An ECU rule proposal

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
My point is that the current target was a screw-up and it needs fixed. The touring rule would be a proper target.

HOW do you KNOW it was a "screw-up"??? The language appears to me to be very SPECIFICALLY different than the Touring rules... HOW do you guys know this isn't what the board/committee at the time intended?? I think, rather, that because you guys don't LIKE the current rule, you think it's wrong, but that doesn't make it a "screw-up"... How do we know that it wasn't intended to be exactly like it is? The phrase "or replace" leaves little abiguity as to what it means... Hard for me to buy that those that put it there didn't know exactly what it would allow...

But again, I'm all for taking this rule back to the Touring rule... It's not going to make ANY difference as far as the competition goes on the track (those that have will still have and those that don't will bitch about it...), but if it makes everyone feel better, I suppose it's a simple enough thing to change...



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

[Joe Harlan]

Just because it may have been done with intent does not mean it can't be a screwup.. My thinking is somebody wanted this mod for an advantage (big leap eh) and it got through with out enough thought. I don't remember the exact timing but I think the IT rule was done before the touring rule.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">(those that have will still have and those that don't will bitch about it...)</font>

Explain? People will bitch all the time that's just part of the game. Nobody asks for stuff unless it will benefit them. Most times it is a case of you can't buy talent so you sk for parts. When the rules divide the competition then its wrong and must be fixed. Again no argument here.

[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited February 22, 2005).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
When the rules divide the competition then its wrong and must be fixed. Again no argument here.

It's a see-saw dude... The carb guys were happy and the ECU guys bitched... Now the ECU guys are happy and the carb guys are bitching...

Guess it's time for the ECU guys to share in the bitching again...

Point??? Competition is ALWAYS going to be divided in a class like this... When you try to make 30+ year-old cars competetive with 5+ year-old cars, it'll never be the utopia that many here believe is possible... the compromises are always going to make someone unhappy and give someone else an "unfair advantage..."

All of this can be balanced out with weight, however... if the cars are classified/reclassified properely...

By the way... it would stand to reason that "IMPROVED Touring" would have a step up in prep from "Touring"... I don't see why this wouldn't include more allowances for computer mods...

Again, all just my opinion...

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


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited February 22, 2005).]

[ShelbyRacer]

OK, guys, stay on track here please (no pun intended)...

Jeremy- Believe me, I can be "detail oriented" (you should see some of the rules I *have* written), but I was trying to come up with a rule that was clear and concise, something that obviously can't be done with this issue. I thank you for your time in sharing the info with me, because as I said, yours was a situation I had not considered.

Kirk- My point here was not to belabor an often rehashed issue, but to attempt to put something out there for direct commentary. Concensus was not my goal, as SCCA is not a democracy (let's face it, it's barely a republic sometimes). I simply wanted to know why it was that my idea wouldn't work, and I believe I've found the answer to that. I had examined other posts, but to that end I had not found a major issue that would make my proposed rule become the nail in someone's coffin. Jeremy has shown me something I did not know and did not take into account.

I will say that I'm not sorry I offered this thread, as I think that at least I have received some education from it. While I may not agree with the current rule, I don't have a better one than what I've shown with my ideas here. I hope that this discussion can continue as a positive experience, and we can continue to share thought on the issue.

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
[B] I agree w/ Andy, put the genie back in the bottle, for the greater good.

Bill, I would personally be all for this (and it is where my heart is), but I truly believe we would only be paying lip service.

It is just flat impossible to police. And if you cannot police it, you cannot keep the genie in the bottle no matter how hard you wish.

Philosophically I'm with you, but the reality is harshly different.


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

[pfcs]

once again, I'm really heartened by this particular thread. I'm taking SCCA nerd out of my lexicon, at least for now! We may really be OK after all!

------------------
phil hunt

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Up until about a year or so ago, cars were classified w/o taking an open ECU into account. The current rule has obviously resulted in unintended consequences.

I agree w/ Andy, put the genie back in the bottle, for the greater good. Or, if you don't want to negate people's investments, make them pay a price. You want to run a tweaked ECU? 5% weight penalty. Or, give all the non-EFI cars a 5% weight break.

First, I hope your estimate of a year is off, as the ECU rule dates back much further, and I would assume that anyone classing a car would take it into account.

Second, while I wish it was handled differently...(and I know that the words "electronics" and the "future" equal "unforseen change") I just can not in good conscience advocate a return to ground zero. (stock ECUs) Regardless of the ability to police effectively.

If IT is to be a place to attract first time road racers, it needs stable rules, and changing the ECU rule from 'on', to 'off', is messing with disaster. And wight penalties are another confusion that just isn't needed. I can hear the cries of protest from those that heve done the dyno hours....if you think the E36 guys bitched...they were church mice compared to the outcry we'd hear if we went back to stock, and I wouldn't blame them.



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[Geo]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
[B] Show me where. The fact that National has to be able to check for codes kills the motec idea.

Yep. But, as it was pointed out to me, T must remain emissions compliant. Since IT cars can remove emissions, it eliminates this as a solution. Too bad.

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Geo: I am not going to get into what we are doing with the 350 on a website. We are doing development work.

Oh, yeah, I can understand that. Sorry.

One of these days I need to get up to the PNW. I'll buy you a beer or two and you can tell me about it (what you care to divulge).


------------------
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 Joe Harlan:
Explain? People will bitch all the time that's just part of the game.

True enough.

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
Nobody asks for stuff unless it will benefit them.

Wait, wait....

Hold on. I pushed hard for the wheel rule change and it doesn't even affect me.


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

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
I just can not in good conscience advocate a return to ground zero. (stock ECUs) Regardless of the ability to police effectively.

If IT is to be a place to attract first time road racers, it needs stable rules, and changing the ECU rule from 'on', to 'off', is messing with disaster.

Oh absolutely, I can't agree more, which is why I decided to put some thought and effort into crafting a rule suggestion to allow some modifications that would benefit all, rather than relegating the best solution to those with the deepest pockets. I personally would fight like hell to leave the rule the way it is rather than going back to stock.

If only there was a better way...



------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by pfcs:
I'm taking SCCA nerd out of my lexicon, at least for now!

Damn, and I've started using that in conversations... (seriously, I have...)




------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

[seckerich]

Every time the Motec or other engine management gets mentioned it goes up in price. I see $3000.00+ and even a mention of up to $10,000.00 in some earlier posts. I would rather be able to buy the Motec ($1950.00 retail and $2400.00 for a Pro) and not be held hostage to the one guy who "cracked" the code. I will never have to buy the latest, greatest chip every 3 races to get faster and I can do it myself. In the end I may have to skip a race or two to afford it, but it is a one time expense. If I change cars or classes I can just drop a new program in and go. You will spend the same money on dyno time and other costs with the other options and it is only for that make and model. Wasted money after that. And don't expect the guy who crackes your ECU to share everything with you, they have worked too hard to get where they are to just give it to everybody. Just my useless opinion.
Steve Eckerich
ITS Speedsource RX7

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:

By the way... it would stand to reason that "IMPROVED Touring" would have a step up in prep from "Touring"... I don't see why this wouldn't include more allowances for computer mods...

Again, all just my opinion...

Again Darin, nice try. IT has been around waaaaayyyyyy longer than Touring. And let's not even get into the fact that none of the current Touring cars would fit into the current IT classes (w/ the very slim possibility of some of the new T3 cars).

The lengths you go to to justify your position are down right hilarious!!!!

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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
The lengths you go to to justify your position are down right hilarious!!!!

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Again, all just my opinion...

It's nice to see that you still have a complete inability to contribute to a conversation without attacking me for giving MY OPINION! It's an OPINION Bill... NOT a "positition"... last time I checked, justifying an opinion was not required...



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

[Knestis]

Darin's point is a good one, particularly if we remember that we have new members coming in all the time. There should be some logic to the descriptive names of the classes.

Now THAT would make a good topic for a strategic position paper - like we still don't seem to have.

K

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Knestis:


Now THAT would make a good topic for a strategic position paper - like we still don't seem to have.

K

Yea....whatever happened to that??? Hey ITAC guys...have you seen it???



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[Geo]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Yea....whatever happened to that??? Hey ITAC guys...have you seen it???

My dog ate it.


------------------
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 lateapex911:
Yea....whatever happened to that??? Hey ITAC guys...have you seen it???

I will be meeting with the CRB on a con-call in March (first time I've been invited to do so...) to discuss the direction and future of IT, as well as to discuss PCAs and their application...

I'm assuming after that, perhaps I'll have a better idea of what the plan is for IT...



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