It's a topic on our agenda for sure.
Printable View
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!).
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.
David,Quote:
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.
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.
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.
The process is not that granular. Carbs get carbed allowances, ECU cars get ECU allowances.
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.
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.
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