ECUs....is it time?

[dj10]

Well, at this point it's all fact finding.
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.
[/b]

Jake, I ask you what a EMS stuffed into a oem ecu with a oem harness does now? It should be controlling nothing more or nothing less than it does now. It's programming should not be able to be changed by the driver from inside the car while the car is in motion.

What's a carb?

Dan

[JoshS]

My wish list:

1) Ease barrier to entry -- change the rules to not require ECU changes on cars like mine. Make it legal to disable ABS and traction control by means other than disconnecting the wheel sensors and replumbing brakes (i.e., by removing fuses or relays).

2) Make it easier to achieve replacement ECUs/software without megabucks custom solutions. This is supposed to be a bolt-on category, not a custom programming category. So commonly available electronics solution should be available. That means piggy-back systems or replacement ECUs in the stock locations, in addition to custom programming chips or reflashes.

I'm not sure that allowing custom wiring for these external ECUs is really in the spirit of the bolt-on nature of IT, but I'm willing to be swayed on that point. For right now though, I'm thinking the "no additional sensors" is a sensible rule.

[Z3_GoCar]

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.
[/b]

Hey Jake,

Let's just count the inputs neccessary to make a FI/crank triggered car run:

There's 28 wires to trace for my system, they are:

right side:

1) Coolant temp
2) Sensor ground for coolant and MAP/MAF
3) MAP/MAF sensor
4) +5v for MAP/MAF and Throttle Position Switch
5) TPS input
6) Sensor ground for TPS and Crank Trigger
7) Crank Trigger
8) Shield wire for Crank Trigger
9) -EGO sensor wire
10) +EGO sensor wire
11) Manifold Air Temp
12) GRN for MAT and RS-232
13) TXT to RS-232
14) RND to RS-232

On the Left side:

1) Idle Speed Motor A (I'm not using the ISM outputs)
2) ISM B
3) ISM C
4) ISM D
5) Fuel Pump Relay
6) General Purpose Output
7) Tach Out
8) Check Engine Light
9) Battery key switch
10) Knock Sensor
11) Injector Batch A
12) Injector Batch B(not used for 4 cylinder motors)
13) Injector Batch C
14) + Injector Common

If you're worried about tunning on the fly, just make sure no one's running with anything hooked up to the computer output, Maybe seal off the computer connections at tech will keep people from tunning in the middle of the race. All it would take is a sticky dot with a signature on it. Or you could use the same wording as on adjustable shocks, not to be within reach of the driver during the race. Unless they've done their homework at the dyno there should be no reason to tune at the track. The harness is easily enough tracked to all the proper sensors with a continuity setting on a multi-meter. I know that I performed the same check on the harness to figure out what needed to be connected.

James

[Bill Miller]

If you're worried about tunning on the fly, just make sure no one's running with anything hooked up to the computer output, Maybe seal off the computer connections at tech will keep people from tunning in the middle of the race. All it would take is a sticky dot with a signature on it. Or you could use the same wording as on adjustable shocks, not to be within reach of the driver during the race. Unless they've done their homework at the dyno there should be no reason to tune at the track. The harness is easily enough tracked to all the proper sensors with a continuity setting on a multi-meter. I know that I performed the same check on the harness to figure out what needed to be connected.
[/b]

Do you really think something like this could be enforced? Heck, with the advent of annuals, most people's cars aren't even seen at tech. Not to mention you get your tech sticker at the beginning of the weekend, people aren't going to stand for not being able to tune their car during the weekend (nor should they). You expect our tech guys to trace harnesses? Yeah, that'll happen at a MARRS race w/ 300+ cars.

[Doc Bro]

What's a carb?

Dan
[/b]

It's short for carbohydrate. Carbohydrates are sugars. They can be simple or complex (ie a starch). They don't really factor into racing much unless you consume too many in which case they alter the weight distribution within the car.

Hope that helps.


R

[x-ring]

>Hope that helps.

Smarta$$

[dj10]

It's short for carbohydrate. Carbohydrates are sugars. They can be simple or complex (ie a starch). They don't really factor into racing much unless you consume too many in which case they alter the weight distribution within the car.
Hope that helps.
R [/b]

Very good Rob!!!!!!!



Guys and Gals, it's time to put together some language to submit to the ITAC & CRB. We can post it here 1st so it can be revised and discussed. It might be good if a couple of people work on it together and what ever I can do to help I will.

Dan

[tnord]

i assume that these standalone units we might be using in the future can function as DA as well?

[924Guy]

I have a fundamental disagreement with the idea of using secondary constraints in the design of the rules to achieve a primary intent; I fear that specifying stock wiring harness is just trading off one such irrelevant, secondary constraint for another. I respect what you're trying to do, but I think that we'll only end up with a different version of where we are today by such means.

If you want to make TCS and such illegal, say so. Don't tell me how big my ECU needs to be, and pretend that I can put TCS in that box. More advanced technologies will become available; baseing your rules only on currently available technology will virtually guarantee you're painted into a corner later.

It's just like shocks. It's not that threaded bodies are a technological performance advantage, it's just that they were a common feature on expensive shocks. Then they weren't just for expensive shocks anymore.

If you want to control costs, control costs. Directly. Explicitly.

If you want to rule TCS (or any other such technology) illegal, say so, don't dance around the issue. Then the issue is only one of policing. But let's not try to pretend the issue is with peripheral stuff... size of your ECU isn't related to performance, now, is it? It's the Moton of the Ocean, right?

[bldn10]

I am not up to date on the technology so can someone explain what the purpose of all this is? The way I see it, a huge unintended consequence came out of the rule change allowing ECU replacement in addition to alteration. I don't think it was contemplated or intended for Motec-in-a-box mods. But now, rather than correcting that error, many of us want to go even a step further and do away w/ the stock box restriction. Personally, I am running the stock ECU and the response I'd prefer to Motecs is not to allow me to spend more money, but to outlaw the Motecs, et al. On the other hand, if alteration of stock ECUs in the box creates an uneven playing field between cars of different vintage and ECU design and mod-ability, then I can see a need to level the field. And in the cheapest way possible. Is that what we are talking about? Or is it just that everyone will go faster and there will be no relative change? If that's the case, why bother?

[lateapex911]

Bill, I thought I adressed some of your points previously, but if not, here's a comment or three.

It's not so simple that it's an advantage for the new cars and not the old. Some of the new cars are VERY tough....read impossible...to crack the codes of. The ITAC specs cars assuming that they can, and class them based on their ability to make assumed levels of power...but some can not. Some cars go into limp mode when the wheel sensors for the ABS system are removed as per our rules, for example.

And keep in mind, the ECU rule change (from the 90s) that resulted in post classification performance enhancements to select cars has essentially been fixed with the recent weight realignment of the big PCA weight adjustments of '06. So, at this point, we are NOT talking about any shift in the competitive balance.

Second, as for policing, I doubt the "in the box" thing makes policing any easier or harder. The stock harness is the limitation, not the box. The box is purely arbitrary.

We are at, or at the very least approaching, a point where the stock ECu will eliminate certain cars from the list as candidates, because of things like rev limitations, speed limitations, limp mode activations and so forth. Not to mention things we haven't seen yet and can't think of.


I would love to turn back time, but putting the genie back in the bottle is like getting unpregnant...can't be done. At this point, hundreds of racers have spent tens of thousands of dollars solving limp mode issues and the like and heve invested countless hours in research and development.

And, with the advent of ITR, that number will double.

For what? It's all wasted time and money. Our rules are essentially forcing the average racer to go to a firm that can crack the Motec code, and is forced to pay them for their expertise.....and it's costing...make that wasting ...thousands upon thousands of dollars, and I think in a pointless manner.

keep in mind, changing the rule will not change the competitive balance one wit. The rules already allow the performance level of what I'm suggesting...and our process assumes the cars will make it....it's just that the way they are written doesn't allow equal implementation.

Vaughn, points well taken. Food for thought.

[WillM]

I would be in favor of either totally removing ECU mods or opening up the current rule.

At the very least, the current rule should allow the addition or replacement of the stock sensor that is used to gather intake air data. Every aftermarket system I've looked at requires a MAP sensor. Many cars (including mine!) come with either a mass air flow sensor or air flow meter, which is incompatable with everything except the top-level ECUs.

Like Greg, I'm intrigued by the MegaSquirt. It is a very nice low-cost solution. The only problem is that it does not work with anything but a MAP sensor, which as far as I can tell, is currently illegal in IT.

From what I understand, a Motec could be made to work with an AFM, but why should competitor "A" have to pony up $3,000+ for the same mod that competitor "B" could do for a few hundred?

Either equalize the rule or totally remove it. The current rule favors cars that can get plug & play pre-programmed ECU's from the manufacturer or 3rd party.

In a Miata, there is very little to be gained with an ECU, so it would be to my advantage to ask for the elimination of the ECU rule in its entirity. That said, I think allowing ECU mods are more in line with the principals of IT, and would support a rule change that would be more beneficial to all ECU-equipped IT cars. The current rule does not.

Cheers,

Will

[Ron Earp]

Times are a changing and the rules need to as well. It doesn't make sense that I, running a 35 year old car with essentially 50 year old carb technology, can in some cases adjust my A/F ratio easier than a fellow running a 1987 XYZ with fuel injection.

Of course, I have a dog in this hunt as I'm planning on an ITR car. I'd really rather not have to limit my car choices based on what car I think WON'T be limited by ECU tuning - i.e. having to pick a car with a stock ECU box large enough for my homebrew ECU, and/or excellent aftermarket ECU support.

Ron

[tnord]

i think this is an unavoidable change, and in the future replacing the ECU will be as much of a prereq to racing as installing a roll cage, we just gotta figure out the timing of when to do it.

think about this, all the BMW's have 155mph built into the software, ITR is going to be a damn fast class. will they be approaching this speed at places like road america, brainerd, miller, etc?

[Ron Earp]

think about this, all the BMW's have 155mph built into the software, ITR is going to be a damn fast class. will they be approaching this speed at places like road america, brainerd, miller, etc?
[/b]

Many other cars have a lower limit, such as 130mph. It'll be a problem.

Ron

[tnord]

do you have specific examples? are there readily available reflashes to eliminate the governers?

if this problem isn't circumventable via simple solution, people aren't going to build those cars, and ITR will not be as successful as it could be.

it's becoming clearer to me that this needs to happen.

[Ron Earp]

Off the top of my head I want to say the V6 Ford Mustang was limited to 130mph, or it might have been less, although I'm not sure it'd make it anyhow. Doesn't matter, the V6 Mustang listed in the approved R list doesn't exist. Anyhow, there will be others in there too.

Basically, if the car had non-high speed rated tires from the factory it'd be limited. A lot of the R cars were bonfide 150mph+ cars from the factory - Z, Supra, etc. but others in that group I'm not sure about.

RSX, limited?
328i limited depending on trim and tire?

I doubt the BMW is limited to less than the 155mph you mention, but I'm not sure. I don't have the list of R cars in front of me, but I know from reading car rags for 20+ years lots of cars have electronic limiters that are lower than their top speeds.

Ron

[Z3_GoCar]

Off the top of my head I want to say the V6 Ford Mustang was limited to 130mph, or it might have been less, although I'm not sure it'd make it anyhow. Doesn't matter, the V6 Mustang listed in the approved R list doesn't exist. Anyhow, there will be others in there too.

Basically, if the car had non-high speed rated tires from the factory it'd be limited. A lot of the R cars were bonfide 150mph+ cars from the factory - Z, Supra, etc. but others in that group I'm not sure about.

RSX, limited?
328i limited depending on trim and tire?

I doubt the BMW is limited to less than the 155mph you mention, but I'm not sure. I don't have the list of R cars in front of me, but I know from reading car rags for 20+ years lots of cars have electronic limiters that are lower than their top speeds.

Ron
[/b]

Nope, if my memory serves correctly the Z3 1.9 (ITA) is top speed limited to 128mph the 2.8l is limited to 135, not sure about the sedans though. The speed limiter is one of the easy things to remove though, as the Euro versions can be delivered sans limiter and off the shelf software takes care of it.

James

[JoshS]

Nope, if my memory serves correctly the Z3 1.9 (ITA) is top speed limited to 128mph the 2.8l is limited to 135, not sure about the sedans though. The speed limiter is one of the easy things to remove though, as the Euro versions can be delivered sans limiter and off the shelf software takes care of it.
[/b]

Don't forget that the shorter final drive gears that most people put in make this problem worse. You could see drops of 20mph or even more depending on what the changes are. Would it be legal to put in a system to fool the speedo into thinking you're going slower than you are? One of the tricks on Mazdas is to replace the speed sensor in the transmission with one from a different car that had a different rear end ratio.

The good news is that removing electronic speed limiters is one of the most common changes of off-the-shelf reflash systems, for cars that have these available. Unfortunately those off-the-shelf systems don't fix the other problems inherent in the stock ECU software, such as being intolerant of missing wheel speed sensors or missing catalytic converters.

I am considering going the custom software for the stock ECU hardware for my BMW, rather than the more complex approach of replacing the ECU hardware altogether. But there are very few people who can do custom software for the stock ECU hardware, and I'm sure it won't be cheap.

[Eric Parham]

I agree that it's time to open up the ECU rule (the "box" is just silly). But let me point out that we need to be able to add sensors and wiring too. Here's why: Different cars come from the factory with different TYPES of airflow measurement (e.g., hot wire temperature compensated mass air flow, simple flapper mass air flow, pressure sensor in intake, etc.). The Mega-Squirt is the probably both the cheapest and easiest solution, but it only uses a pressure sensor in the intake (no mass airflow sensor). Why exclude cars that simply came with a different type of system from being able to use the cheapest/easiest type of system? If you agree that there's no good reason, then it logically follows that wiring and sensors should be open as well (at least to add the pressure or MAP sensor and wires to it).