ECUs....is it time?

[Z3_GoCar]

Uggh. Not there again.

I think what he means to say is the intake size is fixed, the engine is an air pump, and no amount of electronic management will make it produce more power than the mechanicals dictate. Certainly, good a ECU management will allow you to harness more of what is available, but it isn't magic.

R
[/b]

Exactly!

If we're not allowed alternate ecu's then why are carburetor/distributor guys allowed to re-jet, change timming, recurve the advance? If it's a limitation that came with the car, why are the guy's harnessed with a non adjustable smog carb from the early 80's allowed to change their engine management to a re-jetable alternate carb? If IT's philosophy is to change assemblies, then why is an ecu change made by gutting the oem box, then installing new boards in the stock box? It seems to me, IT's philosophy should just allow the chucking of the stock ecm box as an assembly, and installing a new one as a replacement. Any gains seen were always there, to be had the same as a re-jet and recurve would give, but are unavalible because of the tamper-proof nature that CARB/EPA has mandated into the stock OBDII system. I guess some manufactures listened to the EPA's requirement for a tamper proof system more than others did I also understand that OBDIII with send out a signal when ever the system operates outside it's design parameters, so that hand held tuners and resistor cluges designed to make the motor think it's always cold will trigger an alert to notify the smog authorities of a non-compliant vehicle. Smog tickets in the mail anyone??

James

[C. Ludwig]

Well, I'm glad after a couple years a few people see it my way. The current rule is poorly thought out, counterproductive, and only serves to further seperate the haves from the have nots. Convoluted is the word I love to use. I am fully supportive of opening the rule to include any aftermarket ECU as well as being allowed to modify or replace the stock harness as is needed to install the aftermarket ECU. And for the record, and anyone can go back and read my old posts, I have been a proponent of "putting the genie back in the bottle" from the start. I'm not here trying to sell an EMS.

I left IT this year and this rule was on the list of determining factors. It's not so much the rule in and of itself but what the short sightedness of the rule represents within the SCCA process as a whole. For example, differentials are a free item. A 5:12 ring and pinion for an ITS RX-7 costs around $1500 to purchase new and modify to work in the stock housing. Most are strong and run several years but they do break. No one crys because it's too expensive, makes the car way too fast, or bitches because it's a complex welding/machining operations that few shops in country even want to attempt. Hey guess what, I can set up any IT car with a brand new EMS, harness, sensors, installation, and tuning for about what you'll have in an RX-7 diff and it should last forever. And that's about about half the price of the "Motec in a box option". Clearly anyone basing their lack of support of a change in EMS rules on the cost factor is not seeing the big picture.

Why is it perfectly OK to spend $1500+ on a wear part ring and pinion, $1000+ per corner on shocks, but we must use the stock 20 year old rotten, greasy, pain in the ass wire harness? Because we don't want rules creep? We want to keep expenses down? The rule as it is now written is the most expensive solution possible. Period. By convoluting any attempt to allow easier access to aftermarket EMS by requiring the use of a stock harness or stock sensors only continues to make it more expensive to achieve the same end results. If aftermarket EMS is allowed the easiest, cheapest, most reliable solution will be to allow those systems to run on the harness they ship with as well as the sensors they are intended to untilize. Why?

Strictly speaking of sensors, only the highest end systems are capable of being programmed to use sensors of alternate output outside the range of sensors that the EMS manufacturer originally intends them to be used with. By requiring stock sensors you automatically rule out the less expensive entry elevel systems. The ubiquitous Motecs are programmable...and expensive. Price starts around $2500 for a kit with harness. Again the process is convoluted in using the stock sensors because you need to have knowledge of that sensors output pattern and reprogram the ECU to work with that pattern. Not rocket science but it's easier , less time consuming, to use the manufacturer's sensors. Requiring a stock harness for that EMS simply means we'll need to build a patch harness between the EMS and the stock harness. Again plugging my brand new wiring into something that is 20 years old, dry rotting, and suspect. Why? To prevent someone from cheating? More on that later...

On the low end there are full stand alone systems that are trigger adaptive (can be configured to work with practically any stock trigger negating the need to install some sort of crank and/or cam trigger). These systems ship with wire harness and sensors (coolant temp, intake air temp, throttle position - all needed for speed density injection systems...can't run correctly without them as some might have printed). Starting price? Around $1000. My shop charges $400 for basic install and we usually end up with around 4 hours invested in dyno tuning to optimize the system. You have brand new sensors (most all aftermarket EMS use GM sensors that are available at any Autozone) and brand new wiring. And guess what...very often a warranty!!! Only downfall of speed density is that they are not friendly to mods that alter VE. Change a header, flow more air, and you need to retune. I can see how the HUGE financial investment has all of you cringing!

Speed density...what is it and why do I care? It's what most all aftermarket EMS rely on to control fuel. Speed density uses inputs from a MAP (manifold absolute pressure) sensor, coolant temp, intake air temp, and throttle position sensors to compute the mass of air entering the engine and then lookup the desired amount of fuel for that mass of air. Who cares? Well, again, that's what most systems use. Problem is most newer OE EFI systems (Honda being the notable exception) use some form of either vein air (usually pre-1990 systems) or mass air. Mass air directly measures the mass of air entering the engine without need for input for the temp and TPS sensors. The vein meters measure airflow from a combination of the common flapper door and an air temp sensor usually internal to the flow sensor. Some Japaneese makes use other systems such as the karman vortex sensor. Problem is only the highest end systems support vein air or mass air meters. Good luck getting someone to help you setup that karman vortex sensor! Again, by requiring stock sensors we have inadvertently raised the price of entry. How much? Again base standalone EMS can be had for around $1000 plus install and tuning. The base Motec that supports mass air in around 2.5x that cost. The cost is further escalated in time invested by the user or tuner matching the EMS to sensors no one else uses. The knowledge base in EMS is in speed density. Want a system installed and tuned? It will be orders of magnitude more difficult to find someone fluent in mass air adaption than in a straightforward speed density install and tune.

In the end mass air is a more precise control system as the mass of air is directly measured. But practically no one in the aftermarket works in it. Talk to any EMS supplier about shipping you a kit and they'll immediately presume you'll convert to speed density. If so we need a MAP sensor. Does your car even have a MAP sensor now? Does it fit the output specs for the EMS of your choice? "Most EMS have the MAP sensor already in the box. Just run the hose to it". Wrong. Some do, some don't. Some of the least expensive don't. And who can justify the thought process that says if the MAP sensor is inside the box it's OK and we can run a hose from the intake to the box but adding a sensor outside the box is crazy talk and leads down a long dark road of rules creep? I'm sorry but that's a head in the sand/SCCA point of view.

There are a few misconceptions I've read of what the aftermarket ECUs can do and how they work. As a dealer/installer/tuner some are obvious to me and it would be a shame for any new rules to be written based on those misconceptions. Those that would re-write this rule, if that time came, should approach more than one person with advanced knowledge of engine management with their intents and ask honest questions about the what the unintended consequences may be. Preferably NOT someone with a vested interest in selling products to IT racers. Clearly the current rule was written with a very narrow viewpoint that left IT with a big mess. One thought that comes to mind is a spec ECU. This is the direction GA Cup is moving and where several drag racing bodies have been for years. If you want to use an aftermarket EMS spec one of the lower tier systems that does not support traction control (if TC is such a huge fear). This is precisely how TC is controlled in some drag racing. There are systems in the sub $2000 range that support variable cam systems but do not support traction control or ABS.

The above deals specifically with standalone EMS. It doesn't even touch on the world of piggyback systems. Some are very good, don't require auxilary inputs, are cheap (Apexi's SAFC can be had for around $300 new), are easy to program and install, and produce real results. They do require that you hack into a few wires on the stock harness. GOD FORBID! THE SKY IS FALLING!

And to prevent someone from cheating like I mentioned earlier? If you all really wanted to prevent that we'd have some kind of real tech. We'd protest and bounce people that cheat. But we don't. So we sit back and write rules that try to balance placating the cheaters out of violation and appease those that don't want the rules to change. And we end up with a bastardized version that no one likes. If you're going to placate and appease let's make it the cheapest most reliable method of doing so.

[Z3_GoCar]

Hey Chris,

That's a great idea spec alternate ems systems just like alternate carburetors. Relatively simple systems that don't include traction control, speced with what ever sensor pack they were designed with. Maybe even keep the unneccessary sensors in place like a hot wire MAF or flapper doors, just to keep the inlet hole the same relative size. I'd suggest the electromotive TEC II as one possibility, but then I'm biased as that's what I'm currently using.

James

[C. Ludwig]

Hey Chris,

That's a great idea spec alternate ems systems just like alternate carburetors. Relatively simple systems that don't include traction control, speced with what ever sensor pack they were designed with. Maybe even keep the unneccessary sensors in place like a hot wire MAF or flapper doors, just to keep the inlet hole the same relative size. I'd suggest the electromotive TEC II as one possibility, but then I'm biased as that's what I'm currently using.

James
[/b]

I agree completely. The Tec II isn't in production anymore. The ECU would also need to be trigger adaptive and I'm not sure that Electromotive is. Again, if something like a spec EMS were adopted those writing the rules should consult with a good number of professionals that deal with EMS on a daily basis to find something that worked for everyone. There are systems out there that would fit the bill.

[dickita15]

Chris, interesting post.

My only question is this thread started as “if we were to allow alternate ECUs with the stock harness more cars could get the same results they can get now only cheaper”

I we allow alternate harnesses and adding sensors wont we make it possible to increase performance over the current Motec in a box solution.

That seems a different end than letting us accomplish what we already can but in a cheaper manner.

[JimLill]

Another way to understand where this might lead would be to have some of the knowledgeable people make a more detailed proposal as to what they would do if the rules were to open up a bit. Then that could be constructively discussed.

For example, I own a 86 VW with CIS-E. What could be done as an increment up from that would be equivalent to carb rejetting and that kind of thing. Isn't that all we're looking for? A increment of power and $, not a leap to new science.

BTW, OBD-2 is a marker in time that is related to the complexity and level of control you can exert over these systems, but doesn't really establish any ability or lack-off to mod things.

[Greg Amy]

Another way to understand where this might lead would be to have some of the knowledgeable people make a more detailed proposal as to what they would do if the rules were to open up a bit.[/b]

A fine idea.

On my NX2000, by far the easiest solution is the AEM Power EMS (http://www.aempower.com/ViewProduct.aspx?ProductID=503). At $2000 it ain't cheap, but it is LITERALLY a plug-n-play system. I remove my factory ECU and plug theirs into the factory wiring harness. Fully tunable. Not legal under current rules because of the unmodified factory housing restrictions.

The other alternative is a Megasquirt system (http://www.megasquirt.info/). Much less expensive than AEM but possibly a lot less technical support for my specific application. Uses MAP, IAT, and TPS. It would be *possible*, but extremely difficult, to fit into a factory ECU housing, plus I'd need to be able to get a vacuum line from the manifold to the MAP sensor on the ECU board. Further, melding it to the factory wiring harness would be a bear. Optimally, I'd be allowed to either bypass or modify the factory wiring harness in order to integrate this into the car's existing sensors.

Third choice would be a Unichip piggyback. Don't know much about it.

I'm certain there are other viable alternatives, but I'm simply ignorant of them.

The phreak in me likes the Megaquirt, the lazy screw in me likes the AEM. - GA

[C. Ludwig]

Chris, interesting post.

My only question is this thread started as “if we were to allow alternate ECUs with the stock harness more cars could get the same results they can get now only cheaper”

I we allow alternate harnesses and adding sensors wont we make it possible to increase performance over the current Motec in a box solution.

That seems a different end than letting us accomplish what we already can but in a cheaper manner.
[/b]

Good question. This is where it would be important to request help from an experienced outside party(s).

As I posted before there are only four sensors required for speed density to run correctly. A MAP sensor, coolant temp, intake air temp, and throttle position. Any car that runs speed density as OE (Honda) already is so equipped. Any car that runs some form of air meter likely is equipped with coolant, air temp, and TPS sensors in addition to the air meter. What I'm saying is that we're not so much adding sensors just for the sake of it, but by requiring the stock sensors we are limiting ourselves to only high end systems which can be alternately programmed to read an OE sensor that may have an output different than what the EMS designer intended for their base systems.

Let's say we allow alternate sensors. What are we most afraid of? Traction control? Spec a low end system that doesn't support the function. Easy enough. You still don't eliminate TC, the MSD rate of gain algorithm has been mentioned, but you remove the black patch from the eye of the EMS. Cheaters will be cheaters.

I know it's been rumored that some teams are using the current rule to take control of idle speed control systems. Most idle speed controls are setup with some kind of variable valve that routes additional air around the throttle blade at idle to allow electronic control to stabilize the idle speed during varying load situations and during cold warm up. The rumor is that teams are using the open box rule to pin these valves open to serve as an alternate route for additional air to enter the engine. This makes more power. Here's what's important. This could be accomplished with a simple jumper inside the stock box (gray area legal?) and isn't the direct result of an EMS change. It would also be possible if we speced an EMS and harness to have the harness shipped from the manufacturer with just enough leads to only allow interface between the ECU and the needed sensors and needed outputs. No PWM outputs for things such as idle control valves that would be used for an unintended purpose. I suspect this is where GA Cup is going with their spec ECU/harness rule. Want to eliminate this? Require all idle speed control systems be removed and any holes left in the intake blanked if an alternate EMS is used. Idle speed control is not required for a race engine where cold start is of little concern and there is not an a/c compressor continually cycling. In fact, probably 90% of the street cars that I do installs on do not utilize any form of idle control with their aftermarket EMS. They cold start and idle just fine.

The problem with the above senario and the thought that the perfect rule could be written to eliminate cheating is that it is just as easy for a creative person to mechanically alter the idle control aparatus so that it is pinned open all the time. This would be blatantly illegal but impossible to ever find under our current tech process. My point is that the EMS rule as it is now isn't something that is causing or preventing any significant amount of cheating. Only making it more expensive to reach a level of 10/10s prep. Or even get some of these ITR cars on the track?

In the end the only way to create more power is to alter VE (volumetric efficiency), flow more air. The sensors mentioned and wire to directly connect them can't do that. Taking control of variable valve timing and lift could. But that's already leagl under the current rule. Taking control of idle control can do that but that's already (gray area) legal. There might be something I'm not thinking of. That's why I'm suggesting industry experts be consulted. Might I suggest Ben Strader of EFI 101? He has experience heaped upon experience, is knowledable in a variety of systems, has built engines and EMS for a variety of platforms, and to my knowledge is not currently a supplier of any one system. But, IMO, allowing alternate sensors (only those required for proper engine function?) along with and alternate harness (only enough inputs/outputs for basic engine functions?) along with a speced box(s) would be a less expensive, easier to apply solution than what we have now.

[dj10]

Chris,

What we need is a way to work the new rule that IS to be viewed & hopefully approved by the ITAC and CRB. Once we have it written then all of us can start to write emails to the CRB for implementation.

BTW nice write ups.

dj

[lateapex911]

Chris, I'm in agreement with your points. I am well aware of the issues with the idle controls, and the allowance of semi open EMS's has created that issue. For those that might not understand, having air inlets past the throttle plates allows tuner/racers to pump more air. More air = more power. Problem is, how do you do that, and keep the mixture correct? Motec.

Actually, there are several scenarios that can work...and of course, they are all blantantly cheating.

But...one of the reasons we hear resistance to the open EMS/ECU concept is that it will increase performance and or cheating.. Well, guess what...look around....we've been there for awhile now.

Thanks for the well reasoned info.

[Z3_GoCar]

If we're going to propose a change to the current rules, we need a mission statement along with supporting goals. To that end here's my proposed mission statement:

Our mission is to provide alternate Engine Management Systems (EMS) or Electronic Control Units (ECU) much as alternate carburetors are listed for carbureted motors.

The purpose is to provide acess to adjustments in fuel and ignition curves where before either none were avalible or convuluted means were required to both satisfy both the letter of the rules and make the systems adjustable.

These alternate EMS/ECU's will only be allowed to perform the function of fuel curve and ignition, they will not allow air to bypass the throttle plate, nor perform functions not allowed (i.e. traction control or anti-lock brakes). Only the systems listed are allowed to replace factory EMS/ECU's and will be mounted in such a fashion as to be easily inspected for compliance with allowed connections. All original air metering sensors, including flapper valves or hot wire Air Flow Meters, will remain installed in the intake tract irregardless of if the alternate EMS/ECM uses the signal or not. All air bypass control valves will be removed and the openings plugged, or used for alternate approved replacement sensors.

If an alternate EMS/ECU is not used then the original EMS/ECU must be used in an unaltered and unmodified state other than availible downloadable software or proms. If the original EMS/ECU performs other functions neccessary to the operation of the vehicle other than controling fuel and ignition, it may remain installed and connected to the stock wiring harness. Otherwise the original EMS/ECU may be completely removed from the vehicle.

All tunning and adjustments are to be made by means that are outside of the drivers compartment. Drivers are not to be able to adjust the alternate EMS/ECU while belted in and driving.

The alternate EMS/ECU's and their allowed sensors are as follows:

......

How's that for a first pass? Now what holes can be poked in that? Let's figure out how to make this hold air. So that we can get what we need (adjustability) without going too far overboard that everything that's not EFI is no longer competitive.

James

On edit and second thought:

I think I've written myself into a corner as what I've written doesn't allow acutation of varible cam timming, cooling fans, or driving fuel pumps. Should this be added? to allowed functions?

[dj10]

All tunning and adjustments are to be made by means that are outside of the drivers compartment. Drivers are to to be able to adjust the alternate EMS/ECU while belted in and driving.
James
[/quote]



Don't you mean "Drivers are NOT able to adjust the ........etc ect?

[Z3_GoCar]

I agree completely. The Tec II isn't in production anymore. The ECU would also need to be trigger adaptive and I'm not sure that Electromotive is. Again, if something like a spec EMS were adopted those writing the rules should consult with a good number of professionals that deal with EMS on a daily basis to find something that worked for everyone. There are systems out there that would fit the bill.
[/b]

You're right the TEC II uses a 60-2 tooth trigger wheel on the crank or a 120-4 tooth on a cam. Mine uses the stock trigger on the crank between 5 and 6 that's been reindexed. The most common means of triggering a TECII is to install the trigger wheel on the harmonic damper/main drive pulley, then have a bracket hold the sensor in place. I'll alert the guy who tuned my system. He may have some suggestions since he's worked with Electromotive systems for over 15 years.

James

[sstecker]

All tunning and adjustments are to be made by means that are outside of the drivers compartment. Drivers are NOT to to be able to adjust the alternate EMS/ECU while belted in and driving.

[Z3_GoCar]

All tunning and adjustments are to be made by means that are outside of the drivers compartment. Drivers are to to be able to adjust the alternate EMS/ECU while belted in and driving.
James




Don't you mean "Drivers are NOT able to adjust the ........etc ect?
[/b]

All tunning and adjustments are to be made by means that are outside of the drivers compartment. Drivers are NOT to to be able to adjust the alternate EMS/ECU while belted in and driving.
[/b]

Sorry, that's what I ment to say. I've fixed it now.

James

[dickita15]

Our mission is to provide alternate Engine Management Systems (EMS) or Electronic Control Units (ECU) much as alternate carburetors are listed for carbureted motors.
[/b]

Of course if you want to use the analogy to alternate carburetors you will need to specify a ECU that will only work on a limited number of cars.

[Renaultfool]

Chris, very good job!
Just so you know my Renault runs with a MAP sensor, water temp sensor, intake air tempreture, but no throttle position sensor. Renault Renix system, those crazy froggy Frenchmen.
How about that Alonzo in F!! I just have to paint my car blue and yellow for next year.

James, good start at a proposal. I think that you should still allow for the changing of the resistance of the tempreture sensors for those of us who want to change our mixture on the cheap.

Good start guys.
Carl

[JimLill]

Has anyone ever produced a write-up on what the current rules say on this subject. Perhaps a matrix on can/cannots that we could all agree to. That might be a good starting point for proposed changes.

[dj10]

I think I've written myself into a corner as what I've written doesn't allow acutation of varible cam timming, cooling fans, or driving fuel pumps. Should this be added? to allowed functions? [/quote]



James, I think the should be ( I own a vanos engine) included as well as the ability to monitor but not change while driving the a/f mixture. To some degree, don't these system have the ability of Data Acquisition?



Great start James, go for it.

dj

[Z3_GoCar]

I think I've written myself into a corner as what I've written doesn't allow acutation of varible cam timming, cooling fans, or driving fuel pumps. Should this be added? to allowed functions?



James, I think the should be ( I own a vanos engine) included as well as the ability to monitor but not change while driving the a/f mixture. To some degree, don't these system have the ability of Data Acquisition?



Great start James, go for it.

dj
[/b]

I also would like to include these functions with the allowed engine management functions, and for the same reasons as you Dan. Our system can operate on a simple bang-bang control signal, but the future valvetronic type systems aren't so simple to operate. Maybe we should just cross that bridge in five years.

As for the D/A function. Speaking from my system, I need a lap-top hooked up to a RS-232 serial port to collect the data and write it to a file. I doubt that's something you'd want banging around during a race. Steve mentioned allowing direct collection of signals from sensors for D/A purposes, monitering those signals might be one way to watch but not touch a/f ratio's. Any idea on how you'd insert it into the current language Steve? I'd be a little concerned it might go into a system that does more that what we intend, but I might be convinced otherwise as I'm still considering it.

James