ECU Rules from Old GCR (1995 & 2000)

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Someone's seen "The Matrix" one too many times!

yea Darin it goes like this, the alernator build up a charge and when it hits 8000 rpm it lets off this huge electro-magnetic pulse frying anyones ECU within a short distance, they coast to the side and I cruise by. lol
by the way guys, cops have radar type looking guns that do this already, worrys about hospitals and pacemakers have kept them idled so far.

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,

Please show me the p/n for the factory-approved replacement EPROM.

You make a decent point Bill.

However, please show me the p/n for the factory-approved bondo for repairing bodywork.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Am I confused or are we arguing about a rule that doesn't exist?

Yep. We've argued about everything else.

Actually, we are arguing over the rule in Grand Am as it would relate to IT if adopted (theoretically).


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[downingracing]

Originally posted by OTLimit:
You know, these comments are starting to get old....and insulting.

If you think someone is NOT running a stock cam, then do something about it.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but most of us still follow the rules (at least I like to think so.)

Sorry if you were offended by my comment/joke. Just so you know, my car is 100% legal. If I cared, I’d protest the illegal cars. I don't care, so I don't. And I don't know why my comment is insulting? I'm not talking about you... And the comment about most people following the rules - I agree. (at least I’d like to think so...) But, I can't tell you how many cars I look at on a race weekend that have some sort of 'illegal' modification. I point out what I see to the driver and leave it at that.

------------------
Matt Downing
www.downingracing.com

[Prince Makaha]

There is a gm part number because I bought one a few years back and replaced it.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Geo:
You make a decent point Bill.

However, please show me the p/n for the factory-approved bondo for repairing bodywork.

Ok George, so you think you're a rules nerd. What about 17.1.4.D.8.i

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Body repair shall be performed using every reasonable effort to maintain stock body conturs, lips, etc.</font>

(emphasis mine)

I contend that the use of Bondo/body filler falls under the 'every reasonable effort' clause. And since we're also bound by 11.2.1.C (Appearance), we have an obligation to fix body damage/rust.

The factory manual for a VW talks about butt-welding repair panels. It also talks about these procedures being performed by an experienced body repair technician. Do I have to go into how the use of body puty/filler is prescribed for use in seam blending (as a generally accepted body repair technique)?

There comes a point where being pragmatic crosses over to strained and tortured. You obviously have no concept of where that distinction is.

So, if there is a factory part number for the EPROM, and it's a defined repair procedure to replace it, you're free and clear (so long as you use a factory, or factory-equivilent part). If it doesn't, you're SOL. Similar to rules that say "unless fitted as original equipment". For example, the VR6 VW's have coil packs and a crank trigger. The way I read the rules, you can swap them out for an Electromotive (or similar product), because it's the same type of ignition/spark distribution system as stock.

Your move.


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
There comes a point where being pragmatic crosses over to strained and tortured. You obviously have no concept of where that distinction is.

Reasonable people can disagree. Perhaps you don't think so. My point is simply that you are applying a standard that is convenient to your sensibilities on one argument and ignoring it for a similar argument. But, this is why reasonable people can disagree. And as Kirk pointed out, we are arguing about a theoretical rule wording that will probably never be applied to IT.

Requiring an OEM p/n for a EPROM where you can change programming is just as silly as requiring only OEM brake rotors or an OEM p/n for bondo.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[Bill Miller]

George,

I'm well aware that reasonable people can disagree. The problem is, all too often, that's held up as a defense for unreasonable positions.

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">My point is simply that you are applying a standard that is convenient to your sensibilities on one argument and ignoring it for a similar argument</font>

Please show me where I've done this.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I'm well aware that reasonable people can disagree. The problem is, all too often, that's held up as a defense for unreasonable positions.

I see you're the designated arbiter on this point now?

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Please show me where I've done this.

Well let's see. On one hand you're rejecting a repair because it's not specifically spelled out in the FSM and does not have a factory part number. On another hand you are not.

You think one makes sense and the other doesn't. I think under the context of both discussions neither makes sense to reject.

I'm sure you won't agree. We'll just keep arguing about a theoretical rule, so I'll stop here and give you the last word. Theoretically.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[Bill Miller]

On one hand you're rejecting a repair because it's not specifically spelled out in the FSM and does not have a factory part number. On another hand you are not.

Actually George, I'm not. In the body repair case, my FSM talks about the employment of 'experienced body repair technician skills'. That umbrella covers the appropriate techniques/materials for effecting said repair. In the EPROM case, unless the FSM speaks to the replacement of the EPROM or components of the ECU, there's no authorization for that procedure.

And if you look at my earlier post, I clearly stated that if there was a factory part #, and a defined procedure for replacing the EPROM, then it would be perfectly legal.

Seems consistent from where I sit. Perhaps you're seeing them as inconsistent because you don't like the position that they support.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[bldn10]

I have been out of racing for a couple of years but I sure thought that the new ECU rule was in effect prior to 2003. As to the wording, couldn't they simply have left out "or replace?" That way you could make all the hardware/software alterations you want to the OEM board but eliminate completely new aftermarket engine management systems. Surely they realized that but chose otherwise. Sometimes I swear the SCCA must be lobbied ($) by equipment manufacturers and tuning shops.