Well, at this point it's all fact finding.

Rob won't have a problem if he goes to a stand alone system, he won't need that sensor because the standalone doesn't need it...he's the master of his domain.

My thinking is that the mandate that we allow aftermarket systems for some, but not all is the big problem here. The "fit it in a box" is the arbitrary point...why have it?

From a rules writing standoint, I worry that allowing open harnesses means specifying what can and what can't be done. By requiring the stock harness and sensors, we can limit the extra verbiage, and the future reworking.

But maybe I'm wrong about that. IF the harness is open, how will we enforce what it is thats being done?

(and yes, I know....how do we enforce whats being done NOW!??...good point, LOL)

Someone take a crack at writing the rule. Gotta keep mass air flow sensors, etc, but allows alternate ECUs. Remember, when you write the rule, it should be forward thinking, but yet not allow any performance upgrades not already possible. The carb guys are watching, LOL.