ECU modification rules

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...If we open up ECUs further...how is that going to help most racers?</font>

Darin, I'll disagree with your base premise to an extent, and provide an example.

Andy just offered that the RX-7s can install a SpeedSport-supplied MoTec systems for $3000. Frankly, I'm *shocked* that it can be done so cheaply (yes, "cheap"). However, this is MOST DEFINITELY the exception rather than the norm.

Can you imagine, for example, how much it would cost you or I to design, develop, and market a comparable system for your or my Nissan? First, I'm not confident it can be done, and second there's just not enough market for us to be able to amortize the development costs. So, SpeedSport and the RX-7 wins in this regard by way of available technology (size of ECU housing and factory wiring harness connector design) and market possibilities - as does the BMW and Bimmerworld - but everyone else "loses" because we have low-volume cars that do not lend themselves to this modification. Whereas Nick can improve his RX-7 with top-shelf state-of-the-art engine management technology for $3000, you and I probably cannot do it at any (reasonable) price. Certainly not an equitable situation, in my mind.

However, if the rule was opened up to allow piggyback technology, such as the Unichip, then for about $1000 just about anyone can take advantage of the available street technology and have a fully-programmable engine management system. Granted, it's not MoTec, but it's very close, quite effective, and a damn fine value. *This*, I believe, is what Bill is trying to say in his not-so-graceful manner.

And before we get the expected kickbacks from those that do not have ECUs (e.g., "The Carb People"), your arguments, while well-founded, are not germane to this discussion. This discussion is in regards to "how" to write the ECU rules, not "whether". Once we've accepted that ECUs can and will be modified (and we have) then we should work to make that modification capability as equitable as possible among the population that uses them. I understand your angst, but let's not muddy the waters here.

To be repetitive and redundant: either ban ECU modifications - which we are confident we cannot police - or open up the rules. Pandora's box has already been opened.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by GregAmy:
Andy just offered that the RX-7s can install a SpeedSport-supplied MoTec systems for $3000. Frankly, I'm *shocked* that it can be done so cheaply (yes, "cheap"). However, this is MOST DEFINITELY the exception rather than the norm.

This is going off of memory when we were looking into it. Call it $4000 tops.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[Bill Miller]

Greg,

That's not what I was trying to say at all. I want the genie put back in the bottle. And, it's not just the carb people that are 'left behind'. While many of the ITS and ITA cars will be able to take advantage of the 'whatever you can stuff in the box' rule, many of the ITB and ITC cars cannot. And it's not just because they're carbed.


Case in point, Rabbit GTI. While it's Bosch KJetronic CIS, the only inputs come from the O2 sensor, the thermo time switch, and the full-throttle switch (which puts the system into open-loop). The only thing that you can 'control' is the frequency valve, which goes to full (65%) duty cycle when the system is in open-loop. So the open ECU rule does nothing for these (or similar) cars either.

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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Why not something to the effect of "The engine mgmt. ecu shall show no evidence of tampering. Evidence that shows the box to have been opened will constitute tampering." I've also thought about having an SCCA seal on the ECUs. Granted, it wouldn't do anything for ECUs that has already been hacked, or for ones that you can flash through the OBD port, but it closes the door a bit.

So in this logic, again, you choose your weapon... If you happen to pick a car with a flashable ECU from the factory, then you have a "comp adjustment" (as you put it) right from the start...

How is that any different than we have today? At least with the rule as it is now, MORE people can take advantage of this type of mod... not just those with whatever boxes allow flashing...

AND, to answer your question of is it "unreasonble" to expect everyone to "folllow the rules", in a nutshell, YES, it is unreasonable, because everyone sees their own shades of gray, and I think it's pretty clear that the more you allow, the more people will THINK is allowed.

I strongly contend that the more words you add to the ITCS, the more people will think they "read" in those words... You could use any number of past conversations to prove this point. Everytime we make a wording change, we risk opening an unforseen door. Isn't that, in fact, what happened here???


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 31, 2004).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by GregAmy:
This discussion is in regards to "how" to write the ECU rules, not "whether". Once we've accepted that ECUs can and will be modified (and we have) then we should work to make that modification capability as equitable as possible among the population that uses them.

OK Greg... best discussion points yet...

I then, ask you all to put together an ECU rule wording package for consideration. It must do a couple of things:

[list=1][*] Not open the door any further.[*] Not nullify any investments that people have already made to this point. (i.e.: if someone has already invested in a MOTEC, it needs to still be legal)[*] Not require changes to the overall wiring rules.[*] Not allow other induction system modifications.[*] Not allow or require anything else that I may not be thinking of at the moment that would otherwise create further loopholes or allowances within the IT rules...
[list]

I encourage you to do this and see what you can come up with. I think I speak for most of the ITAC when I say that we too would like to do something to reign this in a bit, but to this point, have a hard time meeting all of the above criteria for doing so.

Put together something that is complete and makes sense, and let's see what it looks like on paper...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[Eagle7]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
This is going off of memory when we were looking into it. Call it $4000 tops.

From the Mazda forum, BenSpeed called SpeedSource - $4000 installed and tuned.

------------------
Marty Doane
ITS RX-7 #13
CenDiv WMR

[gran racing]

Andy,

I was curious just how much it might cost to get a Motec installed that was IT legal. So I called a few dealers. One of first ones I spoke with was in CT. He told me that for my purposes there wouldn't be much benefit to go beyond the bottom line unit (M4 or something like that - my notes are at work). The unit itself wasn't too expensive compared to what I thought it would cost. Then I asked for the instal and wiring part. He stated that for an IT job, the typical range is in the $10,000 range (not including the unit itself). I then wondered if it was just this dealer and his pricing. Nope. Called a few others in different parts of the country.

So Greg, any ideas to meet Darin's challenge?

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

[This message has been edited by gran racing (edited October 31, 2004).]

[Bill Miller]

Darin,

There you go twisting things again. If the rule states stock ECU w/ stock programming, any mod to that is cheating, plain and simple. Not much gray area there (or between your ears!)

And what's w/ the artificial constraint of not outlawing things because people may have spent money on it? If it's bad for the category, it's bad for the category. Somebody made a mistake. Sack it up and make it right! Nobody seemed to care about this w/ the engine coating rule, or the RR 3x adjustable shock rule. Or the sequential gearbox rule in Prod. That's a BS constraint, and an easy out for not dealing w/ the issue that this crap should have never been allowed in the fist place!

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

[Geo]

Greg, I think you'll find using any piggyback with a Nissan ECU will only be an exercise in frustration. The learning cicruit in the Nissan ECU will fight all of your adjustments.

Why not just go with JWT? It's my understanding they already have a pretty good IT program (race gas only). It would also be a lot cheaper than the Unichip.


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

[dickita15]

darin,
if it is not possible to require ecu's to be stock because because they are not policeable then is there a down side to allow any ecu with the stock harness. would competitors be able to increase performance that way or would they just get what they can now easier and cheaper
dick

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by dickita15:
darin,
if it is not possible to require ecu's to be stock because because they are not policeable then is there a down side to allow any ecu with the stock harness. would competitors be able to increase performance that way or would they just get what they can now easier and cheaper
dick

That would be fine with me, but I'm not the one you guys are trying to please here... I think the real issue with this is getting "ANY" unit to adapt to the stock wiring harness... Most are designed to have their own harness, I believe...

Don't let Miller scare you guys off... What he deems as "artificial" is a real concern to many and needs to be taken into consideration. Also, as I stated before, how do you require "stock programming" on ECUs where it can be flashed as is??? Who's going to make the determination that it's "stock"??? I'm a software engineer, and I don't think I could discern stock ones and zeros from Modified ones and zeros without some sophisticated code dumping programs...

The ITAC is all ears if you guys have some good wording to suggest... Other than telling us to "just fix it", as some here think is the "solution"...

Just remember, it's all of YOU rule's lawyers that have made this type of rule making necessary!



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Just remember, it's all of YOU rule's lawyers that have made this type of rule making necessary!

What an absolute crock! That's as bad as George blaming it on the drivers, when it was the rules makers who were culpable.

And Darin, I believe that most dealers can determine if the code has been diddled. That becomes part of the protest process. If you protest someone's ECU as not being stock, it gets impounded and sent to a dealer w/ the appropriate fee. Kinda like sending a cam to Topeka for Jeremy to run Cam Dr. on it.

Why has everyone accepted that you can't police ECUs instead of trying to determine a way to actually do it?


/edit/ And Darin, it's nice to see you're not willing to correct things that may not be good for IT, just because someone has spent money on it. Like I said, sure wouldn't be the first time it happened. Weren't you the one that said something about doing what's best for IT?
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited October 31, 2004).]

[Greg Amy]

Bill said:

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...That's not what I was trying to say at all. I want the genie put back in the bottle.</font>

So noted, Bill. Sorry.

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...many of the ITS and ITA cars will be able to take advantage...many of the ITB and ITC cars cannot.</font>

Ok, so if that's the generalized case, then within each class there is a less-likely chance of an ex-post facto comp adjustment. So, speaking generally, if "ITB cars" can't take advantage of the technology then nothing is lost relative to other ITB cars; if "ITA cars" can take advantage of it then again nothing is lost relative to other ITA cars. I know this won't be the case forever, but it certainly addresses the situation short-term.

Of course, this is so generalized that someone will no doubt come up with an ITA car that's not ECU'd and an ITB car that is, but within the current power structure I'd suggest the point is approaching moot.

Darin sez:

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">I then, ask you all to put together an ECU rule wording package for consideration...</font>

I'll do that, I'll give it honest and serious consideration. However, I must dispute your baseline requirements.

First, I don't see how the door can be "opened" any further. As far as we know today, Motec is the cat's meow. This standard is as good as it gets, state-of-the-art, so unless we really think about this the door can't go much farther.

Second, not nullifying investments is a moot point; if the current Motec investments are the new standard (see door discussiona bove) then that can't happen.

Third, I fail to understand your limitation with the wiring modifications. The original base premise for not allowing wiring modifications was to DISALLOW system such as MoTec. Given that we wish to retain this MoTec investment the issue with not allowing wiring modifications to disallow MoTec (yes, it's a vicious circle) is moot.

Fourth, I'm on board with no further induction mods. None, as far as I can recall, have been suggested.

Fifth, it's the lack of imagination that got us here in the first place <grin>. As hard as we try, it is completely impossible to fully comprehend all future possibilities. It's because we tried that we got the current rule, and why we're in this boat today.

As I said, I'll give it significant honest thought, but my initial impressions are that there's not going to be an easy way to stop this. I see conflicting goals in your standards above, and short of breaking Requirement #2 we're kinda stuck. If you accept #2 then you really should consider opening up the whole enchilada and letting people use MoTec without restriction. If you're willing to step on the MoTec investments then we have a little room to breath, but we'd be stepping on that same lillypad crossing as we were when the current rule was written.

Bill sez:

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">If the rule states stock ECU w/ stock programming, any mod to that is cheating, plain and simple.</font>

Bill, you are absolutely 100% correct. However, if we stick to this rigid rule, one that is not enforceable in the extreme of contexts, then you end up with a group of drivers that are - de facto - cheating, but since it cannot be proven, they are - du jure - legal.

Case in point, the Spec Miata engine rule. The rules state (and I paraphrase) that *any* work done to an engine to improve performance is expressly illegal. However, we all know that folks are spending thousands of dollars to have brand-new crate engines disassembled and rebuilt to exact factory tolerances (blueprinting). Are they cheating? ABSOLUTELY! However, can you prove it? Nope!

So, for a category whose goals is to have equal preparation, you end up with two distinct classes of competitors: those true cheaters that spend $5000 on the rebuilds, and those non-cheaters that don't. In both cases, the engines are defacto legal because there is no way to prove otherwise.

My solution for the Wreck Pinatas would be to allow balancing and blueprinting by the rules to factory (not service) tolerances, because it's being done anyway and would open up the market to lower-cost rebuilds. This would allow competitors within the category to be on a much more even parity for less money.

Back to our ECU rule, it is unenforceable. Software is being written today for street cars where the dealer cannot determine if the ECU was modified. The intent of this is so guys can mod their cars and not have the dealer pull the warranty. Even more cool, many are written in such a way that a few stalk or dash switch changes can actually change the loaded programming in the ECU, so if specific values are read the output is as per the factory. Plus, they can be written such that the ECU cannot be overwritten by the dealer. This is a fact of like, and this will only become more prevalent as we move forward.

If you can find a way to enforce the original rule, we're all ears, but short of that you've got to consider the alternative. THAT'S why unenforceable rules are typically stricken, plain and simple.

George said:

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...using any piggyback with a Nissan ECU will only be an exercise in frustration.</font>

Quite possible, but there's only one way to find out. Remember the basis for the team name "Kakashi Racing"? http://www.kakashiracing.com/team.html

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Why not just go with JWT?</font>

Because it doesn't work. I've got JWT's 100 octane ECU program and it did exactly bupkus for us. In fact, the 93 octane street program actually LOST 2 horsepower on the dyno. The trials and tribulations of using street crap on race cars from a single-source supplier to a market...

Dikita Banana sez:

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...would competitors be able to increase performance that way or would they just get what they can now easier and cheaper</font>

The latter, Dick. There just ain't much better than fully-programmable engine management from MoTec. Pretty trick stuff.

GregA

[jlucas]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Why has everyone accepted that you can't police ECUs instead of trying to determine a way to actually do it?

Because you can't, heck some companies even advertise that as a benefit; plus I've talked with the guys at work with ECUs. Why do you think Showroom Stock has such a problem with it?

[Quickshoe]

Trick or treat!

Darin, I posted a similar challenge a couple of days ago. I've been tossing it around for a couple of days...

Originally posted by Quickshoe:
I agree, however, how would you write and enforce a rule to allow it? Maybe I am not a good enough wordsmith, but I don't see how you can write a rule that will make it cheaper/easier for people such as you and me without allowing people like Bob Bigbucks from doing more than he currently can.

How would you propose the rule be written?

------------------
Daryl DeArman

[Renaultfool]

All this discussion is real interesting and all but consider this.

The carb and distributer boys can change jetting in an attempt to maximize their fuel mixture for power, away from the lean smog friendly factory settings, made even leaner with allowable headers. They can modify their ignition timing and advance curves, or completly replace the ignition system in an attempt to maximize the power and performance of their engine. The search is for the perfect combination of mixture and timing. This is all thought to be good, fair, and allowable in the rules. Rules written before the ECU cars were available in large numbers.

Now comes the ECU crowd, who want to do the same things for the same reasons. They must do it a different way, but still can only attempt to maximize their fuel mixture and ignition timing for the best power that their particular engines mechanical design will allow. The search for the perfect combination of mixture and timing. No more, no less. How can this not also be fair?

Placing expensive, restrictive rules on how the ECU guys do it doesn't make any sense. Policing it does not make any sense as mixture and timing is open for the carb/distributer guys now. The ECU guys can't do any better at it than the carb/distributer guys at the end of the day.

A level playing field, if we want to run them "stock", would be to require the factory jetting and timing settings on the carb/distributer cars. Easily policed by looking at the jets and checking the timing.

Oh, and lets not forget the modified fuel pressure regulators on the VWs and the non-stock fuel distributer settings on the same cars. Can't give them a free ride here.

Run them the way they came from the factory? Is that what we really want?

[gran racing]

I just can't see putting the ECU rule back to only allowing stock ECUs. I honestly believe that this would be more hurtful to those people who stay within the rules. Many people would still do it because of how difficult it would be to catch. And can you imagine trying to reverse this rule at this point? I'd be pretty pissed if I spent (o.k, we'll use the lowest number I've heard) $4K on modifying my ECU legally to find out that I need to ditch it.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

[Bill Miller]

Greg,

No problem w/ the misinterpretation.

Interesting point w/ the Wreck Pinatas (I like that! ). It's a speck class, w/ stock engine requirments. Here's a perfect case where a claiming rule would work to eliminate the $5k+ Sunbelt et al motors. Set the claim price at the cost of a new crate motor from Mazda. Guys that get their j/y 100k mile motors claimed will be happy as clams. Guys that get their $5k Sunbelt motors claimed won't. People will think twice if they're going to get a 30-40 percent return on their investment, and then have to spend the extra 60-70 percent again, if they want another hi-zoot motor.

But, back to the subject at hand. Here's how I see it, in a nutshell. Prior to the 'open box' rule, anybody that was running altered ECUs/software was cheating. Hard/impossible to catch, but still cheating. Opening it up to the 'whatever you can stuff in there' rule was a defacto comp. adjustment for all the cars that could take advantage of it. Something by the way, that was not allowed for in the rules. It hung a lot of the older cars out to dry. It gave the cars that could take advantage of the rule, a performance advantage that was heretofore only available if you were willing to cheat. And, that wasn't considered when the cars were classified and spec'd. This, as Kirk put it, blunted a lot of weapons.

And I know Darin's going to trot out the 'no guarantee' clause, but the cars that couldn't take advantage of the new rule, should have been given something in return. Probably something in the range of a 50-100 # weight reduction. I know that someone will say that car such-and-such can't even make its current weight, so a weight break doesn't help them. But, at the very least, it would have shown that the rule makers were making an attempt at equalizing things. Rather than the 'sucks to be you' attitude that we got.

And to use the excuse that you can't reverse rules creep because it will cost people money, is one of the things that got Prod to where it was prior to the introduction of the limited-prep concept. And we all know the disdain that some folks hold for Prod. But to Prods credit, even they (I guess it was really the C knew when to get rid of things that weren't consistent w/ the category philosophy (e.g. sequential shifting trannies).

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

[Bill Miller]

The ECU guys can't do any better at it than the carb/distributer guys at the end of the day.

Again, something that's just not true. You put a set of jets in a carb, you get one mixture profile. It's more than likely not going to be optimum over the normal rpm range, under race conditions. You can change it on the fly w/ a fancy engine mgmt. system, and optimize it over the entire rpm range. Not to mention that the ECU folks were already allowed to change the signals going to the computer.

I'll invoke Darin's logic here. If the computer is going to twiddle the ignition timing on you, you knew that going in, and might not have picked the best weapon. Or, change the resistence value from the sendor that causes the computer to twiddle the ignition timing. Also, that should have been factored in when the car was spec'd.

But this was hashed over way back when this stupid rule went into effect. But I still don't understand how someone can argue that having a variable mixture profile and ignition advance curve isn't an advantage over a car w/ a fixed mixture profile (based on the jets you use) and a fixed ignition advance curve.

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

[hornerdon]

Originally posted by Renaultfool:
...The search for the perfect combination of mixture and timing. No more, no less....

Not exactly. The folks who argue that the carb people can do the same thing are missing the important ingredient -- sensors. The carb folks can search for the perfect combination, buit it will be just one point, which will likely be valid under just one set of conditions. For example, they can try to optimize for acceleration from a corner or for top end on a straight, but they can't do both. Also, they have to perform their search for the right combination every time the conditions change -- cooler or warmer, wetter or dryer, etc. The ECU folks, on the other hand, can program to an almost limitless set of conditions, which are determined by the sensors, and which can compensate for changing conditions.

The only way to equalize the differences is to go to a completely open induction rule, like Solo Street Prepared, in which EFI can be installed on any car.

Everyone would then have a completely equal opportunity to try to wring a very tiny performance improvement from some very expensive hardware and software, given that everyone still has to run stock compression, valves, cam, head, etc. Sounds OK to me. I'd be willing to bet that $3,000 spent on a driver's school would result in a more dramatic improvement than $3,000 pent on engine management...and that (any number) of driving schools would create more improvement than (any number - 1)+ engine management.



------------------
...Don