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
Printable View
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
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'.
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?Quote:
Other existing sensors, excluding the stock air
metering device, may be substituted for equivalent units.
And while there:
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?Quote:
The engine management computer may be altered or
replaced.
Derek
Wanting to know before the stock ecu ends up in the trash can.
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.
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?
This is somewhat of a rehash of the issues tGA raised.
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?
- 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.
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.
#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.
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...
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... :/
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...
"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
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
Thanks for the clarification Andy.
/edit: didn't see Andy's comment re: policing.
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'.Quote:
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?
Phil,
I went through that years ago. Andy and I have agreed to disagree.
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.
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.
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?Quote:
Other existing sensors, excluding the stock air
metering device, may be substituted for equivalent units.
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?Quote:
7. Wires and connectors in the engine wiring harness may be modified or replaced.
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.
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.
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.
Exactly
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'.Quote:
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.
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'.
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
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...
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.
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?
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.
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...........
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. :)
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
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.
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.
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
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
Greg, you are right...I should have done that in the first place. I will make it so. Chuck
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.