ECUs....is it time?

[lateapex911]

So, with the advent of ITR, I am seeing a lot of interest and the collection of cars to build for the new class, and thats great news.

But, I also see a lot of issues that people will be having with ECUs. Nearly every car on the list will need ECU work.

As it stands, the rule limits us to what can fit in the stock box. This is rather arbitrary, and while I understand the intent, I don't think it's the best way to get there.

Aso, it jacks the cost up staggeringly, and is really counterproductive in regards to acheiving the prep levels that the process predicts these cars will acheive.

What I mean by that it that the process the ITAC uses basically assumes that most cars will acheive a certain % increase in the IT build, and the ECU mods are considered to be part of that increase. (there are exceptions to that of course, but for the sake of argument, lets not get too specific) But some cars just can't fit someting in the box...even at any price.

Now, I know the response to that will be, "Too bad, thats the way it is, you choose your horse and run your course."

But does it HAVE to be that way?

I think it's time we took a serious look at the ECU rule wording and it's intent.

I submit that the intent is NOT to force people to spend 2 or 3 thou on a unit, then another 2 thou on the tuning, or to exclude certain cars because of build and fitment issues. And honestly, is the current rule REALLY effective in thwarting cheating?? (and that was the reasoning, IIRC)

Perhaps it's time to allow aftermarket units, (Megasquirt, et al), and forget the "inside the box " requirement.

Keep the stock harness rule, the no additional sensors rule and so on, but allow people to acheive prep equity across the board, and to do so in a more reasonable manner.

Thoughts?

[tnord]

if this is akin to the SS based engine rule in SM (and i think it is) then i'm all for opening it up.

in SM, you spend 7k on a stock motor because B&B isn't explicitly allowed in the rules. allow it and you suddenly have $3500 pro motors.

i'm GUESSING that by allowing the stand-alone units using the factory harness and all that will actually lower the cost to achieve the same results people are getting now.

if my gross oversimplification of the situation is inaccurate, please correct me.

playing devils advocate now....

if we make the ECU rule cheaper and easier to achieve, it's likely more people will have stand-alone units. this now becomes part of the "normal build process" and increases cost of entry.

[Greg Amy]

Funny you should bring this up: I'm reviewing different ECU options (Megasquirt being one) this very day and finding the "ECU housing" part of the rule to be excessively restrictive, with no good reason.

I understand the genesis for the rule: we were trying to avoid the "Motec in a box" syndrome. It was an (ultimately ineffectual) way to try and limit ECU modifications to the original board; unfortunately, it failed (kinda like how Prohibition was supposed to eliminate alcohol consumption; all it did was put it on the black market, increase its price, and decrease its quality.)

I suggest the rule be amended to allow open ECUs, as long as the original unmodified wiring harness is used. I may even suggest - given further thought - that we allow the OE ECU plug to be cut off and wires molded to an aftermarket plug (however, it is a far simpler matter to adapt to an unmodified harness plug then it is to cram it into an unmodified ECU housing). I do not believe we should allow additional sensors/inputs, wires, or outputs.

We've been down this road before; there are many, many threads on this forum arguing over this very contentious issue. I expect this thread will be no different. What I am suggesting is that the original apparent intent of the rule failed, so let's let bygones be bygones and accept the new paradigm openly.

Rules creep? In the letter-of-the-law sense of the words, yes. But, within the "new" spirit-of-the-rules sense, no. - GA

[dickita15]

such a rule change makes sence to me. it will result in more modified ECU's but only because it will now be cheaper to buy one.

[lateapex911]

Rules creep? In the letter-of-the-law sense of the words, yes. But, within the "new" spirit-of-the-rules sense, no. - GA
[/b]

Agreed. Actually, in terms of the category as a whole, it will not increase the max prep level. But it should create a method that more subscribers can acheive that prep level, as well as acheiving the designed in parity of the classification process, at a lower cost, both in terms of time and money.

[gran racing]

I've been giving this though for quite a while now. For this thread, let's not get into the carb-ed guys can't do it, or make it stock again arguments. We've done that too many times.

For the past few years many people have been looking into ECU options. In my case, I've looked into all the known Honda stuff but unfortunately it just won't work with my ECU. Early in the process I learned about piggy back units. The total to get the unit installed AND fully dyno tuned totaled $1,000. The only way I've been able to find that I can do it in today's rules is MOTEC. The few quotes I received to accomplish that were absolutely crazy! My initial thought is that alloing the piggy back systems would make ECU work the norm. For the front running cars, it is slowly becoming the norm anyway but just costs a ton more money to do it.

Are there any valid reasons (again, read the first paragraph) not to allow piggy back units? Like others have suggested, keep the stock harness rule, and the no additional sensors rule.

[lateapex911]

I've been giving this though for quite a while now. For this thread, let's not get into the carb-ed guys can't do it, or make it stock again arguments. We've done that too many times.


[/b]

We don't have to Dave, that situation was essentially reset when the PCA adjustments came in....the ECU rule implementation ran counter to the classification process when the rule was first made, and the PCA adjustment pretty much fixed that.

This is a case of all ECU cars not being able to hit the process target with equal ease, if you will.

Carb guys should have NO issues with it, as I don't see the max performance capability increasing a wit.

[Z3_GoCar]

I say YES, YES!!

Here's my situation, I've got a TECII system. It was state of the art in the Late '90s now it's functional but doesn't have the fine control that newer systems have. It's limited by what kind of sensors can be plugged in, it uses a custom crank sensor, and a heated narrow band Ox sensor with FORD stamped on it. The car also doesn't have any form of a stock engine harness on it, it was wired in by Tri-Point. Now it is compatible with an AFM if I'm using the Ox-sensor. It also has one General Purpose Output (GPO) which I use to actuate the intake VANOS. All the engine mangement does is feed it fuel and spark and is tunable unlike the stock OBDII system, which is what the carb and point guys can do in their own fashion. It's also mounted to the bottom of the coil pack, so there's no way to package it into a stock housing or use the stock wiring connector on it. I mounted it on an aluminum plate in the same general area that the stock engine computer resided (I've not touched the chassis computer as it still resided in the passenger foot well). So why does my antiquated system have to be illegal? I say make standalone systems legal replacements for OBDII computers, and get them outside the stock box and even away from the stock connectors.

James

[dj10]

Funny you should bring this up: I'm reviewing different ECU options (Megasquirt being one) this very day and finding the "ECU housing" part of the rule to be excessively restrictive, with no good reason.

I understand the genesis for the rule: we were trying to avoid the "Motec in a box" syndrome. It was an (ultimately ineffectual) way to try and limit ECU modifications to the original board; unfortunately, it failed (kinda like how Prohibition was supposed to eliminate alcohol consumption; all it did was put it on the black market, increase its price, and decrease its quality.)

I suggest the rule be amended to allow open ECUs, as long as the original unmodified wiring harness is used. I may even suggest - given further thought - that we allow the OE ECU plug to be cut off and wires molded to an aftermarket plug (however, it is a far simpler matter to adapt to an unmodified harness plug then it is to cram it into an unmodified ECU housing). I do not believe we should allow additional sensors/inputs, wires, or outputs.

We've been down this road before; there are many, many threads on this forum arguing over this very contentious issue. I expect this thread will be no different. What I am suggesting is that the original apparent intent of the rule failed, so let's let bygones be bygones and accept the new paradigm openly.

Rules creep? In the letter-of-the-law sense of the words, yes. But, within the "new" spirit-of-the-rules sense, no. - GA [/b]

"Funny thing you should bring this up" I agree with GA with the exception, why must we use the oem harness? This is where the expense comes in. Trying to rewire the EMS to fit the oem harness. Allow it to be open also and do not allow extra sensors and allow only the inputs/ outputs set by the ITAC & CRB. I've been a proponent of this since I've found out people were paying huge sums of money to stuff a Motec into the oem ECU and rewire the entire wiring harness to make it work. Does this old ECU rule seem like it is in the good interests of the "New Improved Touring"? In the long run I beleive that this will cut the costs of racing due mostly to the efficency of the engines. Not only will they make more power I believe they will be more environmentaly friendly and actually cut the consumption of fuel. I formally submit these recommendations to the ITAC for study and to take action upon.

dj

[gran racing]

I formally submit these recommendations to the ITAC for study and to take action upon.[/b]

All you need to do to formally submit this is send your recommendation to the ITAC group e-mail. Right now it's just talk (for all of us).

[tnord]

i've never looked into ECU work and was wondering if people can toss out some numbers.

what's it cost for ECU upgrades under the current rule for high and low end?

what would it cost under the new rule for standalone units high and low end?

[Greg Amy]

what's it cost for ECU upgrades under the current rule for high and low end?[/b]

Purely supposition, but they run the gamut. Obviously, the cheapest solution is a marginal cost of zero: don't make changes from stock (maybe bump up your base timing or use resistors to fool the ECU). On the high end, there are rumors of "Motec in a box" costing $3000-5000 or more.

For my NX2000, unless you're wanting to go it alone, your choice is a $450 JWT ECU or nothing (which has been reported to add just about 2 horsepower on a dyno). Another guy offers modified Nissan ECUs and "tune-it-yourself" software (not particularly user-friendly) for ~$300 with all required equipment (mods, upload/download hardware, tuning software).

what would it cost under the new rule for standalone units high and low end?[/b]

Again, it varies. You can get into a Megaquirt system for a few hundred dollars, a Unichip "piggyback" system for $800-1000, an AEM Power standalone ECU for ~$2000, a full-boat Motec system for $3000 or more. The value of each depends on your individual skillsets and motivation, plus what they can offer for your particular car... - GA

[dj10]

Again, it varies. You can get into a Megaquirt system for a few hundred dollars, a Unichip "piggyback" system for $800-1000, an AEM Power standalone ECU for ~$2000, a full-boat Motec system for $3000 or more. The value of each depends on your individual skillsets and motivation, plus what they can offer for your particular car... - GA [/b]

Also everyone, you might want to ask what these systems will do. With a well tuned EMS and engine you will save mucho costs in costly engine repairs & diagnostics, days of the too lean engine gone, assuming you set these EMS correctly, gained fuel economy, very help full in enduros, just to name a few. Don't forget that a well tuned engine will polute less. There are a thousand reasons to do away with the current rule and I can't think of one to keep it.

I can see it now the headlines read "SCCA takes steps into the future of racing for others to follow!!", "SCCA, environmentaly friendly racing" and the Democrats go WILD!!!



"Improved Touring, racing it's way into the future" What's new about Improved Touring, you ask.

dj

[Eagle7]

I agree with allowing an aftermarket box with the stock harness. Now to push the envelope a little more, should we allow:

• Connect the ECU to a computer (or PDA) to log ECU data? (I guess with an open ECU rule this one's already a given)
• Allow connection of additional signals/sensors for logging purposes?

These would make my life a lot more convenient, but I'm a little troubled by the second one, as it runs counter to the stock harness rule. No way to police that the additional signal is just used for logging, rather than as an additional ECU control input.

[Knestis]

I use a wideband O2 sensor, run through the required controller, to send a signal to my DL1. If that DL1 - or a different DA unit, or the O2 controller itself - were connected to talk TO the wiring harness (and therefore, the ECU), we'd be most of the way there conceptually already.

How about this question (for you rules NERDS): Are you allowed to tap into the stock wiring harness for an allowed gauge, say to pull a tach singal or water temperature?

K

[eprodrx7]

This reminds me of the shock discussion. Today the costs involved in creating a stand alone system have come down so much (like the fancy shocks) that it is no longer prohibitive to do.

Policing the sensors will never be effective as I believe that today it is legal to install a data system and if I put a throttle position sensor on my car how would you prove that it is part of the data system only and not the EM if the two are integrated?

Open it up, along with modded or completely removed stock harness. Cheap and easy way to simplify a car. BTW I did a Mega Squirt (Spit) on my RX7 EP car and it was pretty simple including home made harness.

[924Guy]

I agree, this rule seems outdated and unnecessary added cost and complexity. I do agree with the desire to not add sensors, but eprodrx7 has a very good point. Just as I have a wheel speed sensor, and could readily have more than one - all of a sudden I can implement traction control! (Don't worry; while I have the capability, it ain't gonna happen on my CIS car!) But yeah, how can this be policed? Perhaps the existing rules are already sufficient to prevent this, even if catching cheating may be difficult? Maybe they would just need more teeth? Either way, the ECU case rule is outdated IMO...

[Greg Amy]

Open it up, along with modded or completely removed stock harness.[/b]

Let's explore John's idea a bit; I'm intrigued. What's the risk of simply opening it all up? How will adding sensors and outputs affect the prep level? After all, what Jake's proposing (and I support) is the idea to make currently allowed mods easier and cheaper, without opening holes for increased prep level.

ECU tuning is allowed now. What is the marginal risk of allowing additional sensor input (e.g., wide-band O2 sensor, temp sensors, position sensors)? I suggest that allowing additional sensor inputs will produce minimal returns over what you can do now. What's the risk of allowing additional outputs? Honestly, I'm drawing a blank as to what outputs we could use, but it's early and I haven't had my fourth cup of coffee yet...

Really, the only thing that immediately comes to mind is using wheel speed sensors to create some kind of traction control, but even that has little value in classes ITA and below; besides, it's not particularly difficult to program to limit the rate of acceleration of an engine, thus doing "traction control" now...

Dunno, John, you may have a point. Barring someone coming up with some clever way of abusing such an idea, it may have merit... - Greg

[Ron Earp]

Really, the only thing that immediately comes to mind is using wheel speed sensors to create some kind of traction control, but even that has little value in classes ITA and below; besides, it's not particularly difficult to program to limit the rate of acceleration of an engine, thus doing "traction control" now...

Dunno, John, you may have a point. Barring someone coming up with some clever way of abusing such an idea, it may have merit... - Greg
[/b]

Open it on up - the engine is an air pump and can't produce more power than the mechanical limitations. Naturally, tweeking the ECU allows you to extract more of the available power. And having an open ECU rule will allow even more of that, but it'll level the playing field for ECU cars.

As far as traction control or limiting wheel spin, a simplistic wheel spin (when both spin) has been available in modified MSD boxes for years. Sample the spark timing, reference to RPM, take the derivative and when it exceeds a certain value cut spark because you know you've got wheel spin. Was a common cheat on roundy round and no doubt has been in an SCCA car somewhere.

It'll be easier with open ECUs, but cheating is illegal with or without an open ECU.

I've been a big fan of the Megasquirt and have followed it for years on the forums and web sites. Good stuff for those interested and completed ones can now be bought, no more soldering, masking boards, etching, etc. There are lots of hobbist on the Megasquirt forums who offer install packages on your engine and tuning help for few dollars. The Megasquirt can offer good control over an engine and sort of deflates the "I have to spend $5000 for a Motec" argument.

Ron

[Bill Miller]

Don't most traction control systems work through the ABS system?

Here's my take, you want an open ECU/harness/sensors, It's a 5% wieght penalty.

I agree, the current ECU rule is silly. Make people spend more money just to meet the letter of the rule. It's almost exactly like the old shock rule. But, people wouldn't do it if there were real gains to be had. Opening it up makes it accessible to those w/o the huge budgets. However, there are still gains to be had that some can't take advantage of (CIS folks, carb folks, etc). I have no problem w/ letting people do it, just that it will cost them (in terms of lead).