ECU rule thoughts

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin,

No such consideration seems to have been given when moving any of the other cars from ITA to ITB. But, it's nice to know that the CRB doesn't have the sack to change a bad rule because it might cost someone some money!

And THAT folks, would be Mr. Millers first attempt to discredit me on this thread, and a rather blatent attempt to sidetrack this conversation...

But, I'll respond, in the interest of addressing the topic at hand.

#1) Owners of these cars ASKED to be reclassified... No one is ASKING If they can have their Modified ECUs taken away...

#2) HOW would YOU know exactly what was or wasn't considered in these moves from ITA to ITB?

#3) You seem to be the only one complaining about it...

#4) News for you... Racing cost money. ANY change to the current rule will cost SOMEONE money. Just reality. Has nothing to do with having "sack"... and everything to do with trying to make the most reasonable moves...


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


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited November 18, 2004).]

[Joe Harlan]

Did Miller say something?

George, one other thought here. If the Motec was not a performance gain I don't think the big dogs would be working so hard to make it fit a stock box.
I also forgot to say that the sensor values for the motec are mostly bosch based but can be programed for any custom value desired so the OE harness and sensors is not a restriction in anyway.

[planet6racing]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Lets see E36 was classed before open ECU rule.....now where are we at.

I'll give you more....
240sx,CRX in ITA were classed before current ECU rules. The 240sx had a 115MPH speedlimiter when it was classed...Don't act like it has not changed the makeup of IT...It clearly has. The wider the rules get the larger the change will be.

Woo Hoo! Finally, some data!!

OK, 240sx had a 115 mph speed limiter. How many tracks (I can think of 1) does this come into play at? The only place I ever come close to my 124 mph speed limiter is at Road America, and that is only with running smaller tires than the stock size. I think the same stands for the BMW.

Since I wasnt' racing before the changing, can someone post some results on how the CRX was doing before the rule change? I have a feeling that it was either still up front or under development, but I'd love to be proven wrong.


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

[Geo]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
George, one other thought here. If the Motec was not a performance gain I don't think the big dogs would be working so hard to make it fit a stock box.

I understand Joe. Again, please realize I'm not trying to argue. I started off poorly. I am challenging to try to cut the BS from the real.

OK, towards that end...

I still wonder how this plays against my feeling that a Motec is mainly an advantage for ease of adjustment and tuning? In other words, let's say someone wants to optimze their maps (individual or a shop). They could spend time with a Motec hooked up to their stock harness, tune the hell out of it, and then transfer the same values to remap their factory ECU, yes? Now, if I had a Motec, I'd sure rather have it fit the stock box for convenience.

I realize that the resolution of the Motec is greater, but does it really make more hp in the mid-range? And if it goes open loop at WOT, you should be able to get the same hp output from a remapped factory ECU shouldn't you?

Sorry to bombard you with all the questions. You're the only sucker, er, person willing to respond with this knowledge.


------------------
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 planet6racing:
Woo Hoo! Finally, some data!!

OK, 240sx had a 115 mph speed limiter. How many tracks (I can think of 1) does this come into play at? The only place I ever come close to my 124 mph speed limiter is at Road America, and that is only with running smaller tires than the stock size. I think the same stands for the BMW.

Actually, our SE-R will redline 4th (~125 mph) at TWS and do nearly the same (~120 mph) at TMS, our two closest tracks.

That said, factory speed limiters are usually pretty easy to work around.


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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Geo:
I realize that the resolution of the Motec is greater, but does it really make more hp in the mid-range? And if it goes open loop at WOT, you should be able to get the same hp output from a remapped factory ECU shouldn't you?

George, in the words of a wise man, peak hp is good for show, but average HP is what wins races...

It takes HP to make HP... The short answer to your question is YES...

Check out this website that Joe posted, if you haven't already...

http://www.200sxs13.nismo.org/technical_in...#aftermarketECU



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

[Geo]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
George, in the words of a wise man, peak hp is good for show, but average HP is what wins races...

But I'm not talking about peak hp. I'm talking about the WOT map. If they are both open loop, it should be pretty doggone simple to make them dang near the same. What would matter then is the part throttle maps and my question has to be, how much of a difference to the part throttle maps play into the equation? Other than corner exit, I don't see folks spending any real meaningful time at part throttle where the maps would make any real impact.

Here's my reasoning. At part throttle you are making less that full hp. Therefore maps that are not optimal are a non-issue unless they are total trash. You just add throttle to put down the power you need. It's really the WOT maps that are going to have the big effect.

Where have I gone wrong?



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

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
And THAT folks, would be Mr. Millers first attempt to discredit me on this thread, and a rather blatent attempt to sidetrack this conversation...

But, I'll respond, in the interest of addressing the topic at hand.

#1) Owners of these cars ASKED to be reclassified... No one is ASKING If they can have their Modified ECUs taken away...

#2) HOW would YOU know exactly what was or wasn't considered in these moves from ITA to ITB?

#3) You seem to be the only one complaining about it...

#4) News for you... Racing cost money. ANY change to the current rule will cost SOMEONE money. Just reality. Has nothing to do with having "sack"... and everything to do with trying to make the most reasonable moves...

Not quite sure how anything I said was meant to 'discredit' you, but that's ok, keep making it up as you go along.


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

[shwah]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Better go check the PCS... The only thing "production" about a Production cars FI system is the intake manifold... The ECUs, etc., are pretty much open, which is why you see guys building "Megasquirt" systems, etc., for their Prod cars...

I guess this shows some ignorance on my part. The only production cars that I know much about both run GP with CIS injection systems. One set the fast traps at the runoffs. The other one finished 4th. I didn't realize they had such an open field for the ecu as well. My mistake.

Originally posted by Banzai240:
If "policing" ECUs is so easy, perhaps you can give us some suggestions on how you'd do it?

Look again. I never said it was easy. I said that is why I believe we have the rule we have now. My point was "it's not easy to tell who's cheating" could be applied to a lot of other things. Regardless of how easy or hard it is to enforce, the ECU rule as it is now does not fit MY impression of what the improved touring class is.

Chris

edits to put in left out words...

[This message has been edited by shwah (edited November 18, 2004).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Geo:
Other than corner exit, I don't see folks spending any real meaningful time at part throttle where the maps would make any real impact.

Even if the whole point were getting off the corner better than the next guy, that's a HUGE advantage...

I can only tell you what I've seen, as I've never used one myself... but I have been directly involved with cars that have them... if I have the option of tuning EVERY point along the curve to it's optimum, and you don't have that same option... I'm in better shape. I don't think you are in WOT as much as you might think, and corner speeds, getting off the corner, etc., make or break a car...

Further, anything that can make the job of setting all this up easier, is an advantage...

The bottom line is really this... IF it WEREN'T an advantage, WHY would people be paying so much to do it???



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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by shwah:
Look again. I never said it was easy. I said that is why I believe we have the rule we have now. My point was "it's not easy to tell who's cheating" could be applied to a lot of other things. Regardless of how easy or hard it is to enforce, the ECU rule as it is now does not fit MY impression of what the improved touring class is.

Chris

OK, that's understandable, but what IS your "impression of what the Improved Touring class is."???

Also, perhaps we'd get further with this (and I'd have come across less arogant... sorry about that...) if I had replaced "easy" with "possible"... I'll try again:

Can you give us some suggestions on how policing ECUs might be "possible"???

I just can't think of any practical way to do it in an amatuer, Regional level series like IT... Perhaps you guys have something in mind that would work??

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


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited November 18, 2004).]

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
... IF it WEREN'T an advantage, WHY would people be paying so much to do it???

Not saying that high-tech engine management isn't an advantage but the truth is that some people will spend the dough just because they can.

How much faster does a Stack dash make someone? Have you seen them in IT cars? Sure...

K

[Joe Harlan]

OK George your right I am a sucker. to answer your question the Motec has a programed WOT....Actually thats the beauty of the Motec is it is never in closed loop unless you don't know how to program then you can run it that way I guess....It can compensate for small to med needs in the map if of signals but not the same as OEM.

Lets just look at the part throttle value. If I make make the engine make 10 more HP at part throttle say 5500rpm as an example. and lets say 5500 was my perfect rpm for corner exit in 3rd gear. would I not have the advantage of more acceleration of the corner? If I am aking 10 more HP I must be making more torque also? Now again races are not won on top speed they are won with average speed. I can show you data from Mid-o where we gave up 4 MPH topend and put the car on the pole by doing so. We made the car better with a different map that caused the car to be faster in the key parts of the track. Again I ask if it isn't worth it why would they do it.
As to your other question you will never get an OEM box to map the same way as a stand alone be cause you cannot dial it in close enough to a stand alone to find the same advantages. I don't say all this because of any personal interest. actually I could be building Motecs for Nissan IT cars and making money. I have worked on many different IT cars over the last 10 years and I think Open or even the rule we have hurts the playing field in a way we may never come back from if we go to much further. Allowing the stock ECU to be modified is equal to allowing jets and needles in carbs. Allowing a free ECU can not be compensated for in our current system.
The speed limiter can be hit at PIR with a 4:37 gearset in a 240sx. While I understand they can be tricked in an early car the 95 to 98 cars must have them written out of the loop in the software. Again the cars were classed with them there. I am sure there are plenty of first gen RX7's and MR2's that would say the 240 and the CRX effected ITA when the rule was opened up.

[Geo]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
OK George your right I am a sucker.

Well, thanks for hanging in there. I was certainly not laughing at you. I said that totally tongue-in-cheek.

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Lets just look at the part throttle value. If I make make the engine make 10 more HP at part throttle say 5500rpm as an example. and lets say 5500 was my perfect rpm for corner exit in 3rd gear. would I not have the advantage of more acceleration of the corner? If I am aking 10 more HP I must be making more torque also?

OK, it's late here and I may not be thinking of this in the right way, so please bear with me a bit further.

My assumption is when we're not at WOT we have some reserve on tap that a little more throttle application can call up. Furthermore, I'm assuming that we only call up the power that can be put down to the ground right up until WOT.

It's a little simplistic (perhaps a lot, I'm tired), but if we look at the friction circle, until we get close to pure forward acceleration, we cannot use WOT and my assumption is again that we have more on tap in reserve that we don't call up because we cannot use it. So part throttle becomes less important. Perhaps my "model" is just too simple (I may be embarassed when I read this tomorrow ).


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

[Joe Harlan]

Actually I think youare trying hard not to get it so I am not going to continue to spend time with it.

Lastly you comment about not being able to use it......Now add traction control and you have found a definate advantage that wasn't there in the factory ECU...

Thanks for the entertainment and I hope other CRB and ITAC folks learned something.

Joe

[Eagle7]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Actually I think you are trying hard not to get it so I am not going to continue to spend time with it. </font>

I'm with Geo on this one. He's not talking about RPM, but about throttle position. Why do you need more power when you're not at WOT?

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Thanks for the entertainment and I hope other CRB and ITAC folks learned something.</font>

Sigh... Trying to start another fight?

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

[chipbond]

So why does a production racer post here to the IT site? Well, as I stated a couple weeks ago, we are the only production car required to run an IT engine specification. Not an enviable position, as I’m sure you realize. We find ourselves monitoring the two sets of rules and two sets of rule-makers and hope that once in a great while, something transpires that benefits us. It must be obvious that the two rule sets are never examined with our particular case, and the impact to us, in mind. Thought engine management is open to the rest of production, until the IT ECU rule, it was not to us.

As I stated, I have done the ECU conversion to three of the Caterham EP cars. It IS a benefit, no doubt. But the figures being thrown around for the ultimate cost by the nay-sayers are laughable. I’m not an EE. Advanced, specialized education is not a requisite. Nor does it require any special skills or tools or insight or magic. If you can wire a relay, or keep your brake lights working, you can do the conversion.

In our case the Ford ECU connector is a 104 pin unit. Daunting?...hardly. Go to the factory manual, find the ECU pin-out and eliminate circuits related to automatic transmissions, warning buzzers, emissions and all the other unnecessary items and you are left with maybe 25 circuits that need to be wired to the new board. In our case we retain; injection, crank signal, air temp, coolant temp, TPS and spark. You may wish to retain radiator fan and a few others.

From there it’s a question of wiring your 20 to 30 circuits from the pins of the new ECU to the pins of the stock ECU. Solder and adhesive lined shrink tubing can be had for 10 bucks. In our case we had to mill the inside of the case to allow fitment within the housing. IF the case were allowed to be modified, then any conceivable aftermarket ECU could be used.

Hard costs:

ECU $800
Doner factory ECU from junk yard: $65
9 pin sub D connector from Radio Shack $5
Sublet desolder of 104 pin connector from factory board $30
Wiring supplies $20
(OK) pencil style soldering iron $30
aluminum and fastners for new chassis support $15
standoffs $5
dyno development of calibration ($2500 split 5 ways) $500
interface cable from manufacturer $80

Total: $1550/car

As mentioned, 10-12 hours conversion time was required.

Come on guys, these are real numbers, it can be done by anyone with any sense. If you can find 3-6 others running the same vehicle, the dyno costs should be as shown above. If not, buy a wide band oxygen sensor (lambda boy) for $275 and monitor real mixture under real conditions to develop your fuel map.

Some say that the “haves” are the only ones that can afford to do this conversion. They hold that they will have to spend the same dollars to stay competitive. I think it is more a question of fear of a new, unfamiliar, technology that keeps us stagnant. Like painting your car, or rebuilding your engine, this is just one more skill set that budget racers should investigate and develop. The “haves” will continue to farm out all the above because their time is worth more than the costs of professional preparation. It will always be that way. You can bet your shirt that someone, somewhere will outspend you. But at $1500, how big of an issue can this be, given the benefits? Oh yes, let me repeat, $10,000 Motec conversions may exist...but so too do Carbon Fiber race wheels at $3000 a set and $80,000 tow rigs.

Keep the ECU rule but allow modification to the factory housing.

Chip Bond
GT Classics
Barboursville, Virginia

[Joe Harlan]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Sigh... Trying to start another fight?</font>

Sorry that was not my intent.....

[zracre]

That does not seem legal as you are modifying the plug to the stock ecu....easily found in impound when they look at the connector...and are you wiring in another ecu??? like a piggyback unit???

[This message has been edited by zracre (edited November 19, 2004).]

[chipbond]

Zracer

The harness and its connector remain untouched. The mating connector from the stock ecu remains untouched other than being desoldered from the original board.

Sorry if that was not clear.

Chip Bond
GT Classics.