ECU Rules.....is it time? HELL YES!!!

[Joe Harlan]

Joe, I hope you and Darin are right. I'm sure the last thing any of us want to do is go through this again in a couple of years. What is will boil down to, you type your letter and I'll type mine and let the CRB decide which is the best way. If the rule is changed back to stock ecu's allowing just flashing, like Andy said it probably be implimented until 08. I can't imagine the CRB changing the rule this year, can you? I'm sure it would be a lot of time & money to remove a complete EM System from your already dialed in race car.
[/b]

Dan, I agree 08 will likely be the change (what ever it is) I would just like to see it handled sooner rather than later so people don't invest into something that may go away in 08. As far as being right I know that as of today the code for the 07 cars are already being worked on by car guys all over the world as we speak.

[Banzai240]

Joe, I hope you and Darin are right.
[/b]

"Hope"??? Hell... I KNOW I'm right... :P

[tnord]

ITR is a class within a category. The rules should be the same for all IT classes.
[/b]

yup, they should be. my point was that i thought ITR was the answer to the issue of "keeping up with the times."

creating a class for newer cars is keeping up with the times.
going from what was intended to be simple, $500 mods to the ECU all the way out to unrestricted engine management systems costing 10x as much and at least 2x the complexity is a complete change in philosophy.

tube frames anyone?

[shwah]

Man this thread really has legs!

Plenty of interesting arguments, some on the topic, some on the side. It seems to me that the majority of the opinions are 'close the loophole' and/or 'open up the box'. I would be OK with either, but agree that the close argument is more 'IT like'. I don't see any valid arguments for keeping the status quo.

Some comments I disagree with:
"Only the most expensive ecu fits in most boxes" - how many times will this one be trotted out, so that we can remind ourselves that the CHEAPEST (in dollars to aquire), system will fit in most boxes also - and is very configurable to run with different types of sensors. It is even available in a special super small version for motorcycles and jet-skis, etc.

"Changing ecus is like swapping stock carbs for a Holly 650" - maybe when changing ecus includes changing throttle bodies this would be true. But today it is BS. Changing ecus is like changing jets and recurving timing in a carbed car.

And to the many suggestions about going Prod racing - that is exactly where I will go when I feel like going to the runoffs. I don't thinke those classes are as crappy as many here would like to believe. The competition is good at the front, and as with any racing that would be my goal. Until then IT ain't broke, and threads like this are a good indicator of the passionate interest that competitors have in it's well being. That is a great thing to see

[bldn10]

"The "intent" in the rulebook doesn't say anything about the "expense" of modifications.... you are taking that out of context... It says "inexpensive cars", which, you are correct, is relative to the consumer of said car... but has NOTHING to do with what is allowed to be modified on said car.

Andy, w/ all due respect, I have to differ w/ you on this one. To say that the intent in that rule is that "inexpensive" applies only to tubs, and not mods, simply defies logic. It means that IT cars are to be (relatively) inexpensive AS RACED.

"The intent says specifically that the rules are to "restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car." Open ECUs are neither "necessary to construct a safe race car", and serve no "usefulness", in constructing a safe racecar... Their modification is purely a performance related allowance. Increasing/modifying the performance of a car, or otherwords making modications "for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage", is not mentioned anywhere in the rulebook of this class as something that is within the intent of IT as a class.

So, what is being done is to take a bad rule, which essentially was outside of the intent of the class to start with, and use it as a basis to further open up the class..."

I apologize for being preachy on this but I have said it over and over and it keeps rearing its ugly head. Previous divergences from the class philosophy should not be used to define the philosophy or serve as precedents for new divergences. The open ECU rule was a divergence. Allowing stand-alones can certainly be argued to be a divergence too. I asked a few days ago what the purpose of a new rule was and I was referred back to the start of the thread. But, either expressly or implicitly, people are still asking that question. If I were on the ITAC/CRB that would be the first thing I would want to do - define exactly what the objectives are. Then set about crafting rules that will achieve those objectives. Otherwise you are just shooting in the dark. If anyone wants to take a shot at a CONCISE set of objectives, I think it would be helpful to all.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, w/ all due respect, I have to differ w/ you on this one. To say that the intent in that rule is that "inexpensive" applies only to tubs, and not mods, simply defies logic. It means that IT cars are to be (relatively) inexpensive AS RACED.
[/b]

I think you are quoting the wrong guy.

[tnord]

I asked a few days ago what the purpose of a new rule was and I was referred back to the start of the thread. [/b]

bill we've disagreed in the past, but i'm with you on this issue.

addressing the quoted question; the purpose of the new rule if it was opened up is to solve a problem we don't yet have. it's being justified in the name of "forward thinking" to give cars not yet eligible or not even yet mfgd a solution to any ECU problems that may come up without even exploring other possibilites. this would be done at the expense of the thousands of IT cars already built.

i just don't get it.

[Knestis]

It increasingly seems like there are two, and only two, viable camps forming around this issue - Call them "chip/flash" (a step back?) and "open it up" (a step forward?). I don't see anyone arguing strongly for leaving things the way they are. I understand the "open it up" position better than "chip/flash," so I'll put this out as a straw-man goal:

Open it up - Establish equity, where everyone has the same opportunity to optimize their engine management.

Chip/flash supporters - What do you hope will result, if the policy shifts that way? And try not to put it in terms of why NOT to "open it up." Ignore also for a minute the issue of enforcement and the problem of writing an air-tight rule. Put your goal in terms of what will be different after the rule is changed.

K

[dj10]

It increasingly seems like there are two, and only two, viable camps forming around this issue - Call them "chip/flash" (a step back?) and "open it up" (a step forward?). I don't see anyone arguing strongly for leaving things the way they are. I understand the "open it up" position better than "chip/flash," so I'll put this out as a straw-man goal:

Open it up - Establish equity, where everyone has the same opportunity to optimize their engine management.

Chip/flash supporters - What do you hope will result, if the policy shifts that way? And try not to put it in terms of why NOT to "open it up." Ignore also for a minute the issue of enforcement and the problem of writing an air-tight rule. Put your goal in terms of what will be different after the rule is changed.

K [/b]

K, you've pretty much sumed it up. From what I've read from Jake's post we are now waiting for some kind of response by the CRB in Fastrack by Feb. 20th. I would suggest that anyone who hasn't written to the CRB, take a stand now and get a letter off to them with your position on this matter.

[Andy Bettencourt]

From what I've read from Jake's post we are now waiting for some kind of response by the CRB in Fastrack by Feb. 20th. I would suggest that anyone who hasn't written to the CRB, take a stand now and get a letter off to them with your position on this matter.

[/b]

The Fastrack will ask for members comment on 3 choices to be collected by the CRB/ITAC.

[Knestis]

My fear is that the CRB might mutate the possible options - any of which that might satisfy some portion of us - into a mess that doesn't get anything right.

K

[dj10]

I was watching the new this morning and they were doing a story on gasoline & ethanol. We have talked a lot about changes to future ecu's and much more. Has anyone thought about what if the goverment starts changing fuel formulas, possibly adding more and more ethanol?? What effect this will have on our race engines? How easy will it to make these changes with the factory ecu's vs. ems? Just something else we might have to prepare for.

[tnord]

I was watching the new this morning and they were doing a story on gasoline & ethanol. We have talked a lot about changes to future ecu's and much more. Has anyone thought about what if the goverment starts changing fuel formulas, possibly adding more and more ethanol?? What effect this will have on our race engines? How easy will it to make these changes with the factory ecu's vs. ems? Just something else we might have to prepare for.
[/b]

....and we can prepare for that when the time comes.

perhaps we should allow alternate materal body panels next year because the pacific rim countries keep buying up the world's steel and in 20yrs it will become cost prohibitive for us to use steel fenders.

[shwah]

My fear is that the CRB might mutate the possible options - any of which that might satisfy some portion of us - into a mess that doesn't get anything right.

K
[/b]

To be honest, just knowing that Chris Albin is in that discussion on the CRB makes me much more comfortable that we will end up with something that makes sense for IT.

Here is my stab at answering your previous question:
The chip/flash camp believes that this matches the philosophy of the IT prep level moreso than aftermarket ECUs. It is in actuality improving the factory solution, rather than replacing it.

The open it up camp believes that aftermarket ECUs allow more people to reach the same prep level. I would imagine this is a bigger issue to those that have taken the leap under the current rule, and competitors in thier classes that have fallen behind as a result. The early adopters will lose an investment with the chip/flash scenario, while simply losing an advantage with the open-up scenario. Thier competitors want a way to catch up, and/or have a car that an open ECU rule will make full effort prep easier.

I can live with either, but prefer the former because the IT rules are not intended to provide total parity, ala Production or GT. The cars are given a place to race with other cars that have a similar potential performance envelope - not an equivalent performance envelope. Cars are what they are, warts and all. In reality, my own car may be a bit faster if we opened the rule up.

[dj10]

....and we can prepare for that when the time comes.

perhaps we should allow alternate materal body panels next year because the pacific rim countries keep buying up the world's steel and in 20yrs it will become cost prohibitive for us to use steel fenders.
[/b]

What the hell does a fender have to do with a ecu? In 20 yrs, that will be your problem Travis, not mine, just like global warming, and I'm all for Global warming . Fuel formulas are changing all the time, now.

[Joe Harlan]

What the hell does a fender have to do with a ecu? In 20 yrs, that will be your problem Travis, not mine, just like global warming, and I'm all for Global warming . Fuel formulas are changing all the time, now.
[/b]

Let me help you Dan the alarmist.....Ethanol won't pass out fuel test anyway so everyone will be disqualifed before the event is run.

[tnord]

What the hell does a fender have to do with a ecu? In 20 yrs, that will be your problem Travis, not mine, just like global warming, and I'm all for Global warming . Fuel formulas are changing all the time, now.
[/b]

remember the ACT?

standalone ECU rule; classifying 2010 vehicles as -

a ) allowing composite material panels; prohibitive steel costs
b ) travis buying life insurace; wife and kids
c ) both a & b

[mom'sZ]

9.1.3.B says in part 'It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car' Many people have quoted this line as a reason they feel opening up the ECU rule is outside the intent of IT. What I wonder is how is getting the engine to have the correct fuel mixture under race conditions not necessary for constructing a safe race car? Indeed the very first authorized modification listed is 9.1.3.D.1.a. 'Any carburetor jets,needles,and/or metering rods may be used in the stock or approved optional carburetor(s).Alternate needle valves are permitted. Removable jets may be replaced or resized' To me it seems resonable to consider that the original rule writers figured in order to race a production based car, it may be necessary to tune the carb to provide the correct mixture under racing conditions that were very different from what the vehicle's manufacturer set them up for. I would guess that they (the original rule writers) also considered certain carburetors to be so poorly suited for the purpose of racing that they provided an alternate carb. Why then is it unreasonable to consider giving fuel injected cars that same tunability is outside the intent of IT?
Certain already classed cars have anaolog ECUs that cannot be rechipped or reflashed. There is no chip to replace or reflash. Some ECUs may be so unsuitable for racing that they may need to be replaced.
Why is the rule as it stands now so unpopular? From my point of view it seems unpopular because some well funded teams took the allowance and used it to gain extreme control over their engine managment. They have used it to optimize the fuel curve and ignition under any possible condition. They may also be using it to contol traction. Optimizing your vehicle for the conditions it will run in (racing) is really the basis for all race prep.
So how to fix it? Here are some of the choices (there are more then three)
Stock ECUs only: Pros - no one would be able to gain an advantage that isn't available to everyone with any budget. Indeed the car comes with the stock ECU. Prepping a car would be easier Cons - cars were classed with ECU mods in mind and some would need reclassed/adjusted. Intimate knowledge of each vehicle would be required to do so. Some models may no longer be suitable to race because of rev limits or speed limits.
Rechip/reflash only: Pros - those with the knowledge to do so can 'tune' those models that have a microprocessor chip. Some models may have an 'off the shelf' replacement chip or tuning service available. Cons - Some models may not be chipable or reflashable. Some competitors may be able to do anything they are now doing under the current rule while others would be stuck using the stock ECU.
Open ECU with stock sensors and harness: Pros - any ECU can be used with out regard for the size of the stock box. Cons - some ECUs won't work with stock sensors or require more sensors.
Open ECUs with open sensors and wiring: Pros - any ECU can be used on any car. Cons - some competitors may use the ECU to control vehicle functions to gain an unintended advantage.
Leave the rule alone as is: Pros - no one losses development they invested in. Cars don't need to be reprocessed to fit the class. Cons - nothing changes, well funded teams/teams with the technical knowledge to do so can still tune to a high degree.
So which is best for IT? Which is the fairest to all competitors and all models? Which will truely do something to level the playing field? Which can truely be accomplished within the clubs current capabilities?

[lateapex911]

There is a BIG difference between altering the fuel maps (adjusting the fuel curve for those of you who are trying to relate this to carbs...), which are really nothing more than a table of values, and throwing out all the circuitry and starting over... If you do the later, you are opening the door to a completely new engine management scheme that didn't exist in the stock example of the car and WILL increase it's potential...

[/b]

Darin, can we get specific on the "increased potential" (or performance) anticipated in your statement?

(I ask to understand better, but keep in mind the "increased performance" exists now, and has for 5 years...I think we understand and agree on that premise, right?)

You mentioned the change from batch fired injection to sequential. For the average 1.8 litre engine in IT that goes from batch to sequential injection, how much hp/tq is actually gained in the rev range from 4K to redline? What numbers are we talking about? 20HP? 2HP?

You also mentioned timing changes. How would the hardware change the result, considering the current rules? And again, what will the actual perfrmance increases be? (keep in mind that the open ECU would allow no extra sensors, just as now)

[Joe Harlan]

Darin, can we get specific on the "increased potential" (or performance) anticipated in your statement?

(I ask to understand better, but keep in mind the "increased performance" exists now, and has for 5 years...I think we understand and agree on that premise, right?)

You mentioned the change from batch fired injection to sequential. For the average 1.8 litre engine in IT that goes from batch to sequential injection, how much hp/tq is actually gained in the rev range from 4K to redline? What numbers are we talking about? 20HP? 2HP?

You also mentioned timing changes. How would the hardware change the result, considering the current rules? And again, what will the actual perfrmance increases be? (keep in mind that the open ECU would allow no extra sensors, just as now)
[/b]

Jake, A couple of things I can help with here. We all understand what the current rule is. You need to understand that the question is not what the current rule has allowed to be exploited, it is what should it be or should it have been.

Example: Dave's honda. ECU has fuel control only. Batch fire on the injectors...Normal vacuum advance distributor. The cars was likely classed under the original no modification rule. Now with my company stuffing any current ECU in his factory box...(trust the fact there is no box I can't fit a aftermarket ECU into.) Now Daves car has full 3D control ( I believe same case for the volvos) Completely tunable sequential FI. I can now time each injector and trim the fuel delivery to each cylinder individually. It would be difficult to give you an exact number without dynoing that cars specificly. Our GT4 L16 made 188HP on carbs after the sequential EFI we made 202hp (same dyno) We did 1 dyno pass in batch fire mode for the hell of it. We made 191hp and lost torque. I know this is not an IT prepped engine but it is an actual example that can be provided.
Back to Daves car. Once it is a sequential 3d controled system is it a 2.0 liter ITB car or now a 2.0 liter ITA car.