ECUs....is it time?

[Z3_GoCar]

Well, with my system NONE of the stock sensors are compatible with my system. All of my sensors have been replaced and there's not any hint of the stock engine wire harness to be found on my car. Also the stock idle control valve isn't compatible with my systems control algorythm as it's not a stepper motor. To meet these requirements of using stock sensors and actuators I'd have to switch up to a new TECIII system add a new used motor harness and I'm looking at easily adding $3.5k to $5.0k to just making my engine management system legal. With all this IT illegal technology on board my car, and it only dyno'ed what it was expected to if fully IT built.... I may be staying in ITE/DM for another season.

James

[JoshS]

James,

I feel badly for you, and I would hope you could get to ITR so we'd have more west coast turnout.

However, the rules should not be catering to cars that were built beyond the IT rules and have to convert back. They should be built to make it easy to convert a stock car to IT rules. Perhaps you bought the wrong car for IT ... Did you really think when you bought this car with the intent to go IT racing with it that the rules would change in the next 6 months? You must have been prepared for this possibility ...

[Z3_GoCar]

Well Josh,

I was prepared for some issues, and in the mean time I've tried not to make it worse by modifying the car more than it's at now. My goal for this year is to just get my novice/rookie licenses signed off, which I'm most of the way there. When I made the offer on the car, ITR was still not even a proposal yet. So I figured that I'd have a couple of years to collect parts and get to the position of being legal before it went through. Then SIR gate happened, and ITR came in a warp speed.

That being said, restricting the rules to stock sensors means that many systems are ruled out and we're back to only using the sytems that either have an open architecture or have multiple sensor drivers, and thus the latest and most expensive systems. Really thought what's wrong with the system that I'm using, other than it's not on the bleeding edge of management technology? It only functions to control the engine with fuel and spark, it's real basic, with basic commonly avalible sensors, such as a FORD narrow band oxygen sensor. It sits on an aluminum plate, in the box that the battery used to sit in for the early Z3's. Also, it will never perform an illegal function such as dumping the throttle for traction control like a TEC III with an electric throttle car would. Now talk about a mine field, what would open EMS/ECU's have when paired with electronic throttle actuation, and no way to prove or disprove it?

James

[Ron Earp]

Well, with my system NONE of the stock sensors are compatible with my system. All of my sensors have been replaced and there's not any hint of the stock engine wire harness to be found on my car.
James
[/b]

James,

You can use the sensors you have as you mentioned, but you have to be preppared to do some work for sure. A Megasquirt can be taught any sensor output to be used and isn't that hard to do. No, it isn't plug and play, but it can be done. The guys on this forum have probably done it all, and if they can't help they can find someone that can:

http://www.msefi.com/

Doesn't help with your wiring harness though, for that, you might have to attempt to get one from a junkyard. Complete wiring harnesses are amazing easy to install these days as they are so modular.

I know these are not exactly what you need, but with a 10s search on ebay this appeared:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1998-BMW-Z3...VQQcmdZViewItem

An engine harness for a Z3, $150. And a computer too, $16.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1998-BMW-Z3...VQQcmdZViewItem

I'm sure with some watching you'd get what you need relatively easily.

In any event, without a change rule you'll be forced to do a lot more work putting an ECU into the stock housing. I'm all for opening up the ECU rule, doing away with the box argument, and the wirnessing harness argument. However, I'm not sure the ITAC is ready to go that far, although I can't see the logic in maintaining a wiring harness rule.

And, sometimes you have to be careful what you start with - if I'd started with this Jensen (with a blower!) I'd still be trying to make it IT ready!

http://www.race-cars.com/carsales/other/11...160498070ss.htm


R

[dj10]

In any event, without a change rule you'll be forced to do a lot more work putting an ECU into the stock housing. I'm all for opening up the ECU rule, doing away with the box argument, and the wirnessing harness argument. However, I'm not sure the ITAC is ready to go that far, although I can't see the logic in maintaining a wiring harness rule.
R [/b]

Acually Ron, I'm not concerned about the ITAC, It's the CRB who will make the final decision. I believe with the info that I've seen on this subject on this forum, the ITAC & CRB can only conclude logically, it would be in the best interest of SCCA & the "New IMPROVED TOURING" to maintain cost effectivness by allowing the ECU & wiring harness rule be changed. This rule could save the members thousands of dollars over a year or two in engine repairs, maintance costs, fuel not to mention polution while probably picking up some new found engine performance. I also believe the cheating will be no more than it is right now.

dj

[Ron Earp]

Acually Ron, I'm not concerned about the ITAC, It's the CRB who will make the final decision.
dj
[/b]

Sorry, I meant CRB. I confuse all those groups - can you tell I'm not much of a organizational guy? I find the ITAC very helpful, supportive, and wanting to move IT into the modern day.

Ron

[dj10]

Sorry, I meant CRB. I confuse all those groups - can you tell I'm not much of a organizational guy? I find the ITAC very helpful, supportive, and wanting to move IT into the modern day.

Ron
[/b]

From what I've seen lately Ron I will agree with you and they do deserve some thanks.

[C. Ludwig]

How about a 65MM hot wire from a mustang on the Mazda? [/b]

That's not at all what I'm suggesting. All stock sensors would remain in place so as not to free up any current restrictions. We'd just be able to add EMS specific sensors to ease installation, setup, and tuning. Changing from a speed density control system to MAF or vice versa will not create power in anyway. Optimum tuning is optimum tuning regardless of the control structure. And the reality is that the physics of VE limitations will never be overcome by electronics. With cam control you may be able to shift the power band or fatten up the torque curve. But the current rule already allows this

Total control of the dual Vanos on the BMW? [/b]

It's already possible with in the current rule structure.

I know some Honda's will get real fast with unlimited sensors and ECU. [/b]

I don't agree but am interested in your explanation. Maybe I'm missing something. Just like the BMWs total cam control is already possible.

It will take years to balance the equation again as cars have to go 10/10ths in all these cases to see the real outcome. Open up the ECU but keep the STOCK sensors as the only inputs. Anyone with the brains to set up a system is smart enough to solder to the original ECU plug.[/b]

I agree it will take time for this to shake out. However, I reiterate it's my opinion that a properly worded rule opening up sensors and wiring will produce no more power than what is already currently available. It will make it easier for the masses to achieve what some have already through more expensive, cumbersome methods.

[dj10]

I agree it will take time for this to shake out. However, I reiterate it's my opinion that a properly worded rule opening up sensors and wiring will produce no more power than what is already currently available. It will make it easier for the masses to achieve what some have already through more expensive, cumbersome methods. [/b]

Hass anyone written to request the change to the CRB?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hass anyone written to request the change to the CRB?

[/b]

It's on tonights agenda.

[dj10]

It's on tonights agenda.

[/b]

Thanks Andy. Can you lets us know some details from tonights meeting?

dj

[lateapex911]

Basically, we have been discussing the same issues on the ITAC that we've been discussing here. There are members of the ITAC, and the CRB, who read this board, but don't post, as well as some who do post occasionally, or regularly, such as Andy and myself.

When I posted the initial subject here, I also submitted a very similar concept for internal discussion to the ITAC. From there, we've done some research, and had some outside expert submissions, and we've created a proposal that will be discussed by the ITAC tonight.

Now, the ITAC is made up of guys from different corners of the country, as well as guys who own different makes and models in different classes. Opinions will, I assume, be varied on this subject. I know where I stand, but we''ll see what other viewpoints come up. I can't predict the outcome, but rest assured, it will be gone over, and not lightly, LOL!

[Z3_GoCar]

Thanks Jake,

Believe me the restriction on my Bosch OBDII system makes replacement the only viable option. And to replace it under the current rules means only one option. I appreciate your effort on this.

James

[dj10]

Basically, we have been discussing the same issues on the ITAC that we've been discussing here. There are members of the ITAC, and the CRB, who read this board, but don't post, as well as some who do post occasionally, or regularly, such as Andy and myself.

When I posted the initial subject here, I also submitted a very similar concept for internal discussion to the ITAC. From there, we've done some research, and had some outside expert submissions, and we've created a proposal that will be discussed by the ITAC tonight.

Now, the ITAC is made up of guys from different corners of the country, as well as guys who own different makes and models in different classes. Opinions will, I assume, be varied on this subject. I know where I stand, but we''ll see what other viewpoints come up. I can't predict the outcome, but rest assured, it will be gone over, and not lightly, LOL! [/b]

How did the meeting go?

[lateapex911]

Well, since you asked (and by the way, a birdie tells me your SIR equipped BMW just set a lap record at Mid Ohio...congrats!!)....

The ECu was discussed at length.

Now, lets preface this by saying that at this point, this is what I think will happen, but.............there are no guarantees!

To summarize, I think it's safe to say that the majority of ITAC and CRB guys on the con call agree that it's a problematic rule, and in general, would support an open solution. The crux of the matter is the drawing of the line on additional sensors and such. In a larger architecture view, not allowing addition sensors limits the desired effect of the change, which is to allow everyone a fairer shot at taking advantage of the ECU rule than currently exists, as some of the cheaper EMS units aren't as flexible sensor-wise as the more expensive units.

On the other hand, allowing additional sensors/swapping sensors is seen as a step to Prod, and a loss of the IT philosophy.

At this point, we will submit the rule change as we wrote it ( at this point it's at a fairly progressive state, in order to look at the extremes) to the CRB and it should go out on next months Fastrack for member feedback, with a preface to summarize the situation and intent, and we'll see what happens.

It's a fairly major rule change, and while we need to be swift about it, we also need to cover all the bases, and be sure we've looked under all the stones before we finalize it. As such, it won't be in place at the begining of '07, but could be, if it works out, effective sometime early in the season.

To those that are anxious for it to happen, sit tight, the wheels are turning, and to those who are fearful, relax, everyone will have a chance to give input, and nothing is being rushed here.

[Eagle7]

[dj10]

Well, since you asked (and by the way, a birdie tells me your SIR equipped BMW just set a lap record at Mid Ohio...congrats!!)....

The ECu was discussed at length.

Now, lets preface this by saying that at this point, this is what I think will happen, but.............there are no guarantees!

To summarize, I think it's safe to say that the majority of ITAC and CRB guys on the con call agree that it's a problematic rule, and in general, would support an open solution. The crux of the matter is the drawing of the line on additional sensors and such. In a larger architecture view, not allowing addition sensors limits the desired effect of the change, which is to allow everyone a fairer shot at taking advantage of the ECU rule than currently exists, as some of the cheaper EMS units aren't as flexible sensor-wise as the more expensive units.

On the other hand, allowing additional sensors/swapping sensors is seen as a step to Prod, and a loss of the IT philosophy.

At this point, we will submit the rule change as we wrote it ( at this point it's at a fairly progressive state, in order to look at the extremes) to the CRB and it should go out on next months Fastrack for member feedback, with a preface to summarize the situation and intent, and we'll see what happens.

It's a fairly major rule change, and while we need to be swift about it, we also need to cover all the bases, and be sure we've looked under all the stones before we finalize it. As such, it won't be in place at the begining of '07, but could be, if it works out, effective sometime early in the season.

To those that are anxious for it to happen, sit tight, the wheels are turning, and to those who are fearful, relax, everyone will have a chance to give input, and nothing is being rushed here. [/b]

Thanks for the congrats Jake. Those damn birdies.



This to me is great news. If there is anything we can do to help, just ask. I hope it will work out like the SIR's did and be in place by 5/1/07.

[tnord]

good to hear gentleman.


now to start looking into what EMS units work on a 1.6 miata.

[Z3_GoCar]

[/b]

Anything would be an improvement over the current situation. Thanks for the update.

James

[lateapex911]

Well, ladies and gentlemen, you are part of the equation. Do your research, and then write in with your thoughts. List what you'd like to do, and what caveats you have, and why you'd like to go the route you chose. In other words, if you want to run XYZ system, but you can't because you need to add a sensor it requires, say so.

Of course, if you think the idea is rubbish, and all ECU cars should be stricken from the list, or we should disallow any ECU mods altogether, (the genie back in the bottle stand), then by all means say so.

If you think the rule is better the way it is, because it limits the amount of money the average racer will spend on it, (only the really rich will go Motec), and you see the opening of the rule as an additional financial burden, say so.

Frankly, this is an area that not just the ITAC, but the SS and Touring guys are looking at and all inputs are good. The CRB wants, I think, to understand this issue, and your opinions will help.

Keep in mind though, that while the official Fastrack response might be the usual lame "Thankyou for your input", that your letters DO get read and discussed.