ECU modification rules

[Bill Miller]

You know, after reading Jake's protest story, I wonder why they even bothered w/ the open ECU rule. They should have just left them alone and let people protest them. The would have looked at something stamped "MoTec" and said "looks stock". :roll:

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

[dickita15]

let me ask some questions as my racing background is with low tech cars, computers are in tow vehicles only.
I understand that right now people are stuffing motec units inside stock cases. am i right that motec is pretty well state of the art and the rule just make you do a work around. if the stock case/wiring rule was opened up, could you do more or just do it easier.
dick

[jhooten]

To make it fair for all themembers of the class how about were change the rules to make the FI cars rip it all out and install carbs? That would make it all more fair. Then every body would have the same handicaps.

[planet6racing]

Didn't we go over all of this already? Wasn't it like the first 15,000,000 post thread on the IT site? Didn't we finally just agree not to agree?

FWIW, go ahead and require me to keep the factory guts in my ECU box. It's still big enough to fit a Motec unit in there!

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

[gran racing]

Dick, this is my point! NOT do more just easier and less costly.

What I'm talking about is allowing the already legal modifications to the ECU to be made outside of the box / plug something into the harness. I am not talking items that are not already possible and legal to manipulate.

The main thing here is that currently these are legal to modify, but depending on the car it can be quite costly. If it would be very simple to make it less costly and not increase what could currently be manipulated, why not?

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

[gran racing]

Maybe Bill, but I saw something related to modifying the ECU harness in the latest FasTrack. What I want to know is why (actual facts) the ECU should not be allowed to be modified outside the box with what can already be done now legally inside the box (just more expensively).

It was not intended to debate the decision way back when to make ECU modifications legal. From my memory and searches, this what that thread discussed.

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

[stevel]

Originally posted by Scooter:
People! You're killing me. Free fuel and electronic systems? How is that fitting with the class philosophy? What's next, free transmissions so everyone can run a 5-speed?

The only way we "level the playing field" in IT is by weight. Not by allowing everyone to run more and more non-stock pieces. If you need to run a car that allows more modifications, there are classes for that. We're the "just off the street" class.

Again, STOCK IS CHEAP. Keep it stock. If people want to solder new chips onto their motherboard, then that's how it goes. We can't fix that. (At worst, someone custom-burns a chip for their car, and it's still not nearly as expensive as a MoTec setup.) We CAN and should fix the programmable fuel-injection issue.

the problem is some cars (due to design, aftermarket and/or demand) can run a completely tunable injection system inside a stock ecu and some are rather cheap. Others cannot inside the current rules at all or it is very expensive. That's where the difference lies. If you happen to have a car that is old or just wasn't a hot car with the aftermarket companies you may not have any alternative or it will cost you a ton. Whereas the OBD1 hondas and BMW's have fully tunable ignition and fuel maps as well as other options like multi stage rev limiters, traction control, etc all within the stock ecu and can be done fairly cheap. So, that's the problem. Inside the current rules it's easy and cheap for some, and expensive or not possible for others.

I don't know what else to propose. I think allowing more is opening up a can of worms and will just add more and more cost, especially as newer cars get classed in the coming years. It's a tough call, but like is said in the GCR, there is no guarantee of competitiveness of a certain model, people forget that.

Originally posted by Scooter:
This is clearly not a rule that came out as intended, much like the threaded-body shock rule. They fixed that, they can fix this.

That's probably a bad example to your argument. They "fixed" the rule by allowing threaded shock bodies (at least last I saw they did).

s

[This message has been edited by stevel (edited October 29, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by stevel (edited October 29, 2004).]

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by dickita15:
...if the stock case/wiring rule was opened up, could you do more or just do it easier.

Dick, in my opinion the MoTec stuff is state-of-the-art in engine management right now (it's what the pros are currently using). If we accept the fact that MoTec is right now being stuffed into stock ECU housings using stock unmodified wiring harnesses, then I see opening up the rules as allowing the current state-of-the-art to be done easier and "less" expensively (certainly not "inexpensively").

In addition, opening up the rules would allow the middle-level and less-costly technology, such as Unichip (http://www.dastek.co.za/), to be applied at a lesser cost than the high-tech stuff like MoTec. Those that want to (or are currently) spending the big bucks can do so at a lower development cost, those that want the lesser-expensive street solution can do so legally, and those that don't want to spend the money, well, don't have to.

I just don't see how it can get more expensive - and more capable - than developing an in-the-box MoTec system. However, because we are such an innovative group I certainly cannot consider all possibilities, but if we just opened up the rule to allow mods outside the box and allow wiring harness mods, it would do is open up that existing technology to more people, such as those that cannot find someone to develop and manufacture an "in the box" solution.

The only realistic alternative is to put the genie back in the bottle and try to police stock ECUs.

GregA

[Knestis]

Actually, the threded-body shock rule is a great case study, from which we can learn...

** First, we were allowed aftermarket shocks and struts - the state of the art units used stock-diameter springs (c. 1983).

** Someone decided - rightly - that it was easier and cheaper to use common 2.25 or 2.5" "racing" springs but the only companies that would make struts/shocks for to allow their use on stock-bodied cars were very expensive.

** These spendy units were made illegal by defining a diagnostic characteristic - threaded bodies - that they all shared.

** People quickly found a work-around and put threaded sleeves over shocks/struts that don't have them, adhering to the rules. Some of these units are as expensive - or MORE expensive - than the evil that the rule was intended to avoid. Note here that what was intended to be a cost-saving rule did NOT have that effect, because it COULD not.

** Time passes

** The aftermarket catches up with "racing" technology and the market is flooded with "true" coilover shocks and struts for popular chassis options. Economies of scale make "racing" springs and threaded dampers more and more affordable - I just bought a pair of 600# springs for $50, at the track, from a guy racing a different kind of car from mine. If this were 1983, I would have had to have gotten them custom wound, to the tune of $4-500 bucks a pair.

** The rulesmakers recognized - belatedly - that the rule intended to SAVE money was actually making it MORE expensive to race, and changed the rule to eliminate the necessity to monkey around with sleeves.

I'll say it again. At the end of the day, there is NO way to control costs indirectly and actively with restrictive rules.

If Bob Bigbucks can afford a Motec, he can afford to spend that same money optimizing his engine management by other means. If you take away the afffordable options - the OTS piggyback units, parts from other cars, etc. - the ONLY guy who can tweak is Bob.

If the issue is that older (aka carb'd) cars can't compete, that's a function of the classification and specification process, that can be addressed through PCAs.

K

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by gran racing:
If it would be very simple to make it less costly and not increase what could currently be manipulated, why not?

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.

While it may make it easier for us to raise the performance level of our cars, there is the possibility that it will do nothing to close the gap between us and those with more resources.

I am all for rules that make it cheaper to compete, however Bob Bigbucks just used the money he saved on his MoTec for new tires every race, more testing, more entries, fresher motor, better final drive, etc.

We need rules that yield diminishing returns: Lot more expensive to go a tiny bit faster. This can narrow the gap on the track between the guys with money and those without. Hopefully enough so that tallent will make up the difference.

How would you propose the rule be written?



[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited October 29, 2004).]

[Renaultfool]

Some thoughts.
1. Improved Touring is not Showroom Stock and we should not try and make it that. The name alone suggests that changes are expected. Otherwise just open Showroom Stock up to unlimited years and run them. Windshield washer bottles and horns etc. are not performance items that we should be concerned with in IT. I cannot ever remember being beat by a bottle or horn. (Yes, mine are still there, but I think that it is stupid.)
2. I would think that Improved Touring should be parallel to what the import street modifiers are doing now. Not too many are modifing the older cars anymore.
3. It would help all IT racers if the rules would allow modifications that would make it cheaper and safer for all of us. Remember number 1.
4. VVT is all in at race speeds so the variable part is a moot point. The cam is fixed timing at whatever lift and duration it is at high rpms. No one would set their computer to lower the lift and timing for racing. At race speeds, vvt doesn't matter, you are not using it anyway.
5. Timing and mixture is variable on older cars as well as the computer cars. Weber carbs can be adjusted for proper mixture at all rpm ranges using the four different mixture adjusting circuits built into them.
6. An engine is an air pump whose effeciency is tied to the volume of air that can be pumped through the intake and exhaust ports. Intakes, valves, and cams are left stock according to IT rules, so the only thing that ignition timing and mixture will do is let the engine operate effeciently within those limitations. There is no power boost (above 100%) to be gained with timing and mixture, only the ability to maximize the specific engines power (up to 100%) given the limitations of the stock engine air flow componants.
7. Let's finaly let the rumor die that modifying your ECU is equal to a turbo. Spending a lot of money might get your ECU car up to where the carb guys can get with simple factory available adjustments, effeciency wise, but it is a longer, more complicated, trip.
8. Modern engines with the ECUs would still kick butt on the older engine designs if we converted all of them to carbs and standard ignition because the new engine's internal design is more effecient with multiple valves, higher compression, more powerful cam timing. They are just better air pumps.

Sorry guys, park your MGs, their day is passed. If you enjoy them, fine, run them, just don't expect them to keep up with a modern car design.

[bldn10]

"What I want to know is why (actual facts) the ECU should not be allowed to be modified outside the box with what can already be done now legally inside the box (just more expensively)."

I think you answered your own question. The original intent was to allow after-market chips, re-programming, etc. - I cannot fathom why the words "or replace" were included because that has opened up a whole new can of worms. Like someone pointed out, if you take the next step of rules creep and allow the harness connectors to be changed, you might as well say that engine management is unrestricted. Everyone will have to have one to be competitive. I firmly believe that it is not too late to roll back the rule and delete "or replace" from it, and that we should do it. It is not too difficult to open the box and check if the OEM ECU is in there, even if highly modified.

[Scooter]

Originally posted by bldn10:
I firmly believe that it is not too late to roll back the rule and delete "or replace" from it, and that we should do it. It is not too difficult to open the box and check if the OEM ECU is in there, even if highly modified.

Can I get an "Amen?"

I don't want to be forever known as "the hole guy" but again, you could put a hole in the cover of the ECU box so you wouldn't even have to open it up. It's just a dust cover.

Stocker is cheaper.

[gran racing]

Amen.

Believe me, I'm all for rules only allowing a stock ECU as long as it can be policed effectively. I am not convinced it can be, but in theory that would be the best solution.

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

[Knestis]

Since I'm not at all sure that the last few posters were all agreeing to the same thing, can I check? Which rule is closest to what you were supporting:

1. All of the hardware in the boxes that control engine function must be original, AND the programming must be as stock

2. All of the hardware in the boxes must be original, BUT the programming may be altered

3. The boxes and all of the hardware must be stock EXCEPT for the integrated circuits that store the programming, which may be replaced with different hardware to facilitate said reprogramming

4. Something else?

K

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Since I'm not at all sure that the last few posters were all agreeing to the same thing, can I check? Which rule is closest to what you were supporting:

1. All of the hardware in the boxes that control engine function must be original, AND the programming must be as stock

2. All of the hardware in the boxes must be original, BUT the programming may be altered

3. The boxes and all of the hardware must be stock EXCEPT for the integrated circuits that store the programming, which may be replaced with different hardware to facilitate said reprogramming

4. Something else?

K

Door number 3 Kirk.

If the FIA cannot police programming, don't expect the SCCA to do so in an amateur series. However, it's easy enough to verify the stock board is there and connected to the wiring harness connector in the stock fashion. Allow chip replacement and daughterboards (or something similar if necessary) to facilitate chip replacement for those cars where it's not feasible in the stock ECU.



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

[planet6racing]

You're kidding me, right? Did you guys read the Protest Story?

Checking to make sure the stock internals are in there? Who is going to know? That's not covered in the FSM's as the assembly is what is sold and replaced, not what is inside the box.

While we're at it, let's make Dunlop Sport A2's the spec tire because everything else costs too much. No matter what you do, there is always going to be someone spending more money than you to go faster than you and they probably will. Accept it.

{on edit} My apologies to the thread starter. I'm all for allowing the add on computers. But, this fell into the standard "Open ECU's upset the balance in IT" argument. In the other thread that happened, I asked a question and I'll ask it again: Someone, anyone, prove to me that, by opening the ECU rules, it changed who was running up front.

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

[This message has been edited by planet6racing (edited October 29, 2004).]

[SPiFF]

Originally posted by Renaultfool:
Some thoughts.
1. Improved Touring is not Showroom Stock and we should not try and make it that. The name alone suggests that changes are expected. Otherwise just open Showroom Stock up to unlimited years and run them. Windshield washer bottles and horns etc. are not performance items that we should be concerned with in IT. I cannot ever remember being beat by a bottle or horn. (Yes, mine are still there, but I think that it is stupid.)
2. I would think that Improved Touring should be parallel to what the import street modifiers are doing now. Not too many are modifing the older cars anymore.
.
.
.
Sorry guys, park your MGs, their day is passed. If you enjoy them, fine, run them, just don't expect them to keep up with a modern car design.

Oh my God! Now you have gone and said it! The obscenity! Some people like this whole Improved Vintage thing they got going on.

gran racing, I hear what you are saying. Some people will have a harder time because off the self solutions may not be available for all cars for a quick, cheap few HP gain. My setup is illegal as is because I am using a $75 OBD2 to OBD1 conversion harness to run a stock ECU instead of tossing a bunch of money at an ODB1 Hondata which plugs into my OBD2 harness. Soon will be fixed with a little application of $$$.

In the long run though, the open ECU rule is for the better. People will always find ways to spend cubic dollars on their car. The more restrictive the rules are, higher cost per HP there is.

Stock ECUs will be impossible to police. Referencing the protest thread and replace piston with ECU. At least with a piston you can look and see if it is different then the stock part from a dealer. Can’t easily do that with software.

More and more cars will have a bunch of stuff in the ECU. There will come a time when disabling certain parts of the stock ECU program will be the only way to prepare a car.



------------------
Zsolt - #18 H3 GSR
http://www.SouthEastHondaChallenge.com

[This message has been edited by SPiFF (edited October 29, 2004).]

[oanglade]

When tech won't look at a diff to see if it has been modified because the FSM doesn't show pictures or any specs beyond ratio and type, what are they going to do with an ECU?

Either make it all stock or make it open.

------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA

[Geo]

Originally posted by oanglade:
When tech won't look at a diff to see if it has been modified because the FSM doesn't show pictures or any specs beyond ratio and type, what are they going to do with an ECU?

Either make it all stock or make it open.

Hold the phone. How can you say stock when you are already implying tech cannot police it?


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