September Fastrack

[xr4racer]

I thought there was supposed to be some IT changes coming?

matt

[rx7chris]

I got one of the ones I was asking for. Now if I could get them to say 1/2" is ok I"d be all set.

[GTIspirit]

2. IT – Allow a wide band 02 sensor (Bader). A wide band sensor functions differently than a narrow band sensor.

What does this mean? It's allowed, or not? Allowed only if used as a "gauge" and not as an input to the ECU?

[Greg Amy]

Allowed only if used as a "gauge" and not as an input to the ECU?
Correct.

But, given it can be added as a gauge, and the ECU is free, and wiring/connections to the ECU are free, it's gonna be damn hard to police, especially if a narrow-band ECU is also installed.

[Knestis]

Some items referred to the Board by the ITAC have been acted on but recommendations for weight changes on review - going back several months now - are on hold. You might want to check with your Board member for more information on this.

K

[seckerich]

Kirk is being politically correct because he has to deal with the comp board. I can be a little more open but respectful. There is a prevailing attitude on the comp board that the ITAC is doing too much and is always wanting something. I thought that was why we had the ITAC was to do this leg work for them so all they needed to do was vote? They miss the point that they did nothing with IT for many years and just used the "non competitive, tough noogie" clause. Now the comp board is looking at a "rules season" where future changes only happen during a set time period and then are static for the entire year. Good thing so you can build a car to a set target. Aimed more at some other classes that jerk with weights and specs almost weekly. I would guess all IT related changes are on hold until that time. Just a guess.:rolleyes:

[lateapex911]

Thats a very interesting post, Steve.

[gran racing]

but recommendations for weight changes on review - going back several months now - are on hold.

What is meant by "on hold"? Waiting to publish the results or it might not move any further? I'm sure many of us would like to hear this from the comp board so we can voice our opinions.

I'm totally fine with not changing rules during mid-year and while sometimes it can be hard to wait, the not in effect till 1/1/10 clause is a good one. But publish the findings and results well before then so people can prepare accordingly.

[Jeremy Billiel]

So should we be emailing our board members to support additonal actions?

[lateapex911]

Here's *My* take on it. I'm not privy to the inside info Steve seems to have.

But, we've recently, as many of you know, spent a ton of time on ITAC con calls going over the Process. Certain areas were given attention with the goals to be consistent, repeatable, and transparent. "modules" of the process that were subjective are still a bit subjective, but we now have clear guidelines and a framework within which to apply the subjectivity and corrections/adjustments.

A major concern was to ensure that future ITACs would have a clear blueprint with which to operate.

Quick history. As mentioned above, in the beginning, IT was a 'second citizen" and was allowed to exist IF there were no weight changes and if it was a category that required no upkeep from the CRB.

But it got popular, and attracted a lot of racers. Who made waves, and pointed out how good it COULD be if just a few things were cleaned up, but that required a change in the original charter.

The ITAC fought for, and won that right, but the BoD was skeptical, and wanted minimal changes. So, we went through the ITCS, and hit the known issues, and the really out of whack stuff.. (The Great Realignment)

In the normal course of business, we get requests for changes, and they require some subjectivity, and sometimes actions that are outside the standard.

So, we've come up with the "Process 2.0". Same as before, now tighter, repeatable, and documented. And we want to do 'born on dating' too. (some of us, actually. A note on the ITCS spec line listing the last processed date would answer lots of racers questions)

While we were getting the house in order, requests stacked up. That flood of changes has gotten to the CRB/BoD, and they are wanting to see the actual 2.0 version. "Show us the math" so to speak, I guess. So we are presenting it to them.

At least thats what *I* think is going on. Just a standard housekeeping step that the BoD wants to do. (I guess/hope!)

As always, if you think the ITAC is on the right path, let 'em know! If we are going astray, let 'em know! It seems like now would be a good time to drop them a letter. If the BoD sees that the IT racing public is confident in their leaders, then perhaps they will be too.

[tom91ita]

Correct.

But, given it can be added as a gauge, and the ECU is free, and wiring/connections to the ECU are free, it's gonna be damn hard to police, especially if a narrow-band ECU is also installed.

hey chuck, if you are reading this, all the O2 sensors i have seen are only about 13/16" across. that seems pretty narrow to me.

given tGA's comments above, what is the basis for it not being allowed?

[jdrago1]

I don't read the IT forum much.. But you guys are extremely fortunate two have two of the CRB members racing in IT. Jake's post above seems to touch on some of the issues. Believe it or not guys, the CRB wants what is best for your class! This is a work in progress. If the new process works and works for all, I think I can speak for the CRB that we will have no problem putting it into effect. While looking at the new process we also have to take into consideration that you have a pretty good ruleset now and to reschuffle the entire deck could end up with a season or two of growing pains until it sorts itself out. We have to weigh the upside vs downside there.

Steve
The following statement is just not true.

There is a prevailing attitude on the comp board that the ITAC is doing too much and is always wanting something


Hope that helps
Jim Drago
CRB
[email protected]

[gran racing]

Hi Jim,

Yes, we do have a great ruleset but the process hadn't been applied to many vehicles, just the "obvious" ones. I certainly do not see what is taking place as reshuffling the deck, just fixing a few damaged cards. It would be nice to see the process applied to more cars as there still are issues out there. Since we have something the majority of IT drivers believe in, it would be a shame not to use it.

[seckerich]

I don't read the IT forum much.. But you guys are extremely fortunate two have two of the CRB members racing in IT. Jake's post above seems to touch on some of the issues. Believe it or not guys, the CRB wants what is best for your class! This is a work in progress. If the new process works and works for all, I think I can speak for the CRB that we will have no problem putting it into effect. While looking at the new process we also have to take into consideration that you have a pretty good ruleset now and to reschuffle the entire deck could end up with a season or two of growing pains until it sorts itself out. We have to weigh the upside vs downside there.

Steve
The following statement is just not true.

There is a prevailing attitude on the comp board that the ITAC is doing too much and is always wanting something


Hope that helps
Jim Drago
CRB
[email protected]

Thanks for responding Jim. I took that from a direct conversation with a member of the BOD. It was not meant to be a bad comment on the CRB. I understand that some of these recent changes have somewhat swamped your group. This backlog while waiting to sort out the process is what I am referring to. The fact that IT is growing, and is one of the most popular groups in SCCA, should validate the work of the ITAC to this point. Keep working with them please.

[Bill Miller]

Correct.

But, given it can be added as a gauge, and the ECU is free, and wiring/connections to the ECU are free, it's gonna be damn hard to police, especially if a narrow-band ECU is also installed.

Greg,

The way I read FT, there was a request to allow a wide-band O2 sensor and it was not approved by the CRB. I didn't see any qualifications on there to the effect of 'only allowed if used as a gauge'. I understand that gauges are free, but here it would seem that you've had a specific request to allow a specific item, that has not been approved. I would think that since it explicitly addresses a wide-band O2 sensor, that you're not allowed to use one, period, not even as a gauge. Therefore, I'm not so sure your contention that it (W-B O2 sensor) is allowed as a gauge is correct.

I'm also not so sure how it would be hard to police, even if allowed. You've got wire(s) from the W-B O2 sensor going to some gauge, if you've got wires going from anything that the W-B O2 sensor is connected to (gauge, data-logger, etc.) going to the ECU, that's pretty much a no-no. Not to mention that this was expressly mentioned in one of the CoA rulings:

The Court reminds everyone that per GCR 9.1.7.D. “No permitted component/
modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function.”

If the use of a W-B O2 sensor was not approved (again, this is moot if that means it's not allowed at all, which is my interpretation), having it send a signal to the ECU would clearly be a prohibited function. Hard to police? I don't really think so. Cheating? Most definitely.

[seckerich]

Unless the rule on gauges is changed then a wide band O2 is OK. It is not OK to use a wide band O2 (4 or 5 wire) in place of a narrow band(2 or 3 wire) to feed a signal to the ECU. There is no rule that allows this addition of wire to that specific sensor. The opinion in fastrack that it is not going to be allowed for the ECU has no bearing on gauge rules.

[tnord]

guages are free
ecu is free

?

and how far do you want to take this? if using a WB O2 is illegal, how the hell are you supposed to dyno your car?

<---thinks he knows exactly what greg has in mind, because i think i was thinking about the same thing long ago. :)

[Greg Amy]

First, you know this is just a mental exercise, right?


I understand that gauges are free, but here it would seem that you've had a specific request to allow a specific item, that has not been approved.
Roffe Corollary: "If it says you can, you bloody well can!" Gauges are free, my wide-band sensor ports to a gauge, thus it is free. Disagree? All of my cars run wideband gauges with outputs ported to data logging, you'll just be risking $25 to find out its legality.

Furthermore, ECUs are free, including their wiring.

Additionally, data acquisition is allowed (nothing more than gauges that write info to to a card; there's no limitation on "gauges are free" that indicate I have to look at the data in real-time.)

Finally, it just so happens that my ECU is also my data logger, thus (legal) wires are feeding "gauge" data to my (legal and open) ECU through (legal and open) wiring.

ERGO, since my (legal) data logger in inside my (legal) ECU, and everything inside that ECU is free, take your best shot at proving they don't interface - or even more importantly, prove to me how that would be illegal in the first place.

Damn, I love these rules games...


“No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function.”See discussion above. What "prohibited function" to you suggest such an arrangement is doing? Feeding the (free) ECU air/fuel ratio info? A/F sensor came with the car stock. Replacing the narrow-band with a wide-band for better info? Nope, narrow-band is still there and wired up, but it's being ignored just like the MAF in the Miata that's being ignored because I'm using a (legal) TPS/MAP system.

Then, after all is said and done, if you still want to insist it's illegal and a prohibited function, my response is "fine, prove it's being done."

:shrug:

GA

[Charlie Broring]

Good Gosh!

Wide band O2, Data Acquisition, Open ECU, New Harness and Sensors!

I'm so behind the times. Still have the stock computer and a stopwatch taped to the steering wheel.

Charlie

[Bill Miller]

Greg,

While I agree that gauges are free, where I think your logic fails is that you've got a case where the request to allow a W-B O2 sensor was not approved. I wasn't privy to the letter, so I don't know what was or was not asked for, beyond that. So, you've got one rule that says gauges are free, and you've got a case where a specific type of sender for a gauge was not approved. And while I fully understand the Roffe Corollary, I also understand when it says something is not approved, it's bloody well not approved.


Then, after all is said and done, if you still want to insist it's illegal and a prohibited function, my response is "fine, prove it's being done."

Greg,

Are you slipping a bit in your advanced years? :p

Wideband is there, but is allegedly only connected to gauge / data logger
Narrowband is there, allegedly working, but really being ignored by the ECU

See where I'm going w/ this yet?

If the Wideband is only collecting data that is displayed, or logged, and is not being used by the ECU, what's going to happen when you disconnect it?


Travis,

You're kidding, right? Or do you really think that guys w/ carbs never dyno'd their cars? And just for fun, where in the ITCS or GCR does it say that your car has to be capable of being dyno'd?

[Greg Amy]

...I think your logic fails is that you've got a case where the request to allow a W-B O2 sensor was not approved.
...and where I think your logic fails is that regardless of how they chose to handle that request, it's totally irrelevant. What happens with requests to the ITAC/CRB are completely and wholly irrelevant to the rules as written, especially given they were not published in the Technical Bulletins area. What is relevant is what the rulebooks says, and that ruling as published in Fastrack made ZERO change(s) to the GCR.


...what's going to happen when you disconnect [the wideband]?
Well, if I'm smart - and I am - I'm going to program my system to accommodate the very distinct probability of a sensor failure, thus dropping back to a known, conservative map to allow me to finish the event.


See where I'm going w/ this yet?
Yes: a dead end.

;)

[Bill Miller]

Unless the rule on gauges is changed then a wide band O2 is OK. It is not OK to use a wide band O2 (4 or 5 wire) in place of a narrow band(2 or 3 wire) to feed a signal to the ECU. There is no rule that allows this addition of wire to that specific sensor. The opinion in fastrack that it is not going to be allowed for the ECU has no bearing on gauge rules.

Steve,

That was my point. The way FT reads is just.


2. IT – Allow a wide band 02 sensor (Bader). A wide band sensor functions differently than a narrow band sensor.

Says nothing at all about using the WB to feed the ECU. The request is for the allowance of a W-B O2 sensor. Says nothing at all about what kind of function Chuck wants it allowed for. And by the same token, there is no qualification in the CRB dis-allowance that would allow it to be used in specific situations (i.e. not connected to the ECU).

If that's not what they meant, they need to add some clarification.

[Bill Miller]

Well Greg, given the way the response in FT was stated, you could make the case that a WB O2 sensor is currently not allowed (otherwise I would have expected a "rule is adequate as written" type response). Although, the free gauge and free ECU wiring does seem to say that you can have one.

As far as the failsafe map, touche'.


My whole point is, I think they need to clarify what they mean. It's just one more case where the GCR (and in this case, the ITCS) is inconsistent.

/edit

Maybe someone from the ITAC will weigh in on this and shed some light on it.

[seckerich]

Bill as Greg stated it was a denial to a request to use a wide band O2 in place of the narrow band. Unless it is a technical bullitin or from the court of appeals it is irrelevant to todays rule book. They did nothing to change the gray area Greg is exploiting. Your factory computer (if you have one) runs in both open and closed loop. Any replacement can do the same. I understand what you want it to say but it doesn't. Anyone is still free to run the WB setups as a stand alone gauge by todays rule book. I datalog every test session in my Motec and disconnect the O2 to race.

[Bill Miller]

Bill as Greg stated it was a denial to a request to use a wide band O2 in place of the narrow band. Unless it is a technical bullitin or from the court of appeals it is irrelevant to todays rule book. They did nothing to change the gray area Greg is exploiting. Your factory computer (if you have one) runs in both open and closed loop. Any replacement can do the same. I understand what you want it to say but it doesn't. Anyone is still free to run the WB setups as a stand alone gauge by todays rule book. I datalog every test session in my Motec and disconnect the O2 to race.

But that's not what's printed Steve. It says 'allow use of a W-B O2 sensor', nothing about 'in place of' anything. I know that the response talks about a W-B functioning different than a N-B, but it also says that the use of one is not approved. As I said, I think some clarification is needed. It's this kind of casualness w/ language that's gotten things so out of wack in the GCR. Not sure why they can't be a little more specific about things. Agreed re: point about TB and CoA.

As far as a gray area, there is none. I looked in the ITCS, and I don't see where wiring to the ECU is free, as Greg claims. I see that you can modify or replace the computer, and that you can add a TPS and its associated wiring, as well as a MAP and its associated wiring. The MAF can't be changed, and other sensors can be replaced w/ equivalent units. It goes on to state that wires in the engine wiring harness may be modified or replaced. Clearly, a W-B O2 sensor is not equivalent to a N-B O2 sensor.

Greg can use his ECU to do data logging, but please show me where the rules allow him to run additional wires to it, other than for a TPS and a MAP.

[Greg Amy]

...I don't see where wiring to the ECU is free, as Greg claims.
Given that "The engine management computer may be altered or replaced" and there's no further limit to what that "replacement" may be, my "ECU" design consists a "box" with wires emanating from it. I also use a couple of "piggyback" sub-computer processors mounted externally in other boxes to that main box (in similar design to the implicitly-allowed Unichip, for example).

Thus, my "Engine Management Computer" is a series of boxes all connected together by a custom wiring harness; within one of those boxes I also choose to mount my data acquisition "gauge" system/receiver/logger. Into that latter DA "gauge" box I input my wideband sensor. What happens inside my ECU is all "free". - GA

[Bill Miller]

Greg,

You can put your data acq. 'gauge' inside your ECU, but there's still nothing in the rules that lets you run additional wires to that ECU. It's your choice to put your data acq. 'gauge' in a place where you're not allowed to run extra wires to it.

If your arguement is that since 'gauges' are free, and you choose to locate it w/in the confines of your ECU, that you're allowed to run additional wires to it, that's what I would call 'strained and tortured' at the very least. It's either your data acq. 'gauge', or it's your ECU.

Again, goes back to allowable mods performing prohibited functions. Getting that wideband signal to your ECU is not allowed, doesn't matter if you data acq. system is inside the ECU box or outside the ECU box. Just because you think you can legally get the W-B signal 'inside' your ECU (which I don't agree with) doesn't mean that now you're free to do w/ it what you want. Just because you think you're clever, and don't think you can get caught, doesn't mean it's not cheating. I really don't see where there's any gray area here that you think you're exploiting. You're getting a signal to the ECU that's not allowed. Doesn't matter how many intermediate steps you go through to get it there.

[Greg Amy]

...there's still nothing in the rules that lets you run additional wires to that ECU.
Yes, there is: ITCS 9.1.3.D.1.a.6: "The engine management computer may be altered or replaced". It does not further limit what that replacement may be.

The disconnect between you and I here is that you are assuming that the engine management computer is a small, neat, tidy, enclosed box with everything all inside said box, held together with a cover and four screws, and bolted underneath the dash panel. I am not. There are no limitations to what that "engine management computer" must be, how big it must be, how many pieces/parts it must consist of, where or how it must be mounted. Hell, if I wanted to I could install a 10GB Ethernet network on my floorboard, using 12 networked PCs controlling my engine management functions.

Once something is allowed, it is free unless otherwise limited. The Roffe Corollary.


Again, goes back to allowable mods performing prohibited functions. Getting that wideband signal to your ECU is not allowed...Yes it is: The ECU is free. Data acq is allowed. The wideband can be installed as part of a gauge/data acq package that is integral to the ECU. Since the ECU is free there can be no prohibited functions being done inside there. It's all legal to the letter.

Again, if you disagree, I challenge you to prove that it's prohibited. Secondarily if deemed so, you'll also need prove that it is, in fact, being done.

Just sayin'.

I know this is frustrating, Bill, and I know we're going in circles. Problem is, you would be forced to prove something you cannot, so while you'd LIKE the rules to say "A", they in fact do not. I know what the INTENT of the rule is, but that ain't what it allows, and proving "intent" with a modification is 100% impossible ("sorry, that absolutely wasn't my intent").

You know that when you "open" something you need to CAREFULLY THINK about what you're opening, because it don't take much for Pandora to get curious...

GA

P.S., I'm done, Bill. I can't reveal all of my obvious picks, nits, and trick but am enjoying seeing you back in the fray providing your thoughts.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hey Chuck, care to weigh in with your original letter and thoughts? That may shed some light on the issue for everyone.

The way it's posted doesn't change the rulebook. WB sensors are not specifically allowed as additional items with regard to the ECU rule.

[Bill Miller]

Greg,

I don't care how many pieces your ECU is made up of. But, they all are contained in one 'virtual box' that has limits on what you can attach to it. You're allowed the stock sensors (or equivalent replacements) and two additional connections, one for a TPS and one for a MAP. Adding a connection to an additional sensor is not allowed (remember IIDSYCYC?). I don't care if data acq. is allowed, you can't put it inside the ECU 'virtual box' and used that as a justification for creating a new connection to the ECU. You're using circular logic to justify your position. Just because one thing is allowed, doesn't mean that you can piggyback it w/ something else, as a back-door way of getting a signal in.

I'm really surprised that you're arguing it from this position.

[Bill Miller]

Hey Chuck, care to weigh in with your original letter and thoughts? That may shed some light on the issue for everyone.

The way it's posted doesn't change the rulebook. WB sensors are not specifically allowed as additional items with regard to the ECU rule.

Interesting that you say that Andy, because I don't recall it being specifically allowed to add a new vacuum 'signal' to the ECU, back when it all had to be done in the stock, unmodified housing. Yet you seemed to feel that it was perfectly legal.

[Greg Amy]

Your points are valid, Bill, but:


I don't care how many pieces your ECU is made up of. But, they all are contained in one 'virtual box' that has limits on what you can attach to it.
Show me in the rules where those limits are specified.

Remember, IIDSYCTYC no longer applies, since 'emc may be...replaced' and there are no further restrictions on what that replacement may be. It is, in all intents and purposes, free, wide-open, and unrestricted, both in form and in function...

Discovering that limitation is the ONLY saving grace for your position.

[tom91ita]

Good Gosh!

Wide band O2, Data Acquisition, Open ECU, New Harness and Sensors!

I'm so behind the times. Still have the stock computer and a stopwatch taped to the steering wheel.

Charlie

you've got a stopwatch? i need to catch up!

but back to the wide band, we do not know the question or context. if the question was "can i feed an aftermarket wide band to the ECU?" that should not impact the use for gauges or data logging............

[Bill Miller]

Your points are valid, Bill, but:


Show me in the rules where those limits are specified.

Remember, IIDSYCTYC no longer applies, since 'emc may be...replaced' and there are no further restrictions on what that replacement may be. It is, in all intents and purposes, free, wide-open, and unrestricted, both in form and in function...

Discovering that limitation is the ONLY saving grace for your position.

Greg,

If that were the case, there would be no need for the language regarding the wiring for the new MAP and TPS.

Let's look at a slightly different, but very related scenario.

The ITCS says that, if available, traction control must be disabled by disconnecting or removing at least 3 wheel sensor. However, what if the car didn't come w/ traction control? Using your logic, I could add 4 sensors for 4 'gauges', a speedometer for each wheel. I could then get that data to my integragl data acq. / ECU. Since things are 'free' w/ the ECU (per your contention), if the ECU used that data to say, modulate the fuel delivery, it would be perfectly fine. And if so, how would you prove that it was modulating the fuel delivery?

Do you think something like that would fly?

[gran racing]

Chuck, I'm with ya kinda. I have a Dash display....but it isn't working right now and I'm not so sure I care. Stopwatch? Eh. I'll see the times after the race or qual.

[Knestis]

What is meant by "on hold"? Waiting to publish the results or it might not move any further? I'm sure many of us would like to hear this from the comp board so we can voice our opinions. ...

That's what I don't actually know. Recommendations have gone in, answers have not come out.


While looking at the new process we also have to take into consideration that you have a pretty good ruleset now and to reschuffle the entire deck could end up with a season or two of growing pains until it sorts itself out.

I said so much to our Board liaisons in our last two con calls, so I'm totally comfortable repeating it here: I don't believe that it's an accurate characterization of the situation to suggest that we are "reshuffling the entire deck" or making "major changes" (as has been suggested elsewhere). As Jake describes, we've made the "process" and the practices around it more repeatable, more consistent, and less susceptible to biases or manipulation. With the exception of a percentage FWD adjuster rather than big chunk subtractors, the MATH is essentially the same as what was theoretically applied during the Great Realignment - with its roots in (Hi, Bill!) the "Miller Ratio" born in c.2000 discussions in this very forum.

My personal take on the volume question is that IT racers are seeing that inequities - like very similar cars listed at very different weights - can now be rectified, so are requesting that we take a look at their issues. Like Steve (I think), I view that as a vote of confidence in the current situation. If it seems like there are a lot of "changes" being referred to the Board, it's because a lot of questions are coming in from members. The number of issues are finite, as are the lines in the ITCS, and I firmly believe that they will settle themselves down in short order - particularly if we implemented a "born on" date in each ITCS listing.

Now, my fear (old fart paranoid delusion, maybe?) is that some members might simply not be comfortable giving up the option of subjectively adjusting weights based on what they see on their local tracks. I've been watching the Club orient itself around that kind of thinking - what I called the "Doug Peterson Effect" in a response to a member survey back in the late '80s - for a quarter century. I hope I'm wrong about this.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Not going to go back and forth with you Bill on an issue that we disagree on. My ECU had an on-board MAP sensor (allowed) and required vacuum to operate...see George R. corrolarry. Did it through an existing hole in the housing. Some agree with the application, you don't no issues.

This is about adding a sensor specifically not allowed...by nature of only listing what IS allowed.

Chuck's letter asked the CRB to allow WB's because they did the 'same thing' as NB's...

[Bill Miller]

Not going to go back and forth with you Bill on an issue that we disagree on. My ECU had an on-board MAP sensor (allowed) and required vacuum to operate...see George R. corrolarry. Did it through an existing hole in the housing. Some agree with the application, you don't no issues.

This is about adding a sensor specifically not allowed...by nature of only listing what IS allowed.

Chuck's letter asked the CRB to allow WB's because they did the 'same thing' as NB's...

Fair enough Andy, we'll continue to agree to disagree on that subject.

Just so I understand your position, you feel that a W-B O2 sensor is not allowed at all, or just not allowed to be connected to the ECU?

[raffaelli]

LOL....Someone have a binky for Mr Baker? (COA Appeal):026:

[frnkhous]

all right bill, why don't we make what greg is saying simple... take a motec computer and dash unit. Wire the wideband into the ecu/one data logger. Connect it to the dash/other data logger. Nothing illegal I can see as it is being used to provide gauges and is simply tied into the datalogger(the ecu's have one as well as the dash) The datalogger/ecu is simply the wideband control device for the dash display. No where in the rules does it say the open ecu can't be tied to the open gauges. Now police using the wideband o2 for tunning the car.. yeah not that easy. Now if your argument is that none of it is legal because you can't add a sending unit, then nobody with any datalogger is legal as all of them I know of either need a gps signal or a beacon, neither one of which is specifically allowed to be added. Now we just put ourselves in a nascar situation where you have the stuff and disconnect/remove it before the race. Steve is already doing that with the o2. It is pretty much a lost cause... IT rules are full of grey areas.. I'm still not sure that the mosers should have been dq'd The crx has a box in that area.. you are allowed to modify, remove, or replace.. if you cut a hole in that box are you still illegal? What makes that rule less important than the one that says you have to draw air from the engine bay unless it had another factory source(the box outside the engine bay).

[Knestis]

There is NO specific prohibition against "wide band O2 sensors" anywhere in the rules. The response published in Fastrack should NOT be interpreted as being such a prohibition.

K

[Bill Miller]

all right bill, why don't we make what greg is saying simple... take a motec computer and dash unit. Wire the wideband into the ecu/one data logger. Connect it to the dash/other data logger. Nothing illegal I can see as it is being used to provide gauges and is simply tied into the datalogger(the ecu's have one as well as the dash) The datalogger/ecu is simply the wideband control device for the dash display. No where in the rules does it say the open ecu can't be tied to the open gauges. Now police using the wideband o2 for tunning the car.. yeah not that easy. Now if your argument is that none of it is legal because you can't add a sending unit, then nobody with any datalogger is legal as all of them I know of either need a gps signal or a beacon, neither one of which is specifically allowed to be added. Now we just put ourselves in a nascar situation where you have the stuff and disconnect/remove it before the race. Steve is already doing that with the o2. It is pretty much a lost cause... IT rules are full of grey areas.. I'm still not sure that the mosers should have been dq'd The crx has a box in that area.. you are allowed to modify, remove, or replace.. if you cut a hole in that box are you still illegal? What makes that rule less important than the one that says you have to draw air from the engine bay unless it had another factory source(the box outside the engine bay).

And no where in the rules does it say that you can tie open gauges to an open ECU, which is waaaayyyyy more important. Remember, IIDSYC.YC.


I also agree w/ Kirk's take, there's nothing in the rules that prohibits a W-B O2 sensor. But there's also nothing in the rules that allows you to connect it to the ECU. Just because the ECU is open, doesn't mean you can connect it to whatever you want to. Otherwise there would have been no need for the language about the new MAP and TPS sensors, and their wiring. You could have just as easily installed MAP and TPS sensors and sent the data to 'gauges'.

[Duc]

Other existing sensors, excluding the stock air
metering device, may be substituted for equivalent units.

How are they not equivalent? So changing a preasure or temperature transducer that has a different operating range (aka using GM sensors that are common in aftermarket ECUs) is not equivalent?

And while there:


The engine management computer may be altered or
replaced.

But how do you wire it to the vehicle? Using the original ecu connectors? Or in the "replacement" of the engine management computer (EMC) the connections are allowed to change?


Derek
Wanting to know before the stock ecu ends up in the trash can.

[JeffYoung]

My personal understanding of our recommendation was that:

1. You can install a wideband 02 sensor. Exhaust is free, gauges are free.

2. You cannot use it to send engine management signals to the ECU. The ITAC believes you can only do that through the use of the stock sensors, and the two allowed additions (TPS and MAP).

3. You can use it to send data to gauges or a data logger.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Just so I understand your position, you feel that a W-B O2 sensor is not allowed at all, or just not allowed to be connected to the ECU?

Not allowed to be connected to the ECU.

[BruceG]

Kirk is being politically correct because he has to deal with the comp board. I can be a little more open but respectful. There is a prevailing attitude on the comp board that the ITAC is doing too much and is always wanting something. I thought that was why we had the ITAC was to do this leg work for them so all they needed to do was vote? They miss the point that they did nothing with IT for many years and just used the "non competitive, tough noogie" clause. Now the comp board is looking at a "rules season" where future changes only happen during a set time period and then are static for the entire year. Good thing so you can build a car to a set target. Aimed more at some other classes that jerk with weights and specs almost weekly. I would guess all IT related changes are on hold until that time. Just a guess.:rolleyes:

Perhaps the Comp Board should take a look at the state of HP and Formula VEE before thinking that all change is bad. My last race at LRP, I think there was one car in HP! If Formula VEE had been to morph naturally into Formula First then we might have healthy VEE fields today, instead of a zillion VEE's for sale on the forum. Most folks can't afford to convert their cars and the existing parts supply(blocks,etc) is drying up.

Mazda recently stopped making rotor housings for the Ist gen(12a) engines(after 30 years). Will the Comp Board rule that we can't replace our engines with 13b's and doom the cars to extinction?

[Eagle7]

This is somewhat of a rehash of the issues tGA raised.

Is a connection from the ECU to a logging system allowed? I use a Palm Pilot connected to the serial port of my Megasquirt to record a log of its data.
Would a concurrent connection from a WBO2 to the logging system be allowed? It certainly is allowed when the logger does not connect to the ECU. Of course the problem is that there's no way to police the direction that the data flows between the logger and the ECU.
I have the low budget version of Steve's arrangement - WBO2 connected to Megasquirt connected to Palm Pilot. I don't find it necessary, nor even desirable to use the WBO2 signal to control mixture in race conditions. A well-tuned ECU can achieve desired mixture in open-loop mode for those conditions, so my ECU is configured to not use it. For me, the risk of engine damage due to a defective sensor signal outweighs any preceived benefit. However, it's very valuable for logging purposes to confirm correct operation, or when still tuning the ECU. I always log WBO2 in test sessions, and can disconnect it for competition, but lately I haven't bothered. From a practical standpoint, how would anyone know whether I ran with it connected and disconnected it on the trip from the track to impound?

If question #2 above were deemed legal, it would require a system beyond my logging budget. I achieve the same result with my "not approved" configuration with much less expense and hassle.

[frnkhous]

My personal understanding of our recommendation was that:

1. You can install a wideband 02 sensor. Exhaust is free, gauges are free.

2. You cannot use it to send engine management signals to the ECU. The ITAC believes you can only do that through the use of the stock sensors, and the two allowed additions (TPS and MAP).

3. You can use it to send data to gauges or a data logger.

#3 is the problem... you guys aren't listening a motec ecu is a data logger. You need a controller for a wideband o2 and that "data logger" is it. Now I just used this example to simplify gregs example. the motec ecu can log data, it is used as a seperate function. If I'm allowed to data log it, how are you gonna say It can't be the same box. Nothing says the two have to be seperate units. Now we are at what greg is trying to point out, yes it is wired in, how do you wanna prove what it is used for? Personally I wouldn't do this, but I see where greg was going and he is right big loophole if someone thought they could use it to noticeably improve something.

[CRallo]

Logically speaking (haha) one yes and one no is still a no... The statement would be false. So if you want to truly follow the rules to a "T" if your data logger is in your ECU you are SOL but feel free to have a seperate WBO2 gauge with separate wiring...

[CRallo]

Bruce, you can run the 13B in ITS where the GSL-SE is classed... The VIN rule being abolished would permit most 12a powered 1st gens to swap over to S. The early cars might be SOL though... :/

[Andy Bettencourt]

If the point is that it is hard to police, then yes, it would be in certain applications. But that doesn't change the legality...or lack therof in this case. Using a WB O2 as a sensor for fuel mapping (that is what we are really talking about here, no?) with your ECU is illegal.

I suppose a substantial tear-down could uncover it. Not any different that say a piston or connecting-rod issue...

[pfcs]

Not allowed to be connected to the ECU.
"Interesting that you say that Andy, because I don't recall it being specifically allowed to add a new vacuum 'signal' to the ECU, back when it all had to be done in the stock, unmodified housing. Yet you seemed to feel that it was perfectly legal."
Originally Posted by Bill Miller
Just so I understand your position, you feel that a W-B O2 sensor is not allowed at all, or just not allowed to be connected to the ECU?
Not allowed to be connected to the ECU.
So what's the difference (legality) of providing a not allowed (vacuum)tubing signal (old ruleset)to be "connected" the ECM vs a non allowed (WBO2)wired signal?
there's grey and there's fog, methinks. phil

[chuck baader]

Ok, guys....I'm at Baber this weekend and don't have the original request with me. I will post it Sunday night so all can see the original request. I have slept way too many times to remember the wording, but it was based on a decision sent to another racer in B'ham, and that decition was quoted. The reason I requested the WBO2 was that the decision he received was that the sensor was illegal. Now, I run a WB for my megasquirt...on the dyno. I will go on track in closed loop/learn mode and burn that to the controller and disable the WBO2 for the race and use it simply for data logging. It is an easy switch inside the MS software. If you don't think that is compliant, please do protest as personally I feel the CRB is incorrect in stating that the NB and WB perform different functions. IMHO, since sensors are free, they should be allowed. I'll post the request Sunday evening. Chuck

[Bill Miller]

Thanks for the clarification Andy.

/edit: didn't see Andy's comment re: policing.

Duc:


How are they not equivalent? So changing a preasure or temperature transducer that has a different operating range (aka using GM sensors that are common in aftermarket ECUs) is not equivalent?

I think you answered your own question. How are they equivalent if they have different operating ranges? Look at it this way, you have two cams for the same motor. One has a lift of .420, the other has a lift of .450. Same came, just 'different operating ranges'.

Phil,

I went through that years ago. Andy and I have agreed to disagree.

[JoshS]

IMHO, since sensors are free, they should be allowed.

The thing is ... sensors aren't free. That word gets used where it shouldn't be way too often.

[Bill Miller]

#3 is the problem... you guys aren't listening a motec ecu is a data logger. You need a controller for a wideband o2 and that "data logger" is it. Now I just used this example to simplify gregs example. the motec ecu can log data, it is used as a seperate function. If I'm allowed to data log it, how are you gonna say It can't be the same box. Nothing says the two have to be seperate units. Now we are at what greg is trying to point out, yes it is wired in, how do you wanna prove what it is used for? Personally I wouldn't do this, but I see where greg was going and he is right big loophole if someone thought they could use it to noticeably improve something.

Goes back to the 'allowed mod performing a prohibited function' clause. You want to wire a non-approved sensor to your ECU (which just so happens to have built-in data logging), I'm sorry, but the burden would be on you to prove that you're only using the signal for data logging.

[JeffYoung]

Well, hard to police isn't supposed to be a consideration right?

I don't see anything illegal about sending a signal to the ECU to data log (by they way, I am presently not doing that on the Haltech I now run). Each piece in the chain is allowed = sensor in the exhaust (exhaust free, gauges free), wiring to the free ECU.

Chuck, I personally think you are fine but that is just my opinion.

Is there a way from the log to show that the WB02 is not controlling the ECU during operation? That seems to be the simplest method of proof.

[Duc]

I think you answered your own question. How are they equivalent if they have different operating ranges? Look at it this way, you have two cams for the same motor. One has a lift of .420, the other has a lift of .450. Same came, just 'different operating ranges'.



So what is the purpose of this D.1.a.6:


Other existing sensors, excluding the stock air
metering device, may be substituted for equivalent units.

To allow for non-oem sensors? Aka NAPA brand O2 sensor vs. OEM? So running non-oem compataible sensors (aka drop in to OEM EFI system) is illegal?

It is a lot easier to sync the O2 data up with the engine data if it is all sampled in the same device. And many of the systems do allow for two O2 sensors, once could be used for Closed loop (narrow band) and the other for Data (Wide Band). The solution is easy to test for by just disconnecting the WB during a dyno run.


The engine wiring and connectors are free per D.1.a.7:

7. Wires and connectors in the engine wiring harness may be modified or replaced.
Is it safe to assume that includes the ECU and it's connectors?

Sorry for all of the ECU questions. There is two projects that I will be working on shortly taking two different routes, one a modifed factory ECU (that did not belong in the car), and another that will probably be standalone ecu. I want to make sure I understand all of the rules on these before implementing. The biggest implication would be having to run both narrow (close loop equivalent) and a WB sensor.

[Eagle7]

Using a WB O2 as a sensor for fuel mapping (that is what we are really talking about here, no?) with your ECU is illegal.
unless a WB O2 was original equipment on that car.

Fixed that for you (I hope you agree). WB O2 was not declared illegal, just not equivalent to narrow band.

[Edit] Original post confused what was Andy's quote and what I added.

[pfcs]

Who cares anyhow? It's too late to make any practical difference now. Or does this community just enjoy ego-driven aggranizement?
The possibilities for making IT engine management development uber technical and expensive got out of the barn a year or so ago.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Fixed that for you (I hope you agree). WB O2 was not declared illegal, just not equivalent to narrow band.

True...true. Not an allowable 'addition'.

[Eagle7]

Well, hard to police isn't supposed to be a consideration right?

I don't see anything illegal about sending a signal to the ECU to data log (by they way, I am presently not doing that on the Haltech I now run). Each piece in the chain is allowed = sensor in the exhaust (exhaust free, gauges free), wiring to the free ECU.

Chuck, I personally think you are fine but that is just my opinion.

Is there a way from the log to show that the WB02 is not controlling the ECU during operation? That seems to be the simplest method of proof.
Yes on a Megasquirt. The Gego value in the log is the % multiplier of fuel due to O2 sensor input. 100% means no effect. It can also be determined without a log by checking the configuration (connect a computer and check a setting). However all of that assumes standard ECU firmware that doesn't "lie".

I personally would be happy to disconnect my WBO2 if a competitor expressed a concern.

[frnkhous]

Well, hard to police isn't supposed to be a consideration right?

I don't see anything illegal about sending a signal to the ECU to data log (by they way, I am presently not doing that on the Haltech I now run). Each piece in the chain is allowed = sensor in the exhaust (exhaust free, gauges free), wiring to the free ECU.

Chuck, I personally think you are fine but that is just my opinion.

Is there a way from the log to show that the WB02 is not controlling the ECU during operation? That seems to be the simplest method of proof.


I think that this was greg's only point and I agree with it being hard to police. I do agree it is not technically legal to use it for the ecu, just hard to control what someone does with the info.

[Bill Miller]

So what is the purpose of this D.1.a.6:



To allow for non-oem sensors? Aka NAPA brand O2 sensor vs. OEM? So running non-oem compataible sensors (aka drop in to OEM EFI system) is illegal?


Exactly




It is a lot easier to sync the O2 data up with the engine data if it is all sampled in the same device. And many of the systems do allow for two O2 sensors, once could be used for Closed loop (narrow band) and the other for Data (Wide Band). The solution is easy to test for by just disconnecting the WB during a dyno run.


The engine wiring and connectors are free per D.1.a.7:

Is it safe to assume that includes the ECU and it's connectors?

Sorry for all of the ECU questions. There is two projects that I will be working on shortly taking two different routes, one a modifed factory ECU (that did not belong in the car), and another that will probably be standalone ecu. I want to make sure I understand all of the rules on these before implementing. The biggest implication would be having to run both narrow (close loop equivalent) and a WB sensor.

Wires in the engine harness aren't exactly 'free'. You can modify them or replace them Doesn't say you can add additional ones. And please don't say that changing what they're connected to falls under 'modification'.

Do you consider the ECU to be part of the engine harness? I don't.

And while I appreciate what you're saying, I don't know of anything in the IT PP&I that allows things specifically because it 'makes something easier'.

[chuck baader]

A question for the rules nerds. First, a NB O2 sensor sends a signal to the ECU, upon which adjustments are made. How in the hell does that differ from a WB O2 sensor? Functionally they both do the same thing. Since ECUs are free, and all ECUs manufactured since there has been an O2 sensor use them to adjust mixture, DUH!!!!! Chuck

[Knestis]

A question for the rules nerds. First, a NB O2 sensor sends a signal to the ECU, upon which adjustments are made. How in the hell does that differ from a WB O2 sensor? Functionally they both do the same thing. Since ECUs are free, and all ECUs manufactured since there has been an O2 sensor use them to adjust mixture, DUH!!!!! Chuck

And (thanks again, Bill) my Schrick aftermarket cam "does the same thing" as the stock one I took out. It just does it better.

Not really. From the GCR:Equivalent - The same form, fit, function, and dimensions.

I can't simply pull out the stock NB O2 in my Golf and plug in a WB. I need a controller, that generates the signal that makes the new one - with more wires - work. That's NOT the same in "function," even if it does screw into the same bung.

K

[GKR_17]

I don't see this as that hard to police. If the wires go to the ECU it is not legal, period (even in practice sessions, test day ok though). I don't care what you say you're doing with the data, or any log files you produce that show it wasn't used for tuning. I could generate similar log files in my car that say your car was using the sensor. Clearly those would be fabricated, but what proves yours aren't also?

Hmm, maybe if I stick a nitrous bottle in an extra temperature gauge...

[Duc]

Wires in the engine harness aren't exactly 'free'. You can modify them or replace them Doesn't say you can add additional ones. And please don't say that changing what they're connected to falls under 'modification'.

Without a clarification that an equivalent sensor has to function in a 100% factory electrical specification, and since connectors can be modified or replaced; then it really is not a hard stretch to get to changing sensors out. That is what this is about.




Do you consider the ECU to be part of the engine harness? I don't.

No. But I am trying to understand that if I put another ECU in that will require different ECU connections. Do I have to use the existing ecu connector (aka an ECU adapter), or can the cutters come out and just remove that connector and use the new one? My read is the connector can be replaced with another since it is serving no additional function than the previous one. Also since it is still connecting up the the factory sensors (now that that is clear), I will be ok.

Now how would you be able to connect additional power and ground, or communications for data logging and gauges to the ECU without adding additional wire? And would I be able to omit emissions equipment wiring and connectors in the new system? Or can I only modify it to a really short connector?



And while I appreciate what you're saying, I don't know of anything in the IT PP&I that allows things specifically because it 'makes something easier'.

It may need to fall under the, it will keep the cost down, since the ECU (especially standalone) can do the translation of the sensor to the datalogger/ gauge vs. an additional standalone box.

This is the reason I and others have data loggers hooked to the ECUs. Why should we duplicate sensors, especially slow moving ones like temperatures, when the ECU is already doing it. Now in my case, I did add an oil pressure sensor for datalogging and gauges, since the factory is just a trigger switch. Now I would have liked to change that switch complete out to the sensor in the "new" ECU. Internally it would have become the electric switch it replaced, but after this discussion it does not seem to be legal.

Also why did they then allow for TPS and MAP sensors? That did make it easier (and potentially less $$) to switch from MAF to a speed density. Though those Miata's still have to suck their air through the factory MAF sensor.

Again I am not looking to make a big deal out of this I just want to know what can be done so I do it only once.

[tom91ita]

i have to admit i love all the wideband O2 sensor adds that pop up automatically at the bottom of the screen for this thread...........

[frnkhous]

I don't see this as that hard to police. If the wires go to the ECU it is not legal, period (even in practice sessions, test day ok though). I don't care what you say you're doing with the data, or any log files you produce that show it wasn't used for tuning. I could generate similar log files in my car that say your car was using the sensor. Clearly those would be fabricated, but what proves yours aren't also?

Hmm, maybe if I stick a nitrous bottle in an extra temperature gauge...

ummm nothing says that the data logger and the ecu must be seperate components (both are allowed) and most aftermarket ecus have some data logging ability. I give up you can think whatever you want, someone will do this and get away with it, it won't be me.

[Ron Earp]

Now, I run a WB for my megasquirt...on the dyno. I will go on track in closed loop/learn mode and burn that to the controller and disable the WBO2 for the race and use it simply for data logging. It is an easy switch inside the MS software. I

So it looks like the popular opinion is that you can't use your wide band to allow the ECU to adjust fuel metering during the race.

Questions:


During a race what if you, the driver, observe your dash mounted wide band O2 sensor display and reach over and turn a potentiometer (or whatever actuator you like) that adjusts your air fuel ratio? Legal?
During a race what if you, the driver, reach over and turn a potentiometer (or whatever actuator you like) that adjusts your air fuel ratio (no wide band O2 sensor involved)? Legal?

[Gary L]

So it looks like the popular opinion is that you can't use your wide band to allow the ECU to adjust fuel metering during the race.

Questions:


During a race what if you, the driver, observe your dash mounted wide band O2 sensor display and reach over and turn a potentiometer (or whatever actuator you like) that adjusts your air fuel ratio? Legal?
During a race what if you, the driver, reach over and turn a potentiometer (or whatever actuator you like) that adjusts your air fuel ratio (no wide band O2 sensor involved)? Legal?

Both (1). and (2.) seem legal to me. In my particular case, an EGT guage is my budget-racer version of the WB O2 sensor. The potentiometer in this case is a driver-adjustable fuel pressure regulator. Observe the EGT guage, adjust the FPR... my stock 1971 briefcase-sized "ECU" never knows the difference.

And oh yeah, like Charles B., I'm still using the stopwatch taped to the steering wheel. I'm thinking some of you guys are taking this shit WAY too seriously. Yes, I know... someone's gotta do it. :)

[chuck baader]

Here is the original request based on a question response by Chris Albin:

"Gentlemen: The following is a decision by the CRB concerning wide band O2 sensors.

" Kevin,
The Committee felt that the wide band o2 sensor would only be legal if used to feed a gauge if it were hooked to the ECU it would not be legal. I suggest that he write a letter asking for that change and it may be considered. Last night they did not want to change the language to allow it.

Thanks,
Chris Albin CRB"


I am requesting a re-evaluation of this position for the following reasons:

1. GCR page 333, paragraph 6: "Other existing sensors, excluding the stock air metering device, may be substituted for equivalent units."

Comment: I maintain that a wide band O2 is an equivalent substitution for a narrow band since both units supply the air fuel ratio to the engine control unit (ECU). Both a narrow band and wide band O2 sensors allow the ECU to adjust the fuel air ratio in real time so functionally they are the same. The difference lies in wide open throtle (WOT). The narrow band unit will not adjust fuel air at WOT whereas the wide band will. The difference in functionality is at one throttle setting. See Item #2.

2. It is my opinion that with the allowance of the MAP and TPS sensors, and the substitution of other sensors, the intent of the rules change was to allow after market ECUs which generally (but not necessarily) run closed loop on the wide band sensor.

3. Actually, I feel the wording of the referenced paragraph is adequate as written as "substitution for equivalent units" should allow the wide band unit.

Thanks for your time and interest...Chuck Baader 265512 "

I will reiterate my premise: It does the same thing "functionally"...it has to be legal:026:Chuck

[Andy Bettencourt]

I will reiterate my premise: It does the same thing "functionally"...it has to be legal:026:Chuck

So Chuck - please help us. Define 'functionally'. How about Kirk's camshaft analogy?

'The same in form, fit and function.' SAME....

[JeffYoung]

But we are not allowed to "substitute equivalent" camshafts are we?

If we use an aftermarket piece, it is to be identical, not equivalent.

I do think we need definition here. As some of you guys know, I asked around about moving the distributor based cam/crank position sensor in my car to the crank pulley on the theory that it was an equivalent sensor. Basically the same as teh letter we got last week.

The consensus was I was being aggressive but arguably legal. We've now decided it's not (and I had to use the distributor anyway), and that's fine -- but I don't think the "equivalent sensor" rule is as clear as some folks on the CRB seem to think.

Does everyone have their stock air temp and water temp sensors in the same place or did you move them for convenience (i.e. to add a gauge)? If you have a TPS stock, are you using it or one that reads more accurately/is more durable?

And now the kicker -- how about the cam position sensor on the 99 Miata that fails all the time? I'm aware of the fix, am personally fine with it, but don't think it is legal under this strict definition of "equivalent" sensor.

[Eagle7]

'The same in form, fit and function.' SAME....

Other existing sensors, excluding the stock air metering device, may be substituted for equivalent units.

Andy, it doesn't say "same in form, fit and function" - it says "equivalent". I can't find a definition of that word in the GCR, but it is used in a variety of ways. One use says a brake caliper is equivalent to a wheel cylinder.

I'm convinced in my mind that the allowance to substitute equivalent sensors had the purpose of accomodating the ease of application of the aftermarket ECU - for example, a different resistance curve on a termperature sensor. I do not think "same in form, fit" applies to this purpose.

All that being said, I think the important issue is "function". Reasonable people can argue both sides of whether WB performs the same function as NB. However if the Fastrack response is binding (is it?), what reasonable people think doesn't matter, because "on high" has spoken.

However, the context of the letter is to use the WB signal to control fuel mixture during race conditions. The "not equivalent" response indicates a negative answer to that specific question. I don't believe it provides any guidance with regard to the logging questions raised here.

[Greg Amy]

One writes an email to the CRB to request a rule change. Chuck (apparently) did so, and his rule change request was denied. What the "opinion" of the CRB (or any one particular CRB member) is vis-a-vis the rule application/interpretation is wholly irrelevant.

If Chuck's intent was to get a clarification of an existing rule or a request to interpret a rule a specific way, then Chuck should have used the GCR 8.1.4 process. He did not.

Ergo, nothing (zero, zilch, nada) has changed vis-a-vis the rules regarding wideband O2 sensors, regardless of what one may have read in this month's Fastrack.

GA

[chuck baader]

Andy, Kirk's analogy of the cam won't fly since the paragraph we are discussing is for the "engine management computer".


ITCS1.A 6. The engine management computer may be altered or
replaced. A throttle position sensor and its wiring may
be added or replaced. A MAP sensor and its wiring may
be added. Other existing sensors, excluding the stock air
metering device, may be substituted for equivalent units.

1.A.77. Wires and connectors in the engine wiring harness may be
modified or replaced.

Note: the GCR wording is "equivalent", which is defined in the GCR Glossary as " Equivalent: The same form, fit, function, and dimensions." They both look the same, fit the same place, send a voltage signal to the ECU, and use the same wrench. Why aren't they "equivalent"?

I don't know about your wiring and ECU, but the engine harness on my car contains the connection for the O2 sensor. Therefore, "Wires and connectors in the engine wiring harness may be modified or replaced" so it seems to me the wiring is, for all intents and purposes, free.

Therefore, I have a legal ECU, MAP sensor, TPS sensor, and temp sensor...sensors allowed per the quoted paragraph, but the substitution of the O2 sensor is not legal? Someone on the CRB please explain the logic behind the ruling. Chuck

[chuck baader]

Greg, you are right...I should have done that in the first place. I will make it so. Chuck

[JeffYoung]

Chuck, I think Greg's point is maybe you don't want to do anything else at this point.....

Also, speaking totally for myslef, what I heard on our call the other night was that a Wideband 02 does not perform the same function as a narrow so it is not the equivalent. That was the rational used to craft the response we recommended.

[Eagle7]

One writes an email to the CRB to request a rule change. Chuck (apparently) did so, and his rule change request was denied. What the "opinion" of the CRB (or any one particular CRB member) is vis-a-vis the rule application/interpretation is wholly irrelevant.

If Chuck's intent was to get a clarification of an existing rule or a request to interpret a rule a specific way, then Chuck should have used the GCR 8.1.4 process. He did not.

Ergo, nothing (zero, zilch, nada) has changed vis-a-vis the rules regarding wideband O2 sensors, regardless of what one may have read in this month's Fastrack.

GA
Thank you master. I walked away from my computer troubled by my "is it binding?" comment, and came back to write essentially what Greg wrote. Wouldn't have done it nearly as eloquently, though.

[GKR_17]

They both look the same, fit the same place, send a voltage signal to the ECU, and use the same wrench. Why aren't they "equivalent"?


It does something different (which is why you want to use it). This is precisely why it is not equivalent.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, it doesn't say "same in form, fit and function" - it says "equivalent".

That IS the definition in the GCR my friend. Page 111.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It does something different (which is why you want to use it). This is precisely why it is not equivalent.

Quoted again for a very simple truth.

[Greg Amy]

Chuck, I think Greg's point is maybe you don't want to do anything else at this point...
^^^

;)

[chuck baader]

Ok, we'll assume:dead_horse:. Chuckl

[JeffYoung]

See you at Barber.

The W02 Police.

Lol..seriously, see you there. Looking forward to actually doing some racing in my car this year.

[Eagle7]

That IS the definition in the GCR my friend. Page 111.
Hmmm. Serves me right for using an old GCR. :(
Thanks for the correction.

[Eagle7]

Hmmm. Serves me right for using an old GCR. :(
Thanks for the correction.
Sorry for :dead_horse: but now I really don't understand this rule.
Other existing sensors, excluding the stock air metering device, may be substituted for equivalent units.
Equivalent - The same form, fit, function, and dimensions.

So I can replace a sensor, say a coolant temp sensor, with an alternate, but it must be the same form, fit and dimensions as the OEM sensor? So it must have the same shape, it must screw into the same hole, it must use the same connector, it must have exactly the same dimensions. I cannot belive that was the intent of the rule. Especially since "equivalent" wasn't in the glossary when the rule was written. I think the glossary entry added this year totally changes this rule.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think you are reading too much into it. If you want to replace your OEM sensor, it should be the same. If you want to ADD one to run your allowed gauge, it can be what runs the guage because you damn well can add that gauge and that is what makes it work. Of course it can not also do something that is prohibited as we know.

Now WRT sensors that provide input to the ECU, there is a specific rule. What is stock (or equivilent) or what is listed as legal to be added. Right?

[Greg Amy]

I think the glossary entry added this year totally changes this rule.
...and thus makes it wholly redundant to GCR/ITCS 9.1.3.C paragraph three, which WAS in the rules prior to the ECU change, as I recall...

Which makes one wonder: just exactly what was the point of GCR/ITCS 9.1.3.D.1.a.6 last sentence, if not to do exactly as Marty implies...?

[Eagle7]

Now WRT sensors that provide input to the ECU, there is a specific rule. What is stock (or equivilent) or what is listed as legal to be added. Right?
I quoted the rule that explicitly listed which sensors ("other existing") that could be substituted for the stock sensors. See tGA's comments.

[Knestis]

Ultimately (ITAC guys take note) this conversation reinforces my opinion that we shouldn't even have acted on this item. It doesn't ask for a rule change: It asks for an interpretation, a function that we aren't empowered to exercise.

Greg said it: The ITAC isn't the source of a resolution to this kind of question and we did *not* contribute to clarity or serve the membership well by getting involved. In fact, we complicated the conversation with the reply in Fastrack.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Except open conversation like this help everyone understand the multitude of thoughts and issues on this item and potentially others that may use 'equivalent' wording. :D

[JoshS]

The difference lies in wide open throtle (WOT). The narrow band unit will not adjust fuel air at WOT whereas the wide band will. The difference in functionality is at one throttle setting.

Chuck,

I'm definitely not an expert but I don't think your characterization of the difference between NB and WB is correct, or at least, it's incomplete. The O2 sensor doesn't know whether or not you are at WOT, of course.

A NB is essentially a binary signal. Either your mixture is stoichometric or it isn't. But a WB will give you an idea of how far off you are. The only thing that's pertinent to WOT is that often you don't WANT to be at stoichometric at WOT, which is why most systems go open-loop at WOT -- the NB O2 sensor can't help in that situation.

A decent analogy would be this -- imagine there was no allowance for a throttle position sensor in the rules. Your car comes with a kick-down switch that allows the car to know when you are at full throttle, but it doesn't know any more details than that. Would you be able to use the "equivalence" allowance to replace the kick-down switch with a throttle position sensor?

[planet6racing]

Sorry for :dead_horse: but now I really don't understand this rule.
Other existing sensors, excluding the stock air metering device, may be substituted for equivalent units.
Equivalent - The same form, fit, function, and dimensions.

So I can replace a sensor, say a coolant temp sensor, with an alternate, but it must be the same form, fit and dimensions as the OEM sensor? So it must have the same shape, it must screw into the same hole, it must use the same connector, it must have exactly the same dimensions. I cannot belive that was the intent of the rule. Especially since "equivalent" wasn't in the glossary when the rule was written. I think the glossary entry added this year totally changes this rule.



Marty:

That rule was written so that people could buy parts from Autozone et al. instead of needing to go get OEM parts from the dealer. Example: On the Saturn, the coolant temperature sensor is known to go wonky and mess with the ECU. Going by the original set of rules (before this one was added), I needed to go to Saturn and purchase the sensor, costing me about $40. Now, with the new rule, I can get the sensor with the same Fit, Function, and Dimensions, but without the OEM part number and made of plastic instead of brass for ~$15. Another example that was used on this board was brake rotors - theoretically, before this rule, these needed to be purchased at the dealer with the OEM part numbers.

So, yes, the replacement part should fit in the same location and serve the same purpose as the part it is replacing.

[chuck baader]

Josh, I agree. I certainly did not do enough research before requesting a clarification. No one as yet has answered the basic question...what is the difference? (that the CRB hangs their collective hat on.)

As for the TPS, most cars of my era use just that. So we allow a linear pot to replace a switch but not the O2? Maybe we should outlaw all electronics and go back to multiple carbs..just think of the money we could save!! Chuck

[RexRacer19]

Maybe this would be useful for the discussion. Certainly not the gospel, but a good explanation of the two sensors being discussed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_sensor

[Greg Amy]

Boy, are we seriously drifting off the range here...

Bill (Planet 6), I accept your thesis as reasonable, but I think it's flawed. As I noted above, if that was the intent of the rule then there would be no need for the notation within the ECU rules, as it's already specified in the opening paragraphs. This means one of three things: either the rule was poorly written (NO WAY!!!!), it's actually redundant to the opening paragraphs, or there were other reasons behind that rule.

I'm taking Door Three, Alex.

Andy comes out and states, in effect, the sensor have to be the same as stock. Josh states it's a matter of range (binary versus analog). Others above imply the sensor has to be the same physically. But let's take this logically; are you telling me that if you're using a MoTec or a HalTech, or a MegaSquirt, or whatever, that the sensors you're using to feed that beast - with the exception of TPS and MAP - must all be stock, using the stock voltages and stock ranges? So, you really believe that the intent of the rule as stated is that if you install a Haltech ECU into your car, you can ONLY use the stock sensors and add only a TPS and MAP? Be careful of your answers here.

Door Three basically says that the interpretation of the rule is to keep you from adding additional sensors to your car that, with the exception of TPS and MAP, were not original equipment. This would, for example, preclude you from adding a crank angle sensor. It does not, however, preclude you from replacing existing sensors (i.e., water temp, oil pressure, IAT, etc) with sensors that have the same function (e.g., measures water temp, measures oil pressure, measures intake air temperature) but may be reasonably different in terms of physical characteristics and characteristics of sensing. Thus, one can replace the OE water temp sensor with a Bosch sensor that measures within a different voltage range and/or possibly a wider range and/or tighter tolerances.

Thus, we go full-circle back to the wideband sensor issue. Given the allowance in the ECU rule for replacing a sensor with one that has "equivalency", and given that an O2 sensor's function is to sense the level of O2 in the system, and given that per Door Three we are OK with folks replacing other sensors with equivalent sensors but may have different ranges and/or tolerances, it is not a very large leap of faith to state that a wideband O2 sensor is an equivalent sensor in that it measures relative oxygen level yet it measures over a wider range with tighter tolerances.

To take a position contrary to this means that NO other sensors may be replaced with any parts other than what is described in the opening ITCS paragraphs (what Josh is stating) and thus:

- GCR/ITCS 9.1.3.D.1.a.6 last sentence is wholly redundant and confusing, thus we now expect the ITAC to immediately address this discrepancy by recommending this sentence to be stricken from the regulations entirely, and
- Anyone that is using sensors that do not meet the OE specifications of the parts as delivered with their vehicles is operating contrary to the rules and should immediately discontinue using them and re-adjust their Haltechs/MoTEC/Megasquirts to use OE sensors only. Furthermore, anyone whose car came stock with a MAP and TPS may only use those stock items; you may not replace them with ones more-compatible with your ECU (no allowance in the rule to replace, only "add").

Fun, huh?

Just to toss in more confusion, for those of you saying you can't add sensors other than a TPS and/or MAP, are you stating that adding a baro read solenoid or a temperature sensor - or any other kind of atmospheric measurement device - directly on the board of the ECU itself is illegal (and was thus illegal prior to the ECU rule being opened up)? If you say it's Ok to do so ONLY if it's on the board, why can't you do it as part of the "virtual ECU" (tm, Bill Miller) given that there's no physical or geographical limitations to what an ECU can be?

I know what you think the rules say. I know what you think the rules mean. But that ain't what they are...and if you think this is the only rule in the ITCS with this kind of clever ambiguity, well, you ain't readin'... :shrug:

GA

[shwah]

Wow. Has the racing season ended early this year?

Agreed that there is some grey here, that Greg is theorizing about exploiting.
I think he would end up on the wrong side of a protest, but we just don't know until that were to happen.

As far as I am concerned do eet. You won't make one more measurable horsepower, and will put your engine at more risk than running off open loop maps developed with appropriate dyno tuning.

My approach is like the others. Have one. Log it. Don't run closed loop on the ecu on track. Maybe run closed loop on the dyno during tuning to see what it 'wants'.

[chuck baader]

Greg, my position, more eloquently explained.:happy204::happy204::happy204:Chuck

[JoshS]

To take a position contrary to this means that NO other sensors may be replaced with any parts other than what is described in the opening ITCS paragraphs (what Josh is stating) and thus:

Maybe I wasn't clear, because I didn't intend to state that ... I do believe that the wording could be a LOT more clear as far as what the allowances are for replacing, say, a water temp sensor with a different water temp sensor, and therefore, an O2 sensor with a different O2 sensor. I simply intended to try to describe what the real difference is between the two O2 sensors being discussed, and to pose a similar question using an easier-to-understand technology.

[JohnW8]

Never mind.

[StephenB]

Deleted...

Not worth my time

[seckerich]

People are getting a little stupid in this thread. Back up and remember the conversations when the open ECU was proposed. One of the specific arguements to allow them was that only the high end units could be used in the box because they were capable of being linearized to stock sensors. It was argued that open ECU would allow lower priced units that used standard GM (Bosch) etc sensors. The rule specifically allowed a TPS to be added or replaced and Map to be added where none existed. The rule further states a list of sensors that must be stock and in stock location (MAF meter). IF it was meant to restrict the O2 sensor to stock it should be in that banned list with MAF. The rule further allows sensor plugs to be replaced. Why would you replace a plug for a stock sensor? You replace a plug for the allowed alternate. As it reads now it seems to be fair game. Love it or hate it that is what is written.

[DavidM]

Ah the joys of the open ECU rule. :wacko:

[stevel]

Since there are cars currently listed in the ITCS that come equipped with WBO2 sensors from the factory and those same cars can use an alternate ecu, thereby legally using the WBO2 sensor for an ecu input why *should* it be illegal for other cars to add a WBO2 sensor input to the ECU?

If strict interpretation of the current rules is used, currently you have cars that can legally use a WBO2 as an ecu input and cars that can't, all in the same class? What sense does that make?

Also, there's the issue of being able to enforce and police this. I know on my WBO2 sensor, it has 2 outputs, either of which I can configure to be used as a Narrow-band signal. Good luck trying to prove/dis-prove someone claiming they are using there WBO2 configured for a narrow-band output going to the ecu.

If some cars can currently have WBO2 sensors and some can't, and all cars can have alternate ECU's, how is it fair to disallow for some but allow it for others?

NOTE: I don't care either way as I don't currently race in IT, just pointing out some info.

-s

[JoshS]

The rule further allows sensor plugs to be replaced. Why would you replace a plug for a stock sensor?

Primary reason: because the stock wiring and connectors are falling apart. We got lots of letters in the past from owners of older cars looking to replace their wiring and connectors because they were frayed, worn, or wouldn't stay connected, but new replacements were hard-to-impossible to get.

I agree, another reason might be to use non-stock but "equivalent" sensors, and certainly, to use a non-stock connector to the ECU itself.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Since there are cars currently listed in the ITCS that come equipped with WBO2 sensors from the factory and those same cars can use an alternate ecu, thereby legally using the WBO2 sensor for an ecu input why *should* it be illegal for other cars to add a WBO2 sensor input to the ECU?



It's a philisophical issue at that point. RR shocks on S2000's, larger that 8.5" wheels on some ITR cars, WB O2 sensors...stuff that comes stock on cars that are outside the dictated limitations. Some say no to the stock parts, some say yes, some say open 'er up. Depends on the rule and it's wording but you get the idea.

[GTIspirit]

Since there are cars currently listed in the ITCS that come equipped with WBO2 sensors from the factory and those same cars can use an alternate ecu, thereby legally using the WBO2 sensor for an ecu input why *should* it be illegal for other cars to add a WBO2 sensor input to the ECU?


By the same argument, why not also allow the addition of say a crankshaft sensor? Most later cars that came from the factory so equipped are better poised to take advantage of the open ECU rule than say earlier cars with mechanical injection.

NOTE, that I'm not proposing to allow a free for all with ignition and injection systems, merely that all cars are afforded the same advantage that the open ECU rule allows by allowing common stock sensors to be added. So my position is that essentially sensors should be free, so long as the car still runs the stock ignition and fueling systems. And if the guys with carbs can figure out how to run an open ECU for better control, let them!

[Ron Earp]

GTIspirit Said:
By the same argument, why not also allow the addition of say a crankshaft sensor? Most later cars that came from the factory so equipped are better poised to take advantage of the open ECU rule than say earlier cars with mechanical injection.

NOTE, that I'm not proposing to allow a free for all with ignition and injection systems, merely that all cars are afforded the same advantage that the open ECU rule allows by allowing common stock sensors to be added.
I'm thinking about proposing just that. You've got a hodgepodge of cars in IT with all sorts of electronic engine control systems. Some have some sophisticated (normal for any new car) setup from the factory with coil on plug ignition, crank fired triggers, etc. These engines are going to have an inherit advantage for that ultra fine tuning that makes a difference in a 10/10th IT car and a 9/10ths IT car.

Joe with his coil on plug crank fired system with cam sensor might find out that cylinders #1, #3, #5 like 37 degrees of timing all in and #2, #4, #6 others like 34 degrees netting him 7 more rear wheel hp when the engine is at 193 F. Bob with a factory system without as sophisticated of a sensor array won't be able to tune in that fashion. Bob is stuck with a dizzy, no crank sensor, and flapper MAF on his car. He's SOL as he won't be able to get the area under the curve that Joe will, all other things being equal.

If we simply opened the rule up to allow any ECU, triggers, or sensors and kept the restriction that the stock throttle body must be intact and used, along with the stock air meter must be in the air flow path, then at least we could level the playing field for all the ECU cars. The rule would need a lot of careful crafting but it I feel it'd be the correct thing to do

The carb guys would be out of luck but hey, we're out of luck anyhow. It is 2009 and my carbed IT car is 35 years old from manufacture and over 40 years old in design.

[Eagle7]

Marty:

That rule was written so that people could buy parts from Autozone et al. instead of needing to go get OEM parts from the dealer. Example: On the Saturn, the coolant temperature sensor is known to go wonky and mess with the ECU. Going by the original set of rules (before this one was added), I needed to go to Saturn and purchase the sensor, costing me about $40. Now, with the new rule, I can get the sensor with the same Fit, Function, and Dimensions, but without the OEM part number and made of plastic instead of brass for ~$15. Another example that was used on this board was brake rotors - theoretically, before this rule, these needed to be purchased at the dealer with the OEM part numbers.

So, yes, the replacement part should fit in the same location and serve the same purpose as the part it is replacing.
Bill, you are refering to 9.1.3.C

Stock replacement parts may be obtained from sources other than the manufacturer provided they are the exact equivalent of the original parts. The intent of this rule is to allow the competitor to obtain replacement parts from standard industry outlets, e.g., auto-parts distributors, rather than from the manufacturer. It is not intended to allow parts that do not meet all dimensional and material specifications of new parts from the manufacturer.

I was quoting 9.1.3.D.1.a.6

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

As has been explained, when the new glossary entry for "equivalent" was added after 9.1.3.D.1.a.6 was in the book, the bolded sentence is now wholly redundant, and has made many previously legal cars now illegal. The only sensible interpretation (in my mind) is that the added glossary entry does not reflect the intent of the writers of 9.1.3.D.1.a.6. I believe this to be an unintended consequence of an attempt to add clarity to the GCR as a whole. In my opinion the bolded sentence needs to be rewritten so that it does communicate the original intent.

[planet6racing]

Ah, OK Marty. Sorry for the confusion.

[jjjanos]

Since there are cars currently listed in the ITCS that come equipped with WBO2 sensors from the factory and those same cars can use an alternate ecu, thereby legally using the WBO2 sensor for an ecu input why *should* it be illegal for other cars to add a WBO2 sensor input to the ECU?

If strict interpretation of the current rules is used, currently you have cars that can legally use a WBO2 as an ecu input and cars that can't, all in the same class? What sense does that make?

If some cars can currently have WBO2 sensors and some can't, and all cars can have alternate ECU's, how is it fair to disallow for some but allow it for others?



Re: should and what sense... not the wording change..


Since there are cars currently listed in the ITCS that come equipped with ECUs from the factory and those same cars can use an alternate ecu, thereby legally gaining significant horsepower why *should* it be illegal for carbureted cars to add an ECU and fuel-injection?

If strict interpretation of the current rules is used, currently you have cars that can legally run an alternate ECU/programing and cars that can't, all in the same class? What sense does that make?

If some cars can currently have fuel injection and ECUs, how is it fair to disallow the replacement of carburaters for fuel-injection?
Answer: Because that's the car you built.

If there are additional gains from the WBO2 sensor, then the process weight of those cars should reflect those gains. I.e. If the Stutz NB-Bearcat and the Stutz WBO2-Super Bearcat differ only in the o2 sensor, the Super Bearcat, when processed, should weigh more.

[spawpoet]

"Answer: Because that's the car you built."

The same logic can apply to the Stutz NB-Bearcat. It wouldn't get WBO2, cause that's not what it came with. If the process can make an allowance for the NB vs. WBO2 variance in equipment it can just as equally make an allowance for carb'd cars vs. FI cars. Isn't the whole purpose of this exercise to keep cars as equivalent as is reasonably possible?

[Eagle7]

"Answer: Because that's the car you built."

The same logic can apply to the Stutz NB-Bearcat. It wouldn't get WBO2, cause that's not what it came with. If the process can make an allowance for the NB vs. WBO2 variance in equipment it can just as equally make an allowance for carb'd cars vs. FI cars. Isn't the whole purpose of this exercise to keep cars as equivalent as is reasonably possible?
Ouch! Please, no, not that word again!!!! :)

[Andy Bettencourt]

While I would in no way trade my programmable EFI for a pumper, carbed cars are allowed a nice grouping of alternatives as well as any jets, needles and/or meetering rods. If you have an optimal upgrade with dyno time on jets etc, you know what kind of bump in power you can get.

[spawpoet]

While I would in no way trade my programmable EFI for a pumper, carbed cars are allowed a nice grouping of alternatives as well as any jets, needles and/or meetering rods. If you have an optimal upgrade with dyno time on jets etc, you know what kind of bump in power you can get.

But all these options were available, and I would assume considered, when the process was originally run on the various carb'd vehicles, and before EFI cars had the advantage of the new ECU rules. I'm really fine with hearing that I get what I get with my carb'd car, but at the same time if I'm stuck with what I chose to run then somebody who's running a car that originally only came with a NB O2 sensor should also be stuck with what they chose.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm really fine with hearing that I get what I get with my carb'd car, but at the same time if I'm stuck with what I chose to run then somebody who's running a car that originally only came with a NB O2 sensor should also be stuck with what they chose.

That's how it is now. We are all stuck with SOMETHING.

[spawpoet]

I agree Andy, and I think it's the reason IT is so damned popular. I personally felt everybody should have been stuck with their stock ECU's (count me as anti rules creep), and I can't see where allowing a car that didn't come with a WB should be able to use one in place of their NB anymore than I can replace the SU's on my Z with a set of Mikuni's. Heck, I'm not sure I could tune the Mikuni's anyway.

[Bill Miller]

Boy, are we seriously drifting off the range here...

Bill (Planet 6), I accept your thesis as reasonable, but I think it's flawed. As I noted above, if that was the intent of the rule then there would be no need for the notation within the ECU rules, as it's already specified in the opening paragraphs. This means one of three things: either the rule was poorly written (NO WAY!!!!), it's actually redundant to the opening paragraphs, or there were other reasons behind that rule.

I'm taking Door Three, Alex.

Andy comes out and states, in effect, the sensor have to be the same as stock. Josh states it's a matter of range (binary versus analog). Others above imply the sensor has to be the same physically. But let's take this logically; are you telling me that if you're using a MoTec or a HalTech, or a MegaSquirt, or whatever, that the sensors you're using to feed that beast - with the exception of TPS and MAP - must all be stock, using the stock voltages and stock ranges? So, you really believe that the intent of the rule as stated is that if you install a Haltech ECU into your car, you can ONLY use the stock sensors and add only a TPS and MAP? Be careful of your answers here.

Door Three basically says that the interpretation of the rule is to keep you from adding additional sensors to your car that, with the exception of TPS and MAP, were not original equipment. This would, for example, preclude you from adding a crank angle sensor. It does not, however, preclude you from replacing existing sensors (i.e., water temp, oil pressure, IAT, etc) with sensors that have the same function (e.g., measures water temp, measures oil pressure, measures intake air temperature) but may be reasonably different in terms of physical characteristics and characteristics of sensing. Thus, one can replace the OE water temp sensor with a Bosch sensor that measures within a different voltage range and/or possibly a wider range and/or tighter tolerances.

Thus, we go full-circle back to the wideband sensor issue. Given the allowance in the ECU rule for replacing a sensor with one that has "equivalency", and given that an O2 sensor's function is to sense the level of O2 in the system, and given that per Door Three we are OK with folks replacing other sensors with equivalent sensors but may have different ranges and/or tolerances, it is not a very large leap of faith to state that a wideband O2 sensor is an equivalent sensor in that it measures relative oxygen level yet it measures over a wider range with tighter tolerances.

To take a position contrary to this means that NO other sensors may be replaced with any parts other than what is described in the opening ITCS paragraphs (what Josh is stating) and thus:

- GCR/ITCS 9.1.3.D.1.a.6 last sentence is wholly redundant and confusing, thus we now expect the ITAC to immediately address this discrepancy by recommending this sentence to be stricken from the regulations entirely, and
- Anyone that is using sensors that do not meet the OE specifications of the parts as delivered with their vehicles is operating contrary to the rules and should immediately discontinue using them and re-adjust their Haltechs/MoTEC/Megasquirts to use OE sensors only. Furthermore, anyone whose car came stock with a MAP and TPS may only use those stock items; you may not replace them with ones more-compatible with your ECU (no allowance in the rule to replace, only "add").

Fun, huh?

Just to toss in more confusion, for those of you saying you can't add sensors other than a TPS and/or MAP, are you stating that adding a baro read solenoid or a temperature sensor - or any other kind of atmospheric measurement device - directly on the board of the ECU itself is illegal (and was thus illegal prior to the ECU rule being opened up)? If you say it's Ok to do so ONLY if it's on the board, why can't you do it as part of the "virtual ECU" (tm, Bill Miller) given that there's no physical or geographical limitations to what an ECU can be?

I know what you think the rules say. I know what you think the rules mean. But that ain't what they are...and if you think this is the only rule in the ITCS with this kind of clever ambiguity, well, you ain't readin'... :shrug:

GA

And here's where I think your thesis is flawed Greg. I would contend that what is bolded is indeed the case. I really can't believe that you're arguing something like this from the position of what you believe the intent to be. And not that it really matters, but I believe the intent was to keep the stock sensors w/ stock ranges and voltages. The rationale that we were given for the allowance of open ECU's was that they were hard (impossible?) to police. The half-stepped it w/ the 'in the stock, unmodified housing' BS. So, my interpretation is, sure, go ahead and use whatever ECU that you want, but other than a TPS and a MAP, you have to use stock (or their equivalent) sensors, which to me, means stock ranges and voltages.

I think the rule is pretty clear in that respect. Replace OEM sensors w/ equivalent. To me, if it's got a different operating range, it's not equivalent. I really don't understand how people can argue that they are the same.

I know Andy used essentially your logic to add the vacuum line to his then 'stuff it in the stock housing' ECU. Hey, there's a MAP sensor on this thing, and since I'm allowed to stuff it in the box, I am allowed to use it. That means I can run the line to it. And since it wasn't an electrical connection (the rule at the time expressly stated that all electrical connections had to be made through the stock plug), it was wide open, so long as he didn't have to drill a hole in the housing to get it in. I didn't agree w/ it then, and I don't agree w/ it now, but Andy and I have agreed to disagree on the matter. My point is, just becasue you've got enhanced functionality w/ your new ECU doesn't mean you can change the characteristics of the sensors that feed it. I'll have to check again, but I think the language about changing resistance values was removed when the open ECUs were added. Regardless, even that language didn't let you change the sensors, it just let you add resistors.


People are getting a little stupid in this thread. Back up and remember the conversations when the open ECU was proposed. One of the specific arguements to allow them was that only the high end units could be used in the box because they were capable of being linearized to stock sensors. It was argued that open ECU would allow lower priced units that used standard GM (Bosch) etc sensors. The rule specifically allowed a TPS to be added or replaced and Map to be added where none existed. The rule further states a list of sensors that must be stock and in stock location (MAF meter). IF it was meant to restrict the O2 sensor to stock it should be in that banned list with MAF. The rule further allows sensor plugs to be replaced. Why would you replace a plug for a stock sensor? You replace a plug for the allowed alternate. As it reads now it seems to be fair game. Love it or hate it that is what is written.

No Steve, what the rule says, is that you have to use an OEM MAF, any of the other sensors may be replaced w/ an aftermarket equivalent. Just because you don't have to use a stock NB O2 sensor, doesn't mean that you can open it up and use an aftermarket WB O2 sensor, you're limited to a stock or aftermarket NB O2 sensor.

As someone pointed out, if they weren't different and didn't so different things, nobody would ask to use a WB over a NB.


Since there are cars currently listed in the ITCS that come equipped with WBO2 sensors from the factory and those same cars can use an alternate ecu, thereby legally using the WBO2 sensor for an ecu input why *should* it be illegal for other cars to add a WBO2 sensor input to the ECU?

If strict interpretation of the current rules is used, currently you have cars that can legally use a WBO2 as an ecu input and cars that can't, all in the same class? What sense does that make?

Also, there's the issue of being able to enforce and police this. I know on my WBO2 sensor, it has 2 outputs, either of which I can configure to be used as a Narrow-band signal. Good luck trying to prove/dis-prove someone claiming they are using there WBO2 configured for a narrow-band output going to the ecu.

If some cars can currently have WBO2 sensors and some can't, and all cars can have alternate ECU's, how is it fair to disallow for some but allow it for others?

NOTE: I don't care either way as I don't currently race in IT, just pointing out some info.

-s

Steve,

Look through the ITCS, you'll find plenty of cases where something is not allowed unless fitted as original equipment. That's just the way it is. As many have said over the years, you pick your car with all its warts. Just because Enzo Dumbledorf's Borgward XS came w/ a WB O2 sesnor, crank fired ignition, etc. stock, does not mean that you can slap that stuff in your Puddlebee. If that's the case, I want to be able to rip the CIS out of the Rabbit GTI and drop in a full MegaSquirt system. But thanks for playing.

And honestly Chuck, how can you in one breath say that two items are the same, then in the next say that one will do something in a given situation that the other one won't? I guess the appropriate line here is, all O2 sensors are not created equal! :D

One final thing to Andy et al, the cam shaft example was mine (Kirk acknowledged it), not Kirk's. No big deal, just don't want someone getting wrongly credited for something.

I do have to say though, the logic and the mindset at work here, is similar to what was used to push through open ECUs.

[Ron Earp]

I know Andy used essentially your logic to add the vacuum line to his then 'stuff it in the stock housing' ECU. Hey, there's a MAP sensor on this thing, and since I'm allowed to stuff it in the box, I am allowed to use it. That means I can run the line to it. And since it wasn't an electrical connection (the rule at the time expressly stated that all electrical connections had to be made through the stock plug), it was wide open, so long as he didn't have to drill a hole in the housing to get it in.

How so "it was wide open"?

What happened to "If It Doesn't Say You Can, You Can't"? Seems to be running the line would have been illegal under that old axiom of IT.

My interest is academic because as I've stated on this forum I'm for opening the ECU rules wide open, sensors and all so that we avoid this nonsense.

[Andy Bettencourt]

How so "it was wide open"?

What happened to "If It Doesn't Say You Can, You Can't"? Seems to be running the line would have been illegal under that old axiom of IT.

My interest is academic because as I've stated on this forum I'm for opening the ECU rules wide open, sensors and all so that we avoid this nonsense.

Since Bill didn't agree with my application of the rules, he won't be able to explain me thinks. :)

There are plenty of things that the rules say you can add. What is assumed is that you can add what you need to in order to make those things 'function', so long as they do not also do something specifically illegal. Things as simple as wiring/plumbing your allowed gauges or adding bracketry to your custom intake, etc.

In my ECU scenario from a couple years back, the summary of the rule was simple. Do anything you want inside the stock ECU case but you must use the factory ECU connectors. My ECU had an on-board MAP sensor. So for it to 'work', it neded to be electrified and plumbed just like a gauge would. Running a vacuum line through an existing unmodified hole in the ECU housing allowed me to 'power it up'. I still feel it met all the restrictions of that rule at the time but defined one of the reasons the 'fors' were for opening up the rules at the time. Some stock housings could fit aftermarket ECU's, some couldn't...some ECU's had more ability than others - and those were hugely expensive...etc...

We are very much looking for input on sensors and ECU's. We are worried about unintended consiquenses of opening up 'sensors' - because we would in turn have to really have to define everything we wouldn't want those sensors to 'do'...like traction control, ABS, etc.

[GTIspirit]

We are very much looking for input on sensors and ECU's. We are worried about unintended consiquenses of opening up 'sensors' - because we would in turn have to really have to define everything we wouldn't want those sensors to 'do'...like traction control, ABS, etc.

My thought on this, stated elsewhere in another thread, is to allow a standardized sensor set (e.g. crankshaft sensor, camshaft sensor, coolant temp, oil temp, MAF, MAP, WB02) so all cars are on a level playing field and afforded the same advantage of the open ECU rule. So older cars that didn't come with say a crankshaft sensor, WB02, or digital/analog MAF sensor, could add these items to be given the same opportunity to take advantage of the open ECU that newer cars are given. All makes and models would have to be studied to make sure the standardized sensor set was all inclusive, that something wasn't missed that would make a newer car "illegal."

I'm not advocating changing injection or ignition systems, you are stuck with what came on your car and you must adapt the open ECU to run those systems. But having certain sensors certainly would make it easier and cheaper to adapt the open ECU to run the stock ignition and fueling systems.

[Ron Earp]

My thought on this, stated elsewhere in another thread, is to allow a standardized sensor set (e.g. crankshaft sensor, camshaft sensor, coolant temp, oil temp, MAF, MAP, WB02) so all cars are on a level playing field and afforded the same advantage of the open ECU rule. .

I 100% agree with you and have stated the same. This is one of the potential rule changes that I feel affects "the big picture" of IT and would go a long way toward modernizing and leveling the rules set.

I feel this way for non-personal reasons - my car (260Z) can't take advantage of this at all and my next car, if there is one, WILL have a crank sensor, camshaft sensor, coil on plug ignition, etc. from the factory. So I have no dog in the race other than wanting the race to be equitable.

[lateapex911]

An alternate viewpoint to that, (I just toss it out) is that the process bases it's power multiplier on stock hp. Which, (theoretically at least) is the result of a myriad of items, some of those being the stock sensor set.

For example, Jeffs car, a Triumph TR8 from just after WWII, came with a pretty crude ECU, that lacked cool modern sensors, like crank wheels, etc etc.

Now, he can replace that ECU with one of his choosing, but the lack of certain sensors means he must look carefully at which one he chooses to ensure compatibility with the sensors he has/is allowed. This has, in effect, a limiting factor on hp. And that's actually good, because otherwise, his car, would over achieve and the Process prediction would be exceeded.

Now, those on the ITAC will hopefully tell you I'm not the 'lazy guy" on the committee, But we prefer to let the category run on as standardized set of allowances as possible, with the least amount of exceptions. Allowing free reign of sensors means that we could need to go back, and cull out all the cars like Jeff's, and apply a different power mulitipliers to better predict the final result. That's fraught with issues, and gets to a level of granularity I'm not confident in. Plus, it's a ton of work, and will lead to endless debate and second guessing. I'd rather not go there.

[JeffYoung]

I do have a vested interest in this as I have an older car that we are trying to adapt a new aftermarket ECU to. Without a full "modern" sensor suite, it's been a nightmare.

Bill, on thing on intent -- I have heard it stated repeatedly that one of the intents of opening up the ECU rule was to make it easier for all and to get rid of false "difficulties" like trying to stuff Motecs in stock ECU boxes.

By doing what we are doing now -- which is picking and choosing this sensor or that sensor (the MAP allowance is there because Megasquirt needed it to work) -- we haven't made it easier for all. RAther, we have created a whole new set of inequities.

I understand there may be unintended consequences of opening up the sensors. And I would like to hear a serious discussion about what they are. I certainly agree they could allow a competitor to increase the area under his hp/tq curve. But, we already have opened up that can of worms with open non-stock ECUs, and SOME (better) aftermarket sensors like the TPS and MAP (and now MAF) allowance.

At the end of the day, a motor's peak power is dependent on cams, compression, and architecture (CFM flow rates, etc.). Sensors are not going to improve that. The area under the curve? Yes, without doubt, but again, that horse is out of the barn.

There will be benefit to me in doing this, but at the same time, I really don't want someone else to have to spend what I spent (close to FIVE FIGURES) trying to make a "new" ECU work on a car that does not have a crank sensor, or a cam sensor or a wideband O2.

[Ron Earp]

An alternate viewpoint to that, (I just toss it out) is that the process bases it's power multiplier on stock hp. Which, (theoretically at least) is the result of a myriad of items, some of those being the stock sensor set.

Really? I must have missed all of that in the ITR discussions about classing those cars. Who was the ECU expert that was adjusting weight on what cars had better factory ECUs and sensors?





For example, Jeffs car, a Triumph TR8 from just after WWII, came with a pretty crude ECU, that lacked cool modern sensors, like crank wheels, etc etc.

Now, he can replace that ECU with one of his choosing, but the lack of certain sensors means he must look carefully at which one he chooses to ensure compatibility with the sensors he has/is allowed. This has, in effect, a limiting factor on hp. And that's actually good, because otherwise, his car, would over achieve and the Process prediction would be exceeded.


True. He would be able to (maybe, not a given) get more area under the curve than "normal". But the engine is still ultimately and air pump and limited by the efficiency that can be generated with stock components. If the sensors and ECU are all wide open then at least one user isn't hampered more than another due to poor engine management.

There just aren't that many cases like Jeff's that would need sorting.



Allowing free reign of sensors means that we could need to go back, and cull out all the cars like Jeff's, and apply a different power mulitipliers to better predict the final result. That's fraught with issues, and gets to a level of granularity I'm not confident in. Plus, it's a ton of work, and will lead to endless debate and second guessing. I'd rather not go there.

Better to do in now in Process 2.0 instead of letting the inequity lie.

[JeffYoung]

As best I can tell, the cars that you are looking at having an issue with sensor "suites" are:

1. The Bosch L-Jetronic cars from the mid 70s to the late 80s, which run ignition and injectors off the distributor and not the crank/cam. These MAY include some Volvos, my car, 280z/zx/300zx (maybe), 944, 924, and probably some others.

2. Miatas (no MAP sensor, although that was fixed).

3. Older cars with no wideband (which is a majority of cars out there I think).

[lateapex911]

Good points guys. It's certainly an issue I can see many sides to.

[DavidM]

Where's the downward spiral icon?

[JeffYoung]

David, I do understand the legitimate concern that there are unintended consequences of this. But right now, we seem stuck in a "middle place" between stock ECU on the one hand and open ECU on the other that is inequitable to some cars and not others.

What I really want to try to understand is what are the potential problems we get from opening up the sensor rule. Other than increased area under the curve, what potential problems do we get from this? I don't see any ability to increase peak power, so really there will be no change to the "Process" weighting of any particular car.

[GTIspirit]

An alternate viewpoint to that, (I just toss it out) is that the process bases it's power multiplier on stock hp. Which, (theoretically at least) is the result of a myriad of items, some of those being the stock sensor set.


While I agree with that point if all cars were equal, the reality is that some cars are more equal than others. ;) Some cars are clearly overachievers, and some are just not capable of keeping up. So would allowing a common sensor set create more of a disparity, or be more of an equalizer? Personally I think it would be more of an equalizer.



True. He would be able to (maybe, not a given) get more area under the curve than "normal". But the engine is still ultimately and air pump and limited by the efficiency that can be generated with stock components. If the sensors and ECU are all wide open then at least one user isn't hampered more than another due to poor engine management.


I totally agree with Ron on this. Not being privy to the process power and weight setting process I'm only assuming that there is no factor for stock ECU capability, especially not with the open ECU rule in effect now. But I can imagine there being a factor for fuel system and ignition type, but allowing a standardized sensor set wouldn't change this.


As best I can tell, the cars that you are looking at having an issue with sensor "suites" are:

1. The Bosch L-Jetronic cars from the mid 70s to the late 80s, which run ignition and injectors off the distributor and not the crank/cam. These MAY include some Volvos, my car, 280z/zx/300zx (maybe), 944, 924, and probably some others.

2. Miatas (no MAP sensor, although that was fixed).

3. Older cars with no wideband (which is a majority of cars out there I think).

Add to that a lot of VW's, with K-Jetronic and KE-Jetronic being two of the systems that would benefit from the allowance of a crank and cam sensor.

[Bill Miller]

Since Bill didn't agree with my application of the rules, he won't be able to explain me thinks. :)

There are plenty of things that the rules say you can add. What is assumed is that you can add what you need to in order to make those things 'function', so long as they do not also do something specifically illegal. Things as simple as wiring/plumbing your allowed gauges or adding bracketry to your custom intake, etc.

In my ECU scenario from a couple years back, the summary of the rule was simple. Do anything you want inside the stock ECU case but you must use the factory ECU connectors. My ECU had an on-board MAP sensor. So for it to 'work', it neded to be electrified and plumbed just like a gauge would. Running a vacuum line through an existing unmodified hole in the ECU housing allowed me to 'power it up'. I still feel it met all the restrictions of that rule at the time but defined one of the reasons the 'fors' were for opening up the rules at the time. Some stock housings could fit aftermarket ECU's, some couldn't...some ECU's had more ability than others - and those were hugely expensive...etc...

We are very much looking for input on sensors and ECU's. We are worried about unintended consiquenses of opening up 'sensors' - because we would in turn have to really have to define everything we wouldn't want those sensors to 'do'...like traction control, ABS, etc.

And that's pretty much where we disagreed Andy. Since the rule specifically called out that all connections had to be made through the stock, unmodified connector, I think it was pretty clear that the intent of the rule was that they didn't want any additional signals going to the ECU. Because your connection was mechanical (vacuum) rather than electrical, you got a loophole that I honestly think wasn't considered.

I really don't want to get into re-hashing this again. I didn't agree w/ it then, I don't agree w/ it now, and I though you would have gotten turned down on a rules clarification. What I find most disconcerting about what you did, was that your very gray area was then used as a justification for opening things up. I'm pretty sure that's the definition of rules creep.

[ddewhurst]

Bill, your return is great.......... You keep these guys on their toes.:happy204:

Are you doing the Runoffs?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bill,

Soon as I get to the shop I will look up some wording from that rule. But I assure you, MY application had NOTHING to do with the rule being opened up. Motec's capability, cost and size was the crux of the issue. We all 'dreamed' we could put it back in the barn but found no way to do so without creating huge inequites. Ancient history...but please don't rewrite it.

[shwah]

Add to that a lot of VW's, with K-Jetronic and KE-Jetronic being two of the systems that would benefit from the allowance of a crank and cam sensor.
But since all of these cars can run a 4 window hall sensor in the distributor, they can still send a useable ignition signal to the ecu as is.

[lateapex911]

What I find most disconcerting about what you did, was that your very gray area was then used as a justification for opening things up. I'm pretty sure that's the definition of rules creep.

Not what happened. The horse left the barn when the ECU rule was "Free as long as it fits in the box". IIRC there are stock ECUs with vacuum lines running to the box. But that's really not that relevant. What WAS the prime motivator for the last change was the inequities of the rule, and the huge cost both finacial and other associated with the 'fitment' aspect.

Andy's little line had zero, nada, nothing to do with it.

[Ron Earp]

. IIRC there are stock ECUs with vacuum lines running to the box. But that's really not that relevant. What WAS the prime motivator for the last change was the inequities of the rule, and the huge cost both finacial and other associated with the 'fitment' aspect.

Andy's little line had zero, nada, nothing to do with it.

And this ties in nicely with what I'm trying to say now about opening the ECU rule up to allow a level field. You already did it with the first step of the ECU rule. Since some boxes has vacuum lines, some didn't, the rule was changed to allow MAP sensors so that it wouldn't be a grey area and folks would be on a level field.

That needs to happen with cam position sensors, crank sensors, and distributors. Some ECU/engine management systems have an advantage because they come with certain factory components. We need to negate that advantage so all ECU cars will be equal.

Ron

[shwah]

I disagree. When we get to this level of detail, we are discussing the 'warts' of a chosen model. We should not open up engine position sensors.

Says the guy who would benefit from such an allowance, but will make it work with a less accurate, but functional, trigger method.

[Andy Bettencourt]

That needs to happen with cam position sensors, crank sensors, and distributors. Some ECU/engine management systems have an advantage because they come with certain factory components. We need to negate that advantage so all ECU cars will be equal.

Ron

It's a topic on our agenda for sure.

[Ron Earp]

I disagree. When we get to this level of detail, we are discussing the 'warts' of a chosen model. We should not open up engine position sensors.

Says the guy who would benefit from such an allowance, but will make it work with a less accurate, but functional, trigger method.

But....

What if the Borgwald 2L GTI gets classed with you. It makes the same hp stock as your 20 year old VW and gets the same weight. But, it has a modern engine management system.

Wouldn't you want the opportunity to use similar components? You can still make it work with your dizzy and batch fired injectors. But at least you'll have the opportunity to have what your competitor has.

The past process didn't take into account differences in ECUs. I don't think P 2.0 is either and I'm not even sure it is possible to do so - as you say it'd get into incredible detail that the ITAC should be bothered with and if they are probably don't have the experience/knowledge to make 100% proper calls on (not sure who would!).

[Bill Miller]

Ron,

The simple answer to that one is have the Borgwald weigh more. If there's not an adder for a car that can take advantage of an open ECU, there should be. As many others have pointed out, we're way past increasing peak hp, but to a point (which I think is actually a bigger impact on performance) of increasing the area under the curve.

Andy,

This is what I based my comment on, if I mis-interpreted it, I apologize.


I still feel it met all the restrictions of that rule at the time but defined one of the reasons the 'fors' were for opening up the rules at the time.

David,

Thanks for the kind words. But don't count on me spending a whole lot of time here anymore. And no, I won't be at the Runoffs.

[Ron Earp]

Ron,

The simple answer to that one is have the Borgwald weigh more. If there's not an adder for a car that can take advantage of an open ECU, there should be.


There isn't an adder. And don't you think another subjective adder to the process is going to be more difficult to implement and than simply changing the rule to make the situation equitable for everyone?

How much is the adder going to be? How would you determine it? +50 lbs if your car comes with a distributorless system?

I don't think the ITAC has the ways and means to get into that fine a detail. But they do have the ways and means to make an equitable rules set so that at least all ECU cars can have identical access to engine management.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The process is not that granular. Carbs get carbed allowances, ECU cars get ECU allowances.

[shwah]

But....

What if the Borgwald 2L GTI gets classed with you. It makes the same hp stock as your 20 year old VW and gets the same weight. But, it has a modern engine management system.

Wouldn't you want the opportunity to use similar components? You can still make it work with your dizzy and batch fired injectors. But at least you'll have the opportunity to have what your competitor has.

The past process didn't take into account differences in ECUs. I don't think P 2.0 is either and I'm not even sure it is possible to do so - as you say it'd get into incredible detail that the ITAC should be bothered with and if they are probably don't have the experience/knowledge to make 100% proper calls on (not sure who would!).

Oh the irony.

I am in that situation. A front running car classed at a favorable power to weight ratio compared to my car, and the class target, that has factory MAF and crank position sensors. I don't believe it will be changed. So I'll work on making me and my stuff, including the hall sender in the distributor triggering the ignition, more competitive and try to win anyway.

[Ron Earp]

Oh the irony.

I am in that situation. A front running car classed at a favorable power to weight ratio compared to my car, and the class target, that has factory MAF and crank position sensors. I don't believe it will be changed. So I'll work on making me and my stuff, including the hall sender in the distributor triggering the ignition, more competitive and try to win anyway.

Kudos for sticking it out and wanting to make it work. I admire the fact that you actually in that situation and you're not out trying to get the rule changed to your benefit.

I don't have skin in the game either, but I'll disagree with you and say you should not be in the position you're in. Similar power, similar weight, but large differences in available ECU modifications puts you at a disadvantage you should not have to endure.

[DavidM]

And this ties in nicely with what I'm trying to say now about opening the ECU rule up to allow a level field. You already did it with the first step of the ECU rule. Since some boxes has vacuum lines, some didn't, the rule was changed to allow MAP sensors so that it wouldn't be a grey area and folks would be on a level field.

That needs to happen with cam position sensors, crank sensors, and distributors. Some ECU/engine management systems have an advantage because they come with certain factory components. We need to negate that advantage so all ECU cars will be equal.

Ron

And this to me is the definition of rules creep. The original rule had a loophole that allowed aftermarket ECUs as long as they could be stuffed in the original ECU box. People bitched and moaned that this was bad, costly, whatever, so the ECU rule was opened up. Now people are bitching and moaning that they can't use their new fangled ECU with the stock sensors so here we are talking about opening up the sensors. What's next? I wonder what the Prod rules on ECUs read? I bet not much different from ours now. Something to think about.

David

[Andy Bettencourt]

And this to me is the definition of rules creep. The original rule had a loophole that allowed aftermarket ECUs as long as they could be stuffed in the original ECU box. People bitched and moaned that this was bad, costly, whatever, so the ECU rule was opened up. Now people are bitching and moaning that they can't use their new fangled ECU with the stock sensors so here we are talking about opening up the sensors. What's next? I wonder what the Prod rules on ECUs read? I bet not much different from ours now. Something to think about.

David

I don't think anyone will argue that the ECU rules crept - at that time. I have been on the ITAC now for maybe 6 years? That 'anything you want inside the stock box' rule was written before Darrin or I got there. Asking the people who invested in programmable stuff was going to be hard - but something some of us were willing to do...the issue was simple. Was a 'stock ecu' rule good? For OBD-1 and 'below', sure. But for OBD-2 equipped cars a reflash is crazy simple. So it was decided that the technology prices had come down enough to allow open ECU's outside the box...and that would keep the playing field as level as it could be.

Having said all of that, the evolution of the rules to keep up with technology is not creep IMHO. ECU rules would have evolved sooner or later.

[DavidM]

I say creep, you say evolution. Still looks like Prod.

I still laugh at the fact that we are required to have the stock coolant reservoir, but can do whatever the hell we want with the ECU.

David