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.
Printable View
Ok, we'll assume:dead_horse:. Chuckl
See you at Barber.
The W02 Police.
Lol..seriously, see you there. Looking forward to actually doing some racing in my car this year.
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.
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?
...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...?
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
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
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?
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.
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
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
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
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'.
Greg, my position, more eloquently explained.:happy204::happy204::happy204:Chuck
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.
Never mind.
Deleted...
Not worth my time
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.
Ah the joys of the open ECU rule. :wacko:
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
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.
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.
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!
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
Ah, OK Marty. Sorry for the confusion.
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?Answer: Because that's the car you built.
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?
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.
"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?
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.
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.