ECU rule thoughts

[Bill Miller]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">But forcing the FI people to live without any mods for tuning and durability isn't a fair option either.</font>

Matt, the FI crowd was already allowed to alter the resistence values being sent to the computer, and ignition timing was, and still is, free. So don't try and make it out like the FI folks had nothing at all before the the open ECU rule.

I think we've gotten what essentially amounts to an official postion. ECU's were opened up, not to give the FI folks the ability to tune, but because they couldn't be policed. See my response to Kirk's earlier comment.

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

[Ron Earp]

Matt, you are correct but I don't think George gets that - some cars might not have a harness to repair and futhermore, despite what he thinks, they are simply not available. If we were racing more modern cars, sure no problem. But when you are racing one of a few - 200 TR8 coupes in the country, 1200 MKII JHs in the country, it is a little more difficult than getting a harness from a Sentra in a field when there are 100s of 1000s to choose from. I don't ask for the rules to change based on this though, we race what we race, it is our choice. If my posts were read I think outlined my logic which in a nutshell is below:

You allow people to replace a ECU with a $3000 MoTec unit but they cannot replace a wiring harness? Rules creep is cited as one possible reason for not allowing a harness rule change. But replacing a wiring harness is rules creep however using $3000 ECUs isn't? Looks like having to use a MoTec to make your BMW or 2nd Gen RX7 competitive is elevating the class. Be consistent in the rules.

I understand the arguments these guys have (at least the RX7 guys due to what is available) because they certainly need to raise the rev limit and are going to need some adjustability to compensate for the other IT modifications to the engine. But, still, I have a hard time seeing an open ECU rule in improved touring while the wiring harness must remain stock.

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
My electrons don't care if they flow through OEM wires, do yours?

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 23, 2004).]

[Geo]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
No, for some models, for some cars there aren't harnesses out there. And the cam angle doesn't fly because a cam is a performance advantage. There is no such advantage with a harness, it's just a cost/ease of car building issue.

You missed my point Matt, but perhaps you weren't here for the great cam debate. NLA didn't fly as an argument for allowing an alternate cam. Why would it fly for a harness?

I know you're going to say a cam is a performance item, but harnessese can be repaired and (in IT) cams cannot.


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

[dickita15]

george
the problem with the harness repair option goes back to an earlier thread involving the jenson healy (or was it the tr8)about what a factory repair involved. in that discussion it was said by some that you could not splice a wire alongside a bad connection or bypass a bad connector. if that is true then it would be technically impossible to keep some cars running.
as a practical matter i think that is an overly stearn interpretaion. my personal view of what is right (as opposed to legal in the strictest sence) is to be able to replace wires to keep a car running as long as the new wires do not perform any new functions. in practice on old IT cars that i have wired the rements of the old harness are still there but some new wires are run to make the car run.
there are some on this board that feel i have violated the rules and that is ok for them to think that. of course there are those that think cars like mine should race vintage.
dick

[Knestis]

This is going to sound a little harsh but should be taken as intended - as pragmatic.

It seems like an effort is under way here to conjoin two entirely different issues, to suit the policy intentions of a minority of people - those building cars with rare wiring harnesses.

Whether the current ECU rule is stupid (or not), or too expensive (or not), or even enforceable (or not) is completely immaterial to the specific question of wiring harnesses.

There was no premeditation on the CRB's part to specifically allow high-dollar programmable EFI systems when the rules to allow FI tuning were put in place. That was an unintended consequence that resulted in what I think we may all agree is rules creep.

That is a prime example of why it is dangerous to open up the rules, even if in the case of wiring, the resulting loopholes might not prove to be as expensive and contentious as the MoTec issue seems to be.

Suggesting that, because we missed the mark with one big rule allowance, we might as well chuck it in with a few others too, is completely unreasonable - unless you have a particular agenda that you want to further.

Now, I'm on record as recognizing that the SCCA club racing rule system is based on exactly what some people are doing - advocating for their own competitive positions - but please don't expect to make the argument stick on the coattails of the ECU mess.

Here's the pragamatic part: As much as I LOVE the idea of variety in the IT grids, when someone chooses to build a particular car, they accept it for better or for worse. Mr. Amy could race something that didn't require him to engineer all his own parts. Geo could have chosen something that didn't cost a bazillion dollars to get horsepower out of...

I could have picked something that didn't require a full chassis dip and strip, and ultra-light cage to meet minimum weight but, on the other hand, I can get an entire wiring harness from a boneyard for $25. That's the hand I'm dealt, bad cards and good, and I have to play it.

I'm sorry but I believe that everyone else should too, rather than injecting additional opportunities for the rules to get even more obtuse, as is SURE to happen every time a change gets made.

K

[Ron Earp]

Dick and Kirk,

I agree with both of you and what you've written. And, I do accept what I've been dealt with my car since after all I picked it. That said, Dick hit the nail on the head with this most recent post with the harness. I don't want to conjoin the issues as I have no real vested interest in doing so - I really don't care if you close ECUs or leave them open.

My frustration came from the fact that many felt I would be illegal doing just what Dick suggested - running some wires to make the car function, which I have done because it needs doing. But the icing on the cake was that while some considered that illegal, here we are in a situation where entire OEM computers can be replaced with something that performs a similar funciton, but differently. Sort of like a non-OEM wiring harness.

I don't want to continue to post on the harness issue since this is a ECU thread. The only reason I did is cited above, the frustration of one rule that does not jive with the logic that supports another rule. I am sorry if I'm too new to understand how all of this works or if I can't understand it. I'll watch from the sidelines and maybe I'll get "SCCAized" or maybe I'll continue on my merry way and never understand it.


------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
My electrons don't care if they flow through OEM wires, do yours?

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 23, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 23, 2004).]

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Knestis:
This is going to sound a little harsh but should be taken as intended - as pragmatic.

It seems like an effort is under way here to conjoin two entirely different issues, to suit the policy intentions of a minority of people - those building cars with rare wiring harnesses.

You're right the arguments are becoming conjoined, which is why there is another thread on the wiring harness issue. Which is as much for extensive repair of aging cars as rare vehicles.

Originally posted by Knestis:
Whether the current ECU rule is stupid (or not), or too expensive (or not), or even enforceable (or not) is completely immaterial to the specific question of wiring harnesses.

There was no premeditation on the CRB's part to specifically allow high-dollar programmable EFI systems when the rules to allow FI tuning were put in place. That was an unintended consequence that resulted in what I think we may all agree is rules creep.

But this apparently extreme departure from the class intent, normal limits, etc is why it's used as a argument for everything else. If you allow this, then why not that? I'm not even saying that's a valid argument but it's certainly hard to avoid.

Originally posted by Knestis:
That is a prime example of why it is dangerous to open up the rules, even if in the case of wiring, the resulting loopholes might not prove to be as expensive and contentious as the MoTec issue seems to be.

Suggesting that, because we missed the mark with one big rule allowance, we might as well chuck it in with a few others too, is completely unreasonable - unless you have a particular agenda that you want to further.

Hey, I'll freely admit I have an agenda of wanting rules that allow me to build a reliable, cost effective vehicle that doesn't give me an unfair advantage over someone else.

Originally posted by Knestis:
Now, I'm on record as recognizing that the SCCA club racing rule system is based on exactly what some people are doing - advocating for their own competitive positions - but please don't expect to make the argument stick on the coattails of the ECU mess.

Again, the subject is on a new topic but there are still some fundamental flaws in the ECU rule one of which overlaps into the wiring harness situation.

Originally posted by Knestis:
Here's the pragamatic part: As much as I LOVE the idea of variety in the IT grids, when someone chooses to build a particular car, they accept it for better or for worse. Mr. Amy could race something that didn't require him to engineer all his own parts. Geo could have chosen something that didn't cost a bazillion dollars to get horsepower out of...

I could have picked something that didn't require a full chassis dip and strip, and ultra-light cage to meet minimum weight but, on the other hand, I can get an entire wiring harness from a boneyard for $25. That's the hand I'm dealt, bad cards and good, and I have to play it.

I'm willing to run a car a know is not classed competitively as are a lot of people. The common thread is if we aren't guaranteed to be competive why are we spending more time and money to do something that doesn't make us any faster anyway?

Originally posted by Knestis:
I'm sorry but I believe that everyone else should too, rather than injecting additional opportunities for the rules to get even more obtuse, as is SURE to happen every time a change gets made.

K

The rules might be opened to an unintended interpretation everytime they are changed, but if there is logic behind the rule based on the class intent the rule is less obtuse, not more.

If we are so concerned about halting all rule changes why was the ECU rule allowed? Because it was unenforceable? That sounds obtuse.

Also, would the Motec problem be as big of an issue if the BMWs weren't perceived as the class killers that most think they are? It appears that the biggest problem with the Motec system is it is a glaring modification on an already front running car. If the BMW wasn't the overdog most people think it is I don't think the ECU problem would be that big an issue.

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[This message has been edited by Matt Rowe (edited December 23, 2004).]

[apr67]

Advantage of replacing wire harness. A theory.

#1 Weight.
#2 I can use better quality wire (maybe gold!) to lower the resistance of the wire. This will mean the alt/battery loses less juice getting to the parts and ergo the alt sucks less power.

Everything has a consequence. I am not saying that either 1 or 2 is going to happen, nor is 1 or 2 exclusive. It's not the problems we think of that end up screwing us. Its the ones we don't think of.

[apr67]

ECU thoughts.

ECU's should be stock. Period.

I know, Tech can't tell if its modified (chipped) or swapped in some instances. So what? At least the CPU and capability will be restricted far more than a high end after market AFM. That's fine. All tech has to do is look at an ECU and if the board 'looks stock and unmodified' it's legal. If it doesn't (ie a chip that says 'super chip' on it) look stock, its not legal.

What will this accomplish? Most stock ECU's are pretty weak, so the vast majoritee will get little to no advantage to futzing with the CPU. A few may spend billions to get a percent of improvment. But now all of their compatriots racing the same car can figure out how to protest them, or spend money to do the same. Otherwise everyone might get lead added.

Workable? I don't know, but I think it deserves though.

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by apr67:
ECU's should be stock. Period.

Bingo.

And the Club should use some gizmo that checks the ECU in the event of a protest.

G

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by apr67:
Advantage of replacing wire harness. A theory.

#1 Weight.
#2 I can use better quality wire (maybe gold!) to lower the resistance of the wire. This will mean the alt/battery loses less juice getting to the parts and ergo the alt sucks less power.

Everything has a consequence. I am not saying that either 1 or 2 is going to happen, nor is 1 or 2 exclusive. It's not the problems we think of that end up screwing us. Its the ones we don't think of.

#1 - Weight. Being a lowly carb car owner I have less than 10 #'s of stock harness while the modern FI guys have 30 or more #'s. I can live with being on the short end of that stick.

#2 - Better quality wire. I know this is only half serious but the percent gain from this is lost in the noise. Higher humidty, better worse batch of gas, and about a hundred other things have a bigger impact. Besides, as part of repairs I can already use different wire.

Does anyone have any other reasons why there is a performance advantage?


------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[apr67]

Originally posted by gsbaker:
And the Club should use some gizmo that checks the ECU in the event of a protest.

Such a device doesn't exist. It is up to the protesters to determine how to check compliance, and then the stewards have to agree to it.

Even if someone does 'modify the code in a chip' and get away with it, it's not the end of the world. Personally, I would prefer that, rather than allowing everyone to do anything they want.

[Geo]

Originally posted by dickita15:
george
the problem with the harness repair option goes back to an earlier thread involving the jenson healy (or was it the tr8)about what a factory repair involved. in that discussion it was said by some that you could not splice a wire alongside a bad connection or bypass a bad connector. if that is true then it would be technically impossible to keep some cars running.
as a practical matter i think that is an overly stearn interpretaion. my personal view of what is right (as opposed to legal in the strictest sence) is to be able to replace wires to keep a car running as long as the new wires do not perform any new functions. in practice on old IT cars that i have wired the rements of the old harness are still there but some new wires are run to make the car run.
there are some on this board that feel i have violated the rules and that is ok for them to think that. of course there are those that think cars like mine should race vintage.
dick

Dick, that was me. And to explain again, if we can run parallel wires, I'm making a new harness from scratch. My car is 21 years old and I'd love to make a new harness for it. That would make my life a LOT easier since I don't exactly get along well with electricity. It would be much easier for me to have new wires. And ultimately at some point I may pull my harness and "repair" every wire that is critical to the operation of my car just for reliability sake and yes, performance, since bad grounds and leads can indeed affect performance.

I think running parallel wires is not only counter to the letter of the law, but counter to the spirit of the rule and class. Sorry.


------------------
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 Matt Rowe:
Also, would the Motec problem be as big of an issue if the BMWs weren't perceived as the class killers that most think they are? It appears that the biggest problem with the Motec system is it is a glaring modification on an already front running car. If the BMW wasn't the overdog most people think it is I don't think the ECU problem would be that big an issue.

Personally, I think you just hit the nail squarely on the head Matt.


------------------
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 gsbaker:
Bingo.

And the Club should use some gizmo that checks the ECU in the event of a protest.

G

Sorry Gregg, but what gizmo would that be? They don't exist. How many ECUs would we need gizmos for? And how many people can read the code? On Nissans they are damned few.

I don't mean to be harsh Gregg, but if we're going to look for solutions, they must work in ALL cases.

We could require stock ECUs, but only 1 in 100 might be caught. The rest will look like they are OK.



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

[Bill Miller]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">We could require stock ECUs, but only 1 in 100 might be caught. The rest will look like they are OK.</font>

George,

It's essentially that kind of attitude that lead to the current open ECU rule. They can't police them, so they assume every one will cheat. Maybe I'm naive (or just an idealist), but they way I see it, cheaters will still cheat, regardless of what the rules say. I would like to believe that the majority of people that I compete against are honest, and will follow the rules, rather than blatantly cheat. If the rule says to use a stock ECU, that's what they'll do.

I'm really bothered by this "everybody will cheat if they think they can get away with it" attitude. And based on "A protest story", the rules aren't doing much to stop the cheaters anyway. Hell, it's hard to catch them even when they make it easy to do so!

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

[apr67]

Bill/George, et al.

Do you think everyone will spend the money to custom design a chip for their ECU, get the oem desoldered, the new chip professionally resoldered, and make sure it all looks kosher (stickers, right part # on the Prom/Eprom)?

And even if they do, how much bennie are they going to get over the guy with a resistor on the water temp sender and an adjustable rising rate FP Regulator?

And is the better solution to make the people who aren't cheating spend $2000 + on an after market ECU?

[dickita15]

Originally posted by Geo:
I think running parallel wires is not only counter to the letter of the law, but counter to the spirit of the rule and class. Sorry.

George
never be sorry for a sincere opinion (g)
so what does one do. stock connectors are either not available or unreliable. If one takes your literal harness repair opinion. what do we do retire the cars, race vintage?
It would seem reasonable to make some allowance to keep such cars raceable.
so either retire the cars or we look the other way and we lobby for a change so we can still race these old cars and still sleep at night.
dick patullo

[JeffYoung]

While the above has been enlightening, I am REALLY looking forward to the end of Arguing Season and the beginning of Racing Season.

Vroom vroom.

[Geo]

Originally posted by dickita15:
George
never be sorry for a sincere opinion (g)
so what does one do. stock connectors are either not available or unreliable. If one takes your literal harness repair opinion. what do we do retire the cars, race vintage?
It would seem reasonable to make some allowance to keep such cars raceable.
so either retire the cars or we look the other way and we lobby for a change so we can still race these old cars and still sleep at night.
dick patullo

I don't know the answer Dick. Wish I did. I may end up with very much the same concerns with my 21 year old car. But while we are looking at one aspect of the rule right now, where is this going to take us? I can't help but think it would take us a big step closer to Production if we open up ECUs and wiring harnesses.

Speaking of Production and what to do with a car with NLA wiring harnesses... I don't know the rules for Production, but isn't that a possible channel for them? One of these days I'm going to read the Production rules for my car just so I'm aware of what my options are.


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