT race (LRP 83? 84?) and I think I must have enjoyed the golden age of amateur road racing (I ran FP before IT). Since wrecking my car 3 years ago at ARRC open pract, I think/dream daily of how to come back. I think it&#39;s over; yuppies with enough money to pour large amounts of it into a class with bugeoning possibilities have taken over a class that once belonged to simpler folks.
I am sad to see it go phil

[Andy Bettencourt]

Then I was wrong. But, seems that it is a moot point, as you already knew that what you were doing was not consistent w/ the intent of the rules. And while each individual has to decide where they want to be w.r.t. letter vs. intent of the rules, that&#39;s where you&#39;re going to get people to hold you to a higher standard, as the chair of the ITAC. If you see that the letter of the rule is not consistent with the intent, I would think you would want to work on getting them more in line, rather than pushing the door even further open. As I said before Andy, it&#39;s all about perception. And it&#39;s about leading by example. If taking a more conservative approach to rules interpretation doesn&#39;t jive w/ how you want to run your racing program, maybe you should rethink your role.[/b]

That&#39;s the beauty of this Bill. Once that the process proved it was working, we set off to look into one of the last &#39;crap&#39; rules in IT - the ECU rule. Just because the rule didn&#39;t go the way you wanted doesn&#39;t make it the wrong decision. It wasn&#39;t just the ITAC and CRB who thought it was the right thing given the facts, it was the overwhelming majority of those who cared enough to voice their opinion after two requests. We worked on it, it&#39;s the result that has you missing the action. I don&#39;t remember you sending in a letter on the subject actually...

I think you also don&#39;t read my posts well enough. I could go over a list of grey items - done to many of the fastest ITA cars in the country that I won&#39;t touch. This is different. Everyone knows &#39;MoTec in a box&#39; is legal. It&#39;s not grey. Many do it. Why? Because it&#39;s legal. Again, we will agree to disagree on my application of the rule but don&#39;t critisize me for running a max-prepped car. This horse has been out of the barn - it&#39;s not like this is a new, earth shattering concept I should be tip-toeing around. I build, prep and race to win, as do many. I will never apoligize for that. Point in fact, I could have used a 100% plug-and play unit from AEM to do what I did - and more. I saved some bucks and did something I think is legal.


And work on proactive solutions? IIRC, I was one of the early, vocal advocates of a standard, equally applied vehicle classification system. Kirk even dubbed the weight/power numbers, the &#39;Miller Ratio&#39;. That was well before your tenure as ITAC chair, and possibly before your tenure on the committee. I was also a pretty strong advocate for the need to increase the granularity of the classes, and to get more cars classified. IIRC, you asked me to work on the ITR AdHoc. So don&#39;t give me any BS about working on proactive solutions. If I didn&#39;t think this stuff was important, I sure wouldn&#39;t spend my time with it. [/b]

I&#39;m not BSing you Bill. All I am going to say is that you are one of the most critical and negative guys on this BB - and there is nothing wrong with that as long as it is accompanied by solutions - something I haven&#39;t seem from you since I asked you to be part of the ITR group.

I guess I am dissappointed that you don&#39;t understand that I think of IT first, and myself second. I was ready to shit-can my ECU program if going backward was determined to be the better solution...and said so as much on this forum 2 years ago. Oh well. You know where to find me if you have more to say.

And Paul - what people don&#39;t understand is that the &#39;washer bottle rule&#39; isn&#39;t about the washer bottle. It&#39;s about the beginning of the endless stream of requests that it will set off. Side windows, headlights, dashboards, front and rear glass...the line has to be drawn somehwere on these things - and what is acceptable is different for everyone. If you &#39;freeze&#39; the stupid stuff, the worms stay in the can on that front. Technology and a stupid rule have forced the issue WRT ECU&#39;s, not people. And remeber, if it says you can, you can. Tell me again how you install that vacuum gauge that is legal?

Again guys - like minds disagree. It&#39;s moot now. If you have any doubts as to my committment to a legal car and the IT rules, you havn&#39;t seen my car and you certainly don&#39;t know me. Signing off.

[Z3_GoCar]

That&#39;s the thing James, I believe that if &#39;outside the OEM ECU housing&#39; were meant to modify all the items in that list (sensors, wires, or piggybacked computers), then there should be a comma between &#39;computers&#39; and &#39;outside&#39;. As it is written, I believe it only modifies piggyback computers. And if that&#39;s the case, no new sensors or wiring, either inside or outside the ECU housing.

And the part that you&#39;re missing, is "to gain a competitive advantage". And actually, by the rules, you have to block unused vacuum lines. Theres a rule that says all air entering the engine must pass through the throttle body/carb.
[/b]
Alright Bill,

let&#39;s look at it this way; it&#39;s listed "Wiring, Sensors, or Piggyback Computer Outside the OEM ECU housing"

Now you&#39;ll agree that the piggyback computer is legal inside the OEM ECU housing, but how do you hook it into the OEM ECU? Or what if you replace the OEM ECU with a MoTEC, how do you connect it? You have to change the wiring inside the ECU housing, possibly add wiring inside the housing, in the case of mounting a daughter board. You&#39;ll agree that mounting a daughter board was part of the original intent, and that to do so added wiring inside the ECU housing.

So now wiring inside the ECU housing and piggyback computers are allowed inside the housing, but they are on either side of the list of unallowed additions out side of the housing, which implies that all are allowed inside the OEM ECU housing.

Back to the vacume hose issue, where does it say that unused vacume openings are allowed to be blocked? You gave me the "All air must enter through the TB/carb" but how do you account for a idle by pass system where the air by passes the TB for idle speed control? So then technically any car running a stock injection system with its idle by pass is illegal?? It&#39;s just "assumed" that you&#39;ll plug the unused openings with plugs, but it doesn&#39;t say you can.

Now to really blow your mind. Internal coatings: Simply stated internal coatings are not allowed. Yet From the factory pistons are coated with an anti-friction coating. So replacement pistons must be factory equivellant, but only factory pistons have this anti-friction coatings, which are not allowed because internal coatings are not allowed. So factory built motors are illegal because they have an internal coating, and motors with aftermaket pistons are illegal because their pistons aren&#39;t "factory equivellant" :114:


Ja_

[Bill Miller]

Alright Bill,

let&#39;s look at it this way; it&#39;s listed "Wiring, Sensors, or Piggyback Computer Outside the OEM ECU housing"

Now you&#39;ll agree that the piggyback computer is legal inside the OEM ECU housing, but how do you hook it into the OEM ECU? Or what if you replace the OEM ECU with a MoTEC, how do you connect it? You have to change the wiring inside the ECU housing, possibly add wiring inside the housing, in the case of mounting a daughter board. You&#39;ll agree that mounting a daughter board was part of the original intent, and that to do so added wiring inside the ECU housing.

So now wiring inside the ECU housing and piggyback computers are allowed inside the housing, but they are on either side of the list of unallowed additions out side of the housing, which implies that all are allowed inside the OEM ECU housing.[/b]

You have to use the stock, unmodified OEM connector




Back to the vacume hose issue, where does it say that unused vacume openings are allowed to be blocked? You gave me the "All air must enter through the TB/carb" but how do you account for a idle by pass system where the air by passes the TB for idle speed control? So then technically any car running a stock injection system with its idle by pass is illegal?? It&#39;s just "assumed" that you&#39;ll plug the unused openings with plugs, but it doesn&#39;t say you can.
[/b]

If ALL of the air doesn&#39;t pass through the carb or the throttle body, yes, it&#39;s illegal. By the rules, you have to block off the idle air bypass. I don&#39;t make this stuff up, it&#39;s right there in the rules.


Now to really blow your mind. Internal coatings: Simply stated internal coatings are not allowed. Yet From the factory pistons are coated with an anti-friction coating. So replacement pistons must be factory equivellant, but only factory pistons have this anti-friction coatings, which are not allowed because internal coatings are not allowed. So factory built motors are illegal because they have an internal coating, and motors with aftermaket pistons are illegal because their pistons aren&#39;t "factory equivellant" :114:
Ja_
[/b]


It says "the application/use.... to any internal engine surface..."

Pistons are not internal engine surfaces, they are pistons. They are components that installed in an engine. And how do you know that aftermarket pistons are not coated w/ an anti-friction coating? Nice try though, I&#39;ll give you that.

[Eagle7]

If ALL of the air doesn&#39;t pass through the carb or the throttle body, yes, it&#39;s illegal. By the rules, you have to block off the idle air bypass. I don&#39;t make this stuff up, it&#39;s right there in the rules. [/b] Well maybe you didn&#39;t make it up, but the person you qouted did. The rule is:

"The throttle body is not the fuel injection air inlet on most (all?) FI cars. The idle air bypas has always been totally legal.</span>

[lateapex911]

Andy-while I respect your comittment to serving ITs future, I disagree with the course you&#39;ve set.
I find the idea of $50,000 IT cars obscene for a starter class that worked so well as envisoned 23 years ago.
..........Since wrecking my car 3 years ago at ARRC open pract, I think/dream daily of how to come back. I think it&#39;s over; yuppies with enough money to pour large amounts of it into a class with bugeoning possibilities have taken over a class that once belonged to simpler folks.
I am sad to see it go phil [/b]

Phil....it&#39;s not 1985 any more, and the cars are different. I freaked out when I saw the ECU rule in the first place, I jumped up and down and called the CRB chair and said, "HOW can you open a rule up that is performance enhancing POST classification!?!?! You just dinked with the entire balance of the class!"
His response was "We had to, there is no way to enforce the previous rule"

I was pissed.

Then people started putting more than chips in the box. Why? Because it says you can. Duh. (Technology changed, and the rules writers failed to remeber teh famous computer theory that states that hardware will become half the size, twice as powerful and half as expensive every 18 months ..or something like that.) And because people neded to, in some cases because the darn cars wouldn&#39;t run right with the stock ecu and racing mods, and in some cases because the bar they wanted to clear was high...and the ecu mod gave them the last bit to clear the hurdle.

Call them yuppies if you want, but the truth is that they are people who want to race in a category, and there are more than one of them. Like an auction, people will spend what they have to get something, and if that something is popular, the price goes up.

IT has gotten where it has gotten largely because of the fact that the world, and the cars, and the technology have changed.

Everyone:
With regards to Andy. I have to draw the line when I hear that people are criticising his methods as self serving and not in the best interests of IT at large. As an ITAC member, Andy and I discuss the direction and the staffing of the ITAC from time to time. One thing we are 100% in sync with is that we have no tolerance for ITAC members who are self serving, and ONLY those we feel are capable of seeing and acting for the greater good are ever invited to serve. The ECU rules change was an internal action on the part of the ITAC, and while it&#39;s not important to identify the author, I will tell you that it wasn&#39;t Andy. During discussions, Andy, who at the time had a standalone ECu already in his Miatas box, was 100% in support of going to a "chips and reflashes" option. IF it was felt that that was the best option for IT now and in the future, he would have ripped up the money and started over.

I hope that if people feel that Andy has crossed the line they can at least be respectful enough to phrase it in a balanced manner, as Bill Denton did a few posts up.

[Knestis]

...If it doesn&#39;t say you can do it, you can&#39;t!! (Kirk-where are you when we need you?) ...[/b]
I&#39;m right here, Phil - posting along with the rest of the crowd.

I&#39;m all about IIDSYCYC but the point at which the book says YC(an), then we sure as hell C(an).

I won&#39;t rehash it all but as someone else who was there in the early years of IT, I&#39;ve made my peace with the cost issue. There&#39;s just NO way that rules can contain costs. They can impose diminishing returns but that&#39;s about it. And the truth of the matter is that those diminishing returns dictate that in most classes in most areas, one can get to within 95% of the the exemplar car for a heck of a lot less than 95% of the $$.

K

[trhoppe]

There&#39;s just NO way that rules can contain costs. They can impose diminishing returns but that&#39;s about it. And the truth of the matter is that those diminishing returns dictate that in most classes in most areas, one can get to within 95% of the the exemplar car for a heck of a lot less than 95% of the $$.

K
[/b]

Someone take this, print it, and laminate it. Maybe make a website with just this quote that we can refer people to.

:happy204:

-Tom

[seckerich]

Keep one thing in mind when you discuss cost. Some of these cars running have 10 seasons on them. Every year they do something else to make it better. Do not expect to start out even--wont happen without a ton of money. I hope I never add up what I have in my car. Or better yet I hope my wife never does. :D

[its66]

As long as you make sure Vickie has the faster car, she might let you by with it. :happy204:

[JeffYoung]

You ever see the Twin Turbo RX7 she used to drive? I would definitely say she had the faster car. Damn thing shot flames out the back, no lie.

I&#39;ve now been to the Eckerich Mad Laboratory up in the hills. All kinds of evil stuff up there. Right hand drive Miatas, bodys on rotisseries, I even hear he is working on a Frankendriver who is actually plugged into the motec system on the car!