ECU modification rules

[ChrisCamadella]

I'd like to put in my $0.02 on this one...

#1 I'm not exactly sure that you're right on the fact that the original 'intent' of the rule was to allow only rechipping and/or remapping using largely the same computer that came stock. I'm not actually sure at this point that the folks that made the rule all agreed on the intent, and it was certainly never stated in the rule.

I actually believe, having spoken with some CRB members, that the ACTUAL intent of the rule was to make it easy to enforce the rule - with so much gray area around what a legal modification was, it got to the point where it was basically impossible to enforce any rule outside of the rule that's currently in place without tracing every single circuit inside the box.

#2. This whole thing about allowing alternate ECU's is mostly irrelevant. Both the MoTeC system and the stock system work very similarly, and either one can be reprogrammed, although reprogramming the stock system takes a fair amount more work (and yes, possibly expense, to do it right) because the documentation of the maps and their locations is not nicely documented as it is with the MoTeC system. At the end of the day, the engine is an air pump. Unless you make it pump a larger mass of air, or compress the air more, or somehow else make the engine have more volumetric efficiency, all the FI system can do (and does) is to optimize the fuel delivery and ignition timing for each set of parameter values (e.g., each combination of air flow, throttle position, engine RPM, and various other parameters, most of which are simply 'correction factors').

Contrary to popular belief, there are very few hp to be gained through the use of a MoTeC system over the stock system, assuming that you can learn about and change every single mapping value in the stock system, which I admit is a pretty big 'IF', but is certainly doable with enough time and money. All that the MoTeC system does is to make it easier.

#3. I am in complete agreement with Darin that it isn't right to negate some competitors current investments in parts and systems for their cars. A good example of this one already happened with respect to the shock rules - we were going to make it 'cheaper' by limiting the number of adjustments and by taking away the remote reservoir shocks that were previously legal.

Now while that may have saved SOME competitors SOME money by ensuring that they did not spend big bucks on shocks, it turns out that you can spend nearly as much money on double-adjustable non-remote-reservoir shocks, and all that we really did is make it so that those folks that spent $1000 each on some nice shocks went ahead and replaced them with some other nice shocks that cost $800 each, and therefore the rule cost those competitors $3,200 each.

Likewise, if we limit the rule to the stock FI box guts with 'chip changes' (whatever that means), you will not be able to prevent a well-heeled competitor from spending money to have custom made 'chips' that effectively imitate the MoTeC box in its entirety. Since I'm not a lawyer, but a software engineer, I know that's very possible to do - it's just more expensive.

OK, I guess I got a little more than two cent's worth...

Cheers,

Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944S

I just realized that I basically completely agreed with a post by Kirk way back at the beginning of this topic. I don't know what I think about that :-)

[This message has been edited by ChrisCamadella (edited November 03, 2004).]

[Greg Amy]

BillD, I think given the IIDSYCTYC, since the "replace" appears in the "a" section, it's allowed. In reading the two, I think "s" should be stricken, as "a" is more descriptive. the only concern I have is the "fuel injected engines" part; should that apply to all vehicles?

George, I'll write an email to the Comp Board in regards to the rules clarification. I'm also considering a separate email to offer adjustments in the rules format without change in content.

Actually, BillM, just to clarify, I personally support the altering of ECUs.

In general, I tend to support any modification in Improved Touring that parallels what a kid could do in his driveway with parts obtained from an ad in the back of Sports Compact Car (for example.) That also means that I tend to support some fluidity in the regs going forward as the technology filters down to the street, and I also support some fluidity in allowing newer vehicles into IT that may displace older cars. I support evolutionary change not revolutionary.

I do not support action that is designed primarily to "protect" someone's "investment" in what they've done to date, such as protecting older cars and/or fixing mistakes. Motorsports is a fluid environment and change is inevitable and I accept that. I counsel anyone that gets heartburn over THIS should seek a defined and rigid spec class.

GA

[ChrisCamadella]

Originally posted by Geo:
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.

And my point is that Bob Bigbucks (is that his name?) will build a custom 'daughterboard' (which I construe is an additional board that has a cable that plugs into the slot where the old EEPROM was) that effectively emulates the MoTeC system, and will have the same (probably somewhat imagined) go-fast effect.

This is particularly easy on the BMW's (and, I suspect, other new cars), since they have lots of processing power in even the stock CPU.

Cheers,

Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944S

[spnkzss]

All of these people using th Motec systems did not change the existing wiring. If that's the case then they are not doing anything different than anyone can with a "stock" ECU. In the case that a computer is not "easily/cheaply" modified, then neither is the motec. The computer can only control as much as wired into it. The Motec just allows you to connect your own laptop into the car and change your maps yourself instead of sending out or rechipping.

I don't quite understand (maybe I'm missing something) how it would hurt anyone to allow an open ECU rule AS LONG as the stock wiring harness is used and no additional sensors permitted. All of the people running carbs say that it is an unfair advantage. If that is true than its been unfair since the orginal rule was written. Even if the rule was written as some of you think it was intended (rechip for fuel maps etc).

Can someone explain to me what the difference is between a third party ECU and a stock ECU if the wiring where to remain the same, no additional sensors where added? The only thing I see is the ability to remap the computer at the track, which the carb guys can already do with jets.

[gran racing]

Chris,
From my conversations with MoTeC and what is allowed with the current IT rules, you are correct that it will only generate a few HP. But from what they have said, the gains are really in the torque numbers and would be evident on the track.

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

[stevel]

Originally posted by gran racing:

But from what they have said, the gains are really in the torque numbers and would be evident on the track.

Bingo!! And not necessarily in just the torque numbers either. What a lot of people focus on are peak dyno numbers, which tell very little of the story. If you've tuned cars you'll realize that. While you may *only* gain 5 peak whp, sometimes you've fattened up the midrange anywhere fromm 10-20hp even more (depending on the motor of course, probably not that much in a typical ITA motor). That's where the performance advantage lies. Don't be looking at peak numbers, that's the wrong thing to focus on. It's the area under the curve, which most IT cars will benefit from. When you show the exact same dyno numbers as average joe but he pulls away from you on corner exit like you're parked, you'll wish you had a motec too.

To give an example, a typical honda ITA car can be fully tuned. The aftermarket support is there that you have your choice of map editors which allow you to change ignition timing and fuel delivery at pretty much every rpm you need to in addition to some other settings. In the d16z6 series of motors (which were just classed for '05) you may see only a peak gain of 3 whp, you could possibly fatten up the 4000-6000rpm range by 4-6whp and torque by a similar number. That may not sound like much but when the motor only put 120 or so hp to the wheels, it makes a difference. I wouldn't be surprised if you could get a 7 whp increase in the midrange. It really brings the middle of the dyno plot up quite a bit. And right now this is all legal within the current rules. And the tuning really benefits these motors, moreso I think than the previous gen of the d16a6 motors which are doing quite well in ITA.

And to the person you had mentioned you could put all the motec functionality into a *chip*, that kind of development isn't going to get done in an IT car. The advantage of Motec is that you can change your mapping quickly. I doubt you're going to find people pulling out there chip burner and laptop and changing the hex value at adress 0xFFBC to get more fuel in that range. It's extrememly hard to do and is a bad example. I just don't see it happening.

So, the gains are there. As with most everything else in racing it comes with a cost. And for some cars the cost is low and the gains are noticable in lap times, for others the cost is high and might not get them much. But gains are there to take advantage of. If you think they're not, you haven't been at the dyno enough to see them first hand.

s



[This message has been edited by stevel (edited November 03, 2004).]

[stevel]

.

[This message has been edited by stevel (edited November 03, 2004).]

[stevel]

To add to this for the guys that want to use Unichip or something similar which sounds like a one chip solve all solution, but you can't under the current rules due to wiring or the such, you're really not gonna make out if they change the rules and open them up. I don't really believe all that much can be gained from a "one chip" solves all solution. You need to go to the dyno and tune it there. You need to change fuel and timing advance to across the rpm range to make a difference. A *chip* with pre determined maps will do very little for you, and sometimes if they're written by the wrong people or the chip isn't really for your application (which happens a lot) you could actually lose power. The guys with the fully tunable systems are the ones with the real advantage.

I don't really have a side on this issue, I just wanted to put out some more info so people really know how much of a difference fully tunable engine management makes.

s

[This message has been edited by stevel (edited November 03, 2004).]

[gran racing]

But Steve, the Unichip is tuned on a dyno. So it would be tuned for the engine's abilities / way it was built.

I'd love to find some solution for my car other then MoTeC at the associated costs.

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

[ITANorm]

For those of us with the K-Jetronic handicap, I've come up with a concept of "Fuel pressure regulator in a box". Since FPR's and pumps are free . . ..

[Knestis]

Originally posted by ChrisCamadella:
... I just realized that I basically completely agreed with a post by Kirk way back at the beginning of this topic. I don't know what I think about that ...

Ooch. Sorry about that, dude. I know it must be painful.

Originally posted by stevel:
... And to the person you had mentioned you could put all the motec functionality into a *chip*, that kind of development isn't going to get done in an IT car. ...

BZZZZZT. Wrong answer - sorry. There was a point at which someone said, "Nobody would go to the cost and effort to disassemble a perfectly good Motec system, just so they could poke it into a stock ECU housing."

Someone WILL, as long as there is a competitive benefit - real or perceived - to doing so, and they have exhausted all other ways to spend their go-faster money.

K

[John Herman]

Greg, I like the wording for the "rules" you came up with. Its interesting that I requested #3 a few months ago as I was trying to decode my computer. But, got quickly shot down. It would be nice to have a simple stand alone computer that has "factory" support and can answer your questions for you. I think it will only be a matter of time before membership pressure makes it a reality. After all, that's where PCA's came from.

[Eric Parham]

I would propose the following amended language:

GCR (ITCS) 17.1.4.D.1.s: "Engine management computers, including fuel injection and ignition computers and/or electronics, may be added, removed, altered or replaced with any computer or electronics for controlling fuel injection and ignition. Wiring changes are permitted. If any aspect of variable valve timing, overlap or lift was electronically controlled before the addition, alteration or replacement of a computer, such variable valve timing, overlap and lift must be mechanically fixed at a set of values simultaneously attainable with a stock, unmodified computer."


My logic:

My current IT car has CIS, so there's no point to playing with the fuel "computer". But, my new project has EFI just like about every other car sold in the past 10 years. From playing with street cars, I know that it's hard to really self-tune these newer cars with the factory components. Let's face it: OBD2 (since 1996) was *designed* to prevent "tampering".

Sure, it's easy to buy a chip or 10 (only a few hundred $$$ each, right?) and throw them at the car, but I, for one, don't want to rely on someone else's hocus-pocus to tune *my* car. That is, I really don't want to be at the mercy of the chip tuners -- I want to do it myself. Plus, I'd really like to be able to do it at the track rather than guess what's wrong and send it (the computer and/or chip) back and forth in the mail.

I think that IT has always been a "tuners" class, but the current ECU rules have effectively legislated that out (at least on my budget). Opening the rule to allow *any* fuel and ignition control modifications so that we can actually tune the cars ourselves in a more affordable manner would be a step in the right direction. Remove the contrived restrictions and the more universally applicable knowledge will fall into place, IMHO.

I’ve addressed the variable valve timing/overlap/lift issue in what I believe is an equitable manner, consistent with class philosophy, in such a way that a meaningful rule can still be enforced without obsolescing anyone’s investment.

What do you think?

[jlucas]

Can you "mechanically fix" a variable valve timing motor(VVTi,iVTEC, or VANOS motor)? I don't think so.
Also, those motors never run a single setting, so how would you even determine what value to set it at?

[Banzai240]

I'm going to break with my own list of criteria and suggest that IT should simply do the following.

From TCS 17.1.8.D.1.i.2 (Touring Car Specifications page 11 - 2004 GCR)
The engine management computer or ECU may be altered provided that all modifications are done within the original housing.

There, now IT and Touring share the same ECU rules. I'd do away with the extraneous ECU wording, and the extra section mentioning the ECU, and then be done with it. Additionally, I'd add back in the wording concerning the wiring that allowed a variance in the resistance values of the sensors feeding the ECU, as it existed in 2002, but was dropped in the 2003 revision that opened the door.

At least this way the SCCA would be consistant among the Touring/Improved Touring classes as they exist today.

Save the high-end and highly modified pieces for the new "Club Challenge", or whatever they are going to call the classes presently being worked on, currently referred to as "D-Production"...

So, essentially, this would get rid of the Motec, or other stand-alone allowances inside the stock case ("replace" has been removed), but still allows for modifications.

Some will benefit, others not so much, and the difference can hopefully be worked out at the time of classification, or with PCA adjustments, should this be required.

Not a perfect solution, but certainly one that closes the door a little, while still allowing some flexibility, and not making a Motec a requirement to be competitive...

Face it guys, there is no "perfect" solution, unless the one in place happens to favor your car of choice...

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


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited November 05, 2004).]

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
So, essentially, this would get rid of the Motec, or other stand-alone allowances inside the stock case ("replace" has been removed), but still allows for modifications.

Darin, appreciate your continued efforts. How does this language keep someone from altering/modifiying a stock ECU by bonding a fully functional motec unit to a gutted IC board of the stock ECU and calling the stock ECU "altered" or "modified"?

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Quickshoe:
How does this language keep someone from altering/modifiying a stock ECU by bonding a fully functional motec unit to a gutted IC board of the stock ECU and calling the stock ECU "altered" or "modified"?

It doesn't, but it's consistent with the Touring car rules, and they seem to work fine.

In my opinion, this is kind of like the Presidential race... you are going to have to pick the better of two poor choices... If modifications are to be allowed at all, then there is nothing that is going to stop someone with the means from doing whatever they need to do to make the ECU they want. We can try to spell out every possibility, and try to write out every loophole, but for every word we add to the rule, we write in another possible grey area.

The way techology is today, I can take a single chip, and create an entire ECU brain and memory in a single package, fuse it to the existing pinouts on the stock ECU board, and off we go.

We've established pretty clearly that requiring stock isn't really an option, for various reasons, and that allowing an all-out solution isn't an option either. There are some things that can't be perfected, and I think this is one of them. Remove the word "replace", bring this rule in line with existing Touring car rules, and then at least we are being consistant across classes.

While I can see the argument for allowing "any" ECU (perhaps requiring that the stock wiring/harness/connector stay intact, but any ECU that can be plugged into the stock harness is allowed), I just think it's swinging the door way too far open. AND, I don't think it would be "cheaper", as many would suggest, because I think it would REQUIRE that everyone go out and buy a Motec to stay up to speed...

Maybe that's what they have to do anyway, but if not everyone has the option, perhaps that limits the overall amount having to be spent...

Thoughts???



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

[Knestis]

I understand the upsides of Darin's suggestion and agree that there is a heck of a lot of logic behind aligning the T and IT rules.

However, history would remind us that the birth of the current GT rules paradigm can be traced back to the day (c.1977) when an SCCA tech inspector agreed - passively or actively - with a clever racer who decided that "modify or reinforce" meant that he could modify a suspension arm completely away, and reinforce the remainig air with a tubular structure.

I'd submit that if Darin is willing to set free the confounding criterion that existing Motec-like systems be included in a new rule AND that the consensus is that we require (a) that the OE harness be unmodified, and ( that only stock system inputs be used, then we are back to an obvious winner - Greg's second option:

GCR (ITCS) 17.1.4.D.1.s: Reprograming of the stock engine management computer or ECU is allowed. In those vehicles where the stock chip(s) are not reprogrammable, replacement of those chip(s) with programmable ones and/or chip sockets is allowed, as is the addition of daughterboards within the stock ECU housing. Note that the intent of this rule is change only the mapping or, if necessary, change only the chip(s) necessary to make it possible to change the mapping.

By not providing for "modification" of the OE board, physical space is limited making it harder (more expensive) to add additional bits, and limiting their complexity in doing so.

It might also be appropriate to stipulate that said daughterboard may only "replace" the OE map chip, by plugging into a socket that exactly duplicates the chip's pin configuration.

One downside to this is that it leaves out the attractive (read, economical) option of the OBDII > OBDI adapter but I don't know how to get that horse out without leaving the barn doors completely open.

K

K

[Banzai240]

Kirk,

WHO is going to determine the legality of these modifications? How can someone tell if you've changed "only the chip(s) necessary to make it possible to change the mapping."??? OR if the modifications "change only the mapping"??? How can someone determine if the chips replaced were only the "not reprogrammable" ones?

Merely by adding all these limitations, you will have created a rule that, while comes close to allowing that which you intend to allow, is all but uninforceable in the tech shed, and can would require a lawyer to completely interpret...

At least that's how I read it... By mentioning specific "chips" and "intentions", you've created a requirement for tech, or protestors, etc., to have to be capable of IDENTIFYING those limitations, and even the specific pieces involved. I just don't see how you'd enforce this rule.

Additionally, "mapping" is a pretty vague term... Could "mapping" not be construed as "setting up a parameter table based on sensor input values"... If that's the case, then the entire function of the ECU is open for modification.

I think, in the end, it seems to me you are right back where we started... a rule that is difficult, if not impossible, to enforce...


For those of you who don't think you can create something yourselves inside the stock ECU housing, check out this site:

Megasquirt success stories

The mainsite for Megasquirt is here:

MEGASQUIRT

There are several people who use this system in Production with good success, and everything from parts kits to all the software is available from that site, and, except for the hardware costs, is totally free...

I think someone with some ingenuity could repackage this to fit inside an average size ECU housing, and have a pretty wide array of control over the unit... Though I haven't looked too much at the specific inputs required and what might have to be done to get them in/out of an existing housing... It's worth looking into for those "do it yourselfers" out there...

As for the rule wording, I'll keep mulling it over, using what Kirk and Greg have put forth... There may be a magic word out there somewhere that brings all this intent vs. reality together... Just have to put a series of them (magic words) together in the right order to make it work...

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


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited November 05, 2004).]

[ChrisCamadella]

I guess I basically think that we wouldn't hurt very much if we allowed unlimited FI modifications, including the wiring. The 'haves' have already done it, for the most part, and all we would be doing is allowing more folks to tune their engine parameters more cheaply and easily.

As I stated in a previous post, all the FI system can do is to opmtimize the fuel injection time and the ignition timing based on a number of parameters. It can't make the engine pump more air, or be more mechanically efficient.

The car manufacturer, for many reasons, did not optimize the fuel delivery and the timing for your racing car. Those reasons include emissions, driveability, and the fact that your car HAD a catalytic converter.

Now that you've changed the exhaust system, and you don't care about emissions, you can tune your FI system to optimize the fuel flow and ignition timing for your racing application - the guys with carburetors and regular ignition systems (remember the ones with POINTS?) get to do it already.

And, while we're on the subject, the rules are probably completely outdated on this subject anyway. How about this one:

Any ignition system that uses the stock ignition distributor is permitted

Now, on my car, and probably on yours, the ignition system is part and parcel of the EFI unit. So since ignition units are COMPLETELY free, there's no reason whatsoever that I cannot, completely within the rules, add sensors and wiring to my current EFI box, without using the stock connector or anything of the sort - that stuff was for the ignition system, your honor - disassemble my software and check it our for yourself!

BTW, If I had a car with CIS, and I wanted to spend the money, it would be relatively easy, and also not too expensive, to completely legally add a computer controlled system to it - since fuel pressure regulators are free, no one says that they cannot be completely computer controlled, with any amount of wiring and sensors that you want. You just keep adjusting the control pressure (several times per second) to accomodate the values of your sensors...

Ready for folks to squirt flaming fuel at me using computer controlled technology...

Cheers,

Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944S