Somebody told me that the GCR will allow ECU's that are not in the stock ECU housing. Where can I find out about this to confirm? If it is just proposed, where can I track it's progress?
Steve
Printable View
Somebody told me that the GCR will allow ECU's that are not in the stock ECU housing. Where can I find out about this to confirm? If it is just proposed, where can I track it's progress?
Steve
It has been approved by the ITAC and the CRB. It has been sent to the BOD for approval, but has not yet been discussed there. Watch for the BOD meeting minutes in Fastrack. Fastrack is published on the 20th of each month.
And if you disagree I STRONGLY recommend that you write letters to the BOD and your area director specifically.Quote:
Somebody told me that the GCR will allow ECU's that are not in the stock ECU housing. Where can I find out about this to confirm? If it is just proposed, where can I track it's progress?
Steve
[/b]
OTOH, if you're in favor, I'd suggest a wait-and-see approach. ;)
The flip side is if you support the open ECU leaving the stock box, then write your BOD member in support and join the majority. If not you're only keeping the status-quo open ECU rule.
James
Seconded.Quote:
And if you disagree I STRONGLY recommend that you write letters to the BOD and your area director specifically.[/b]
Regardless of any one's opinion and point of view, the proposed rule change does not follow the purpose or intent of Improved Touring, as listed in the GCR. Such a change will have a significant and (IMHO) poorly researched effect on the class.
A. PURPOSE
Improved Touring classes are intended to provide the membership with the opportunity to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition.
B. INTENT
It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car.
I mean really... we can't even relocate the battery and there is significant proposal for open engine management?
I am not going to go knee-deep in this again but I disagree with Jeff. Here is how I see it:
1. The rule we have now sucks. 'Open' ECU's but only in the stock box. This limits to not only those with 'big' ecu housings but also those that can afford 'small' programmable ECU's.
2. So really there are 2 options - Go back to stock ecu's with just chips and reflashes OR open it up so that everyone can take advantage of what the 'haves' have had now for 4-5 years.
Option 1: Here is what Mr. Big Bucks is gonna do - he is gonna hire someone to take a MoTec and develop the perfect set of parameters for his car. He is then going to have to pay to have those paramters burned onto a chip/reflash that will work with his car. He gets a ton of the benefit, has spent a ton of money - and guess what? Not everyone can do this. BIG seperation between the haves and the have-nots. THAT is what is not good for IT IMHO.
Option 2: Allow open ECU's and the wiring to make them work. Technology has progressed far enough so that companies like Megasquirt have come to the market tremendously cost-effective solutions. You can do the work and tuning yourself, or you can hire someone to do it. Is it going to be cheap? Nope. WAY cheaper than how it is now or how it would be to keep up with Mr. Big Bucks in Option 1? You bet.
The way I look at it is simple: I hate that we are here. 'Totally stock' doesn't work. 'Anything in the stock box' is stupid. Opening it up so that people can take advantage of some cheap tuning is the best answer to a crappy question that I wish we didn't have to answer - but we do IMHO.
To say it was poorly researched is just wrong. Looking at ALL the ramifications of all the choices and, in this case, choosing the 'smallest pile of crap' is where we are. If everyone were honest and would run stock ecu's, we would be fine but in everything from 1994 on, you just can't police it.
Thanks for sharing Andy. I appreciate your opinion as much as I hope you can appreciate mine.Quote:
I am not going to go knee-deep in this again but I disagree with Jeff. Here is how I see it:[/b]
Indeed, there are people spending truck loads of money to fit aftermarket engine management within the stock box and even integrating it with the factory harness. Yes, this is legal under the current rule... and a matter of opinion if within the spirit of the rule. This does suck for those that cant afford such, myself included.
So there we have an established issue that is agreed upon. What to do next?
I can't say with any authority that there is a perfect answer where everyone wins, but I can say that just opening up everything is the wrong way to handle things. It moves the class further away from the low cost (entry level) intent. I mean no disrespect with the "poorly researched" comment, but come on... this is a whole new level of preparation for modern computer controlled cars than older carbureted cars do not get. What next? All F/I cars have to run penalty weight so the carbureted cars can keep up?
I hate to be a whiner on this and surely don't want to be "that guy that complains all the time", but the proposed rule change is just going to fix the original problem by creating new ones.
Very humbly submitted,
Jeff,
I just don't see how the proposed rule acomplishes anything different than people are doing today in certain privileged situations (both in terms of being lucky enough to have the right size box, and the right size checking account). They are doing it within the letter of the rule, which is all we have to go on.
What has been changed here is what the box around the computer looks like, and the ability to add 2 (or is it 3) sensors so that 'poor man' computers can be used.
The end result didn't change.
And yes I would love it if we all had to run stock ECUs, but don't see an easy way to get back there after the past 4-5 years have gone by.
I think this is almost a red herring. Not quite red, maybe pink, or fuschia! The difference between open ECUs and the scenario Andy illustrates is the resolution of the computers. Many OEM computers simply cannot be flashed or chipped to respond in what I would call a 3D fashion. But rather the curves can be altered for spark/fuel, but not to the same degree that a fully-programmable unit can. Thus, Mr. Big Bucks can spend all he wants, but the design of the OE computer is the limiting factor to just how much he'll be able to gain. And I venture to guess that the gains would be less than a fully-programmable unit, which would be a bigger deterrent for those to try in the first place.Quote:
Option 1: Here is what Mr. Big Bucks is gonna do - he is gonna hire someone to take a MoTec and develop the perfect set of parameters for his car. He is then going to have to pay to have those paramters burned onto a chip/reflash that will work with his car. He gets a ton of the benefit, has spent a ton of money - and guess what? Not everyone can do this. BIG seperation between the haves and the have-nots. THAT is what is not good for IT IMHO.
[/b]
My letter requested allowing any software upgrade while maintaining the OEM hardware.
Some OEM computers have plenty good resolution. Others don't.
Regardless, the current rule lets you put very high resolution in a select few cars, for a pretty penny.
Again - nothing truely changed in capability by the recommended rule.
Yes and no.Quote:
The difference between open ECUs and the scenario Andy illustrates is the resolution of the computers. Many OEM computers simply cannot be flashed or chipped to respond in what I would call a 3D fashion. But rather the curves can be altered for spark/fuel, but not to the same degree that a fully-programmable unit can. Thus, Mr. Big Bucks can spend all he wants, but the design of the OE computer is the limiting factor to just how much he'll be able to gain. And I venture to guess that the gains would be less than a fully-programmable unit, which would be a bigger deterrent for those to try in the first place.
[/b]
Mr. Big bucks would be gutting the factory box completely and having a one off custom engine management system manufactured that would allow full control, fit within the factory box, integrate with the factory wiring harness, and even utilize the factory sensors. It would be very expensive and to my knowledge, the entire reason for this proposal. So, I can't help but feel that there must be a better way to disallow such actions versus simply throwing our hands up in the air an opening the rule to "anything goes".
Laptop tuning computers mounted in IT cars... :blink:
That's my point, Jeff. My letter requested a reversion back to OEM computers but allowed any modification to the software. So Mr. BB can't just "gut the factory box completely", lest he falls afoul of the rules. The limiting factor in my case would be the computer itself. As it is right now, the limiting factor is simply the size of the OEM case and the racer's wallet.Quote:
Yes and no.
Mr. Big bucks would be gutting the factory box completely and having a one off custom engine management system manufactured that would allow full control, fit within the factory box, integrate with the factory wiring harness, and even utilize the factory sensors.
[/b]
This has been hashed 1001 different ways.
If you want to argue about IT philosophy. From the beginning IT allowed the replacement of single non-adjustable carburetors to be swapped out for alternate adjustable carburetors.
Now fast forwart to OBDII and CARB's (California Air Resources Board) requirement for tamper-proof engine mangement. The current option to mess with the fuel pressure just won't allow adjustment either as the computer will just dial back on the fuel.
Don't you already bring your lap-top to the track?? How else are you going to down-load data from the data acqusition?
James
Why? They already do. The process already includes gains from the assumed ECU change.Quote:
... this is a whole new level of preparation for modern computer controlled cars than older carbureted cars do not get. What next? All F/I cars have to run penalty weight so the carbureted cars can keep up?
, [/b]
Some have been able to attain it, either because of cool in the box solutions, others have not. Others can not for all the minnows in the oceans.
And, lets keep in mind the future. Currently lots of cars go into limp, or semi limp modes when certain sensors are disabled. Rev limits occur on certain cars when the ABS sensors are disconnected. The ABS rule was recently rewritten as a workaround for this, but the writing is on the wall. The ECu will be extending it's tenticles into more and more areas of the car, hindering the ability to make a car "suitable for racing competition".
I suggest that this proposal will actually become .".useful and necessary to construct a safe race car."
Lets keep in mind the short history on this:
1- ITAC discusses ECU issue, and surveys membership with 3 options:Result: Stay the same got 1% of the vote, Open, something over 66%. Most response in the history of IT member responses, I think.
- Stay the same
- ECUs and reflashes
- Open ECUs
2- CRB requests a second membership feeedback, this time eliminating the vastly unpopular "Stay the same". Not surprisingly, the addition of that vote didn't swing the tally much.
3- ITAC confers, and agrees with the membership proposes the Open option to the CRB.
4 -CRB takes ITACs open ECU proposal, confers, and supports it.
5- BoD will vote on the proposal.
If the BoD turns it down, we will face '08 with the memberships least favorite option: stay the same.
When are the BOD meeting on this?
:popcorn:
I've posted my views on this in the 20+ page ECU thread as have a lot of other people. I suggest checking that out if you haven't read it. I think it's a bad idea. Only time will reveal the true implications. Hopefully we don't look back on this and wish it had be done differently.
David
One of the best meeting rules ever is, "when someone makes the same argument for a second time, make a decision and move on to new business."
Lather.
Rinse.
Repeat...?
K