ECU modification rules

[Geo]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
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...

Furthermore, on a number of cars you must know how to crack the code. There are only two tuners in the US that can fully crack the code for Nissan ECUs (JWT and JUN). It would be impossible to tell if the eprom were desoldered and a modified one was resoldered in place if done well.


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

[jlucas]

So if high dollar Motecs are being stuffed in anyways, what's the point of not allowing ODB2 cars to run OE ODB1 ECUs? I'd much rather spend $450 than several thousand for a fully programable unit.

[Geo]

Originally posted by jlucas:
So if high dollar Motecs are being stuffed in anyways, what's the point of not allowing ODB2 cars to run OE ODB1 ECUs? I'd much rather spend $450 than several thousand for a fully programable unit.

Nobody is saying you can't run an OBD1 ECU in an OBD2 car. You just have to wire the guts of the OBD1 ECU to the OBD2 connector and the OBD1 ECU must fit fully within the stock OBD2 ECU box.


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

[pfcs]

It's SO FRUSTRATING listening to this almost pointless discussion!
get this through your thick heads: a)most stock ECUs will not provide enough fuel for engine health (ie life) with the improved airflow caused by legal IT mods. (just ask the guy who melted down his Jetta II Digifant motor at LRP twice!)
virtually all (maybe all) ECUs can have the fueling and ignition tables re-written to tailor them to their new application by a savvy chip tuner and for all practical puposes purposes there is no way to say if either anything was done/or that the "file" is not stock as there are endless stock file permutations for different applications which most manufacturers don't know or won't share.
c) changing the fueling and ignition timing/advance curve is what tuners have always done. And yes, I haven't forgotten the latest curve in engine management, adjustable cam timing-later.
From my perspective, the current rule looks pretty sensible. I'd expect that all computer controlled apps are tuneable, it's just a question of how or by who. I spent most of last winter with a test bench, an E-Prom emulator, and some funky data acq on the street until I was able to understand how to write file to my ECU and get my fueling straightened out. My "high tech" solution to my computer controlled timing was to just bypass the ECU and run it locked up, with no advance function.
For those who can't find a way to "chip-tune", they can always try cramming an aftermarket unit into the stock ECU, or, if they just want to survive, they can raise the fuel pressure. AHA! you say-so you can run with a stock ECU and survive!! Great! I say-prove it's not stock. Like I said-I think our rules are pretty sensible. They only allow you to tune your engine in the same way tuners/racers have been doing it forever-don't be confused by the black box! As everyone must know by now, an engine is an airpump-fuel is never the limiting factor-airflow is. I don't understand how anybody can say that allowing fuel injected cars tuneability is an unfair advantage. To my thinking its a basic liberty!
Regarding variable cam timing: variable cam timing gives the ability to have a very tractable/low speed torque setting, while having agressive timing (and sometimes lift) at high speeds. In the area that is of interest to racers, those paramaters are probably maximas anyway. As long as we are unable to change them beyond the pre-exiting manufacted mechanical limits, I don,t see them having any competetive advantage other than driving in the paddock or maybe if you towed something with your racecar, which might be a good idea. phil

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
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).

And that saved people money or is a better rule HOW???

Are you suggesting it's cheaper/more proper to use the rule they have now, namely to have to use the stock case, but are allowed any gears or ratios that they can fit inside...??? For a weight penalty, of course...

Last time I checked, by the way, this class was called "IMPROVED Touring"... IT should be a step up in prep from Showroom Stock... In my opinion...

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


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

[Bill Miller]

Well Darin, I guess I'll have to break it down a bit for you. Pay attention now, I know this is complex. A rule had been implemented that allowed some very expensive technology. It essentially raised the bar for everyone. But, some people came to their senses, and realized that there was no need for that type of technology, in that category. So, they made said technology illegal.


It really has nothing to do w/ what the technology actually was. I used the sequential boxes as an example. Has nothing to do w/ the current l-p tranny rule (which I think is wrong, btw). Point is, you CAN put the genie back in the bottle. That is, provided that you have the sack to stand up and do what's best for the category.

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

[Greg Amy]

OK, boys, let's all take a breather here.

First, we have a "Crossfire" type discussion going, with two totally different debates.

Bill, I hear ya. Your (and other's) concerns are valid, in that you see a ex-post facto comp adjustment with the opening up of ECUs. You have a reasonable argument. Problem is, that's *not* the discussion at hand as I see it (I believe I may have been guilty of implying as such; not intended). Bill, you and others are arguing *IF* open ECUs should be allowed, but that's already been decided a couple of years ago. The point of this topic is the assumption that non-stock ECUs will be allowed, thus how we should do it.

Please, if we can, in order to make this a bit more manageable, take the "stock or non-stock" ECU argument to another topic? Adding in that argument is *truly* muddying the waters here.

Second, once we accept that non-stock ECUs will be allowed in Improved Touring (and we have) the issue becomes how far do we allow it to go? This is the issue at hand here.

I'm going to yet again be redundant and point out that the original intention of the current ECU rule was to allow non-stock programming of the stock components, or to allow desoldering and resoldering new PROMs and/or daughterboards, all within the stock ECU housing. Problem was, we tried to get too clever with the rules wordsmithing and someone ponied up the big bucks to install a MoTec system into the stock ECU housing using a stock ECU wiring harness. THIS IS THE BASE ISSUE AT HAND HERE!

Given this reality, the next step is to decide do we continue to allow MoTec systems to exist in IT, or do we re-word the rules to try and get it back to the original intent, that of using stock, slightly modified, and reprogrammed components?

Riddle me that, Batman, and we have a clearer picture of how to proceed forward.

(Again, Bill and The Carb People, I'm not trying to marginalize or negate your concerns, I'm simply stating the direction that the Club has chosen to go. Considering true reality, your arguments are hindsight since the club has over-ruled your position and decided to open up ECUs to some extent...)

Greg

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by GregAmy:
...we have a clearer picture of how to proceed forward.

Accepted, ...

However, if you guys can't even agree to a simple set of constraints, how are you going to get together on a set of rule wording? Those constraints, while you may not all agree with them, are real concerns that must be taken into consideration...

For example, some wish they could add extra sensors... some aftermarket units may require them (pitot tubes, air-flow sensors, whatever...)... How do you write in the limits?

The constraints I put forward were not for my own benefit, they are real concerns that have to be considered in these matters. The ITAC/CRB can't just be concerned with what Bill thinks is "good for the class"... There ARE others out there to consider...

I agree that it's time to stop arguing about this and get to work. If a change is to be made... What wording would you guys propose to get something in place that would make everyone happy... (OK, I'll ease up on you a bit... how about make "most" people happy... )

Where are you going to draw the line and, more importantly, HOW are you going to draw it?

You think it's easy, and it's very easy for you all to point to past rules makers as "incompetent", or otherwise lacking the "gray matter" to do it right, but I doubt that's the case... Something tells me that many of them were just trying to do the best they could to do it right... Then, I imagine Bill Clinton came along and made everyone question what "it" meant, and the whole deal went to hell in a handbasket...

Write us a rule guys...



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

[planet6racing]

Just to re-iterate:

Someone, anyone, show me the results that prove that opening the ECU rule upset the balance in IT. Anyone. Please. Show me.

Until then, are we just complaining that some people are spending more than others? Heck, even if you do make me go back to stock, that's not going to stop me from doing lab work on my car to determine if the factory spoilers (2 options aside from none) will have a positive effect on cornering speed at the higher speed tracks.

Point is, people are always going to spend money to go faster. Whether it's on the ECU or in the wind tunnel, if there's a perceived benefit, it will be tried and money will be spent. If you choose not to spend the money in that area, that's fine. Everyone (and I do mean everyone) can have their ECU reprogrammed, gain access to wind tunnel testing and data, etc. It's just all about the money. Sure, some cars will eat more money than others (Saturn's have nearly 0 aftermarket support and no aftermarket ECU tuners), some cars go faster than others. If you want a spec class, go to Wreck Pinata or to Wreck Racer Ford. But, I'm willing to bet, even there some people will spend money to test new things...

Is it just me, or does this arguement always seem to come up in the off-season? And I'm still lost as to why a Production racer has such interest in the IT rules...

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

[This message has been edited by planet6racing (edited November 01, 2004).]

[apr67]

The SCCA is not able to tell if a throttle body is stock, so maybe we should allow everyone to do anything they want in induction.

It is stupid to open something up because it is unenforceable. The ability to enforce something is directly tied to your interest in enforcing it. Their may be cases where some FI computer mods would not be detectable, for the most part it would be.

The Programing on an OBD1 or OBD2 is downloadable, and has checksums. The older computers generaly would require a chip change, or a resoder. Either still is detectable because it still is software and the manufacture knows what versions they have made.

Cams are equally undetectable. The fellow on line building the Jensen Healy. As long as his cam doesn't say "Crane Cams" on it, how is anyone going to be able to say it is not stock?

Showroom stock has be a national class with years of 'whop de do' National Champions, and the entire time they have had an unenforceable engine rule. Sunbelt didn't build motors for Spec Miata, they built them for Showroom Stock and just found a new market.

Stop the BS and write real rules.

[This message has been edited by apr67 (edited November 01, 2004).]

[jlucas]

Originally posted by Geo:
Nobody is saying you can't run an OBD1 ECU in an OBD2 car. You just have to wire the guts of the OBD1 ECU to the OBD2 connector and the OBD1 ECU must fit fully within the stock OBD2 ECU box.

I understand that, but that is a much more expensive route for no difference in end results (see my previous post). The $450 route is just connect the ODB1 ECU but it's about 50% bigger in size than the OBD2 and currently not legal.

Jeremy
Team Honda Research

[jlucas]

Originally posted by apr67:
The Programing on an OBD1 or OBD2 is downloadable, and has checksums. The older computers generaly would require a chip change, or a resoder. Either still is detectable because it still is software and the manufacture knows what versions they have made.

Checksums.. yes they exist, but did you know you can also program a specific checksum value to be displayed no matter what the real checksum is? You can according to Hondata. Especially with ODB2 cars, the programming changes every year. Even at the manufacturer it's hard to know what originally came on the car, most often just the most current (think supercede) program that is listed. I spent quite a bit of time this year trying to find a way to ensure Showroom Stock ECU legality (at least from Honda perspective). In the end, there was nothing feasible.



------------------
Jeremy Lucas
Team Honda Research
Kumho - Cobalt - Comptech

[Ron Earp]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Cams are equally undetectable. The fellow on line building the Jensen Healy. As long as his cam doesn't say \"Crane Cams\" on it, how is anyone going to be able to say it is not stock?</font>

That is me. It'll be stock, trust me. Why? Because Crane, nor anyone else, made aftermarket cams for a JH. Got no choice.

But, it is a good point. A Tbody is about as easy as it gets for checking an engine part but it went right through the protest and tech. Doesn't make a lot of sense, if we can't detect that then we've got little chance of anything else.

Ron

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

[Bill Miller]

Greg,

I hear what you're saying.

Bill (our Saturn racer),

I'm interested in IT because that's where I started. I think it's a great category, and I enjoyed participating in it. I went to Prod because that's where the friends that I paddock w/ race, and I wanted to race w/ them. Unfortunately, I can only afford (barely at that) one car. I also know a fair amount about VWs. But don't worry, Darin has taken much better shots at me than that.

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

[erlrich]

Just curious (and pondering Darin's comments), about how many (or what %) of IT cars are able to take advantage of the ECU rule (and I'm talking about cars people are actually building and racing)? Are we talking about a majority of the cars, or just a very few? And of those, what options are available, i.e. how many companies are doing ECU mods, and what exactly are they doing? I'm just wondering if all this stink is being generated over a handfull of cars, or is this a more systemic problem.

Earl

[Geo]

One of the very real problems here is nobody really knows the full scope of this issue. Most people at best may know about the options available for their own car and maybe something else. But what works for one doesn't work for another. What's cheap for one isn't cheap for another.

It's been said dealers can tell if an ECU has been changed. Certainly not always. Only the very best of Nissan techs can even tell something is different with a JWT ECU and they have to be a very sharp tech. I'm sure similar things are true for other cars. OBD1 vs OBD2 are issues for some cars and not for others. For some cars the only realistic option is some aftermarket ECU installed in the stock box. Cost of this? All over the place.

And where do we quit if we open things up? At what point to you just say "go to Production?" Personally I'm totally against any modification to the stock wiring harness except for the addition of the resistor rule we've had for ages. I don't even thing parallel wiring fixes to the wiring harness should be allowed because that opens up the category to custom-made harness being used. That's certainly what I would do.

One last comment about the Motec. Yes it's great for being able to tune the maps yourself. But if you are constricted to the stock wiring harness, there is nothing that can be done with a Motec that cannot be done by reprogramming a stock chip. Motecs do not warp space and do not break the laws of physics. Given a finite set of sensors, they have the same input to work with as the stock ECU and effectively the same set of maps. The only real advantage for some is the ability to program it yourself and even this exists for a number of cars.


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

[apr67]

Originally posted by jlucas:
Checksums.. yes they exist, but did you know you can also program a specific checksum value to be displayed no matter what the real checksum is? You can according to Hondata.

If that is the case, it is not really a checksum. A checksum is "A value that is computed and that depends on the contents of a set of data.". It generally is the SUM of all the bits in a program.

Yes, you could create a program that has the same checksum as the stock one. Might not be easy. Especially if you don't know how the checksum is calculated.

[apr67]

Originally posted by rlearp:
That is me. It'll be stock, trust me. Why? Because Crane, nor anyone else, made aftermarket cams for a JH. Got no choice.

Ron, do you have a stock cam? A bunch of places will weld it up and re-grind it however you want.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by apr67:
Ron, do you have a stock cam? A bunch of places will weld it up and re-grind it however you want.

Yep, mine are stock. I didn't even think about the re-grinds as I need to use the stock ones anyhow. Good to remember in case these somehow go bad though.
Ron



------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

[stevel]

i think allowing open ecu's and wiring changes is just going to cause more problems. Like mentioned people with older cars that didn't have the sensors necessary stock are now going to argue while the rules allow them motec now, they still can't do it because they can't add a crank angle sensor any feasible way or whatever other sensor they need. Where do you stop? Allow them to do whatever they need to do to install motec? I think the rule should just stay as it is.

Going back to a stock rule is pretty much completely unenforceable. How do you police that? Like mentioned, companies are writing ecu software that can't be detected by the dealer. If the dealer techs can't detect it now how are you going to expect them to be the ones to tell you if it's been hacked or not when someone gets protested? Like mentioned, if a throttle body can't be determined for legality (i don't understand how they couldn't check the size with a set of vernier calipers but that's another discussion) then good luck enforcing this. I think it's unreasonable, especially at a regional level.

If you're running lean from headers and the like, raise your fuel pressure and play with timing on the dyno. If that's all you got, oh well. You made the choice to run that car, no one told you you had to. That's pretty much what the carb'd guys are limited to, deal with it. Like mentioned in the GCR, Competitiveness of any make/model is not promised. You have to live with your choice.

I say leave the rule as is. I think it'll be impossible not to open up a different can of worms, especially for future technology we don't know about or can't plan for right now.

s