I thought there was supposed to be some IT changes coming?
matt
Printable View
I thought there was supposed to be some IT changes coming?
matt
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.
Quote:
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?
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
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:
Thats a very interesting post, Steve.
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.Quote:
but recommendations for weight changes on review - going back several months now - are on hold.
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.
So should we be emailing our board members to support additonal actions?
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.
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]
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.
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.
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:
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.Quote:
The Court reminds everyone that per GCR 9.1.7.D. “No permitted component/
modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function.”
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.
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. :)
First, you know this is just a mental exercise, right?
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...
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.Quote:
“No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function.”
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
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
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.
Greg,Quote:
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."
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?
...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.
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.Quote:
...what's going to happen when you disconnect [the wideband]?
Yes: a dead end.Quote:
See where I'm going w/ this yet?
;)
Steve,
That was my point. The way FT reads is just.
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).Quote:
2. IT – Allow a wide band 02 sensor (Bader). A wide band sensor functions differently than a narrow band sensor.
If that's not what they meant, they need to add some clarification.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Again, goes back to allowable mods performing prohibited functions. Getting that wideband signal to your ECU is not allowed...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
That's what I don't actually know. Recommendations have gone in, answers have not come 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Drago
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
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...
LOL....Someone have a binky for Mr Baker? (COA Appeal):026:
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).