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

[Joe Harlan]

[/b]You're right about the economics of it, but lets not kid ourselves that all chips are equal. And economics might factor in, but I am more concerned with potential equity.

I'd also like to point out the flipside...(I know, dead horse...) .if you're lucky enough to have such a car, then why wouldn't you just chip it for a hun or two? Nobodys saying that you can't, or shouldn't. If you want to talk economics, (realizing that it's impossible to control spending, of course) wouldn't most people spend $200 on a chip rather than $2000 on a standalone, (not to mention the time), if the standalone would either offer no extra, or very little extra HP? People will find the balance that suits them.

Then there are the people outside the group you consider the vast majority. Guys like Dave Gran and his Honda Prelude. He's found nothing easy for him short of becoming a chip level geek, but he HAS found piggybbacks (from my understanding of his situation, correct me if I am wrong, Dave) that he'd LOVE to buy as they are cheap and effective. But under the current rule, they are illegal. That probably makes NO sense to him. He looks around and sees guys spending boatloads of money installing standalone systems, but he can't legally plug in a piggback.
[/b]

As point out before Jake, Dave's car has more adjustment than a lot of cars with a curvable distributor and an adjustable fuel pressure regulator he shoudl eb able to extract as much HP from that engine as the original IT rules ever intended.
You keep saying your concern is that some can't take advantage yet that has been shot down several times. I have more concern that as an ADHOC person you are pushing a product that you have not fully researched and don't fully understand.

[lateapex911]

Jeff, I posted some links to AEM features jsut cause they were easy.

1. Traction control
2. conversion to sequential injection and fine tune individual fuel trims for each injector
3. finer data points and faster processers
4. more control over cams on Vtec/Vanos type systems
5. timing control where there was none
6. bypass air to get around SIR's and MAF's
7 the ability to program a loop to allow more fuel compensation for 6

. [/b]

While I realize that Joes desire is to ram the Genie back in the bottle, and his list is intended to be a comparision between the common chip (as opposed to the unknown potential of a "super chip") and an open system, just for perspective, I'd like to add some comments:

!- Traction control. Already being done, and not just through chips/EMS. Legally as well. BUT...how important is it? It's a bit debatable as to whether its really useful in an IT car. Some will say, "Yea, maybe not in the dry, but what about the rain"?? Ha ha...how many IT guys have working defrosters?!?! And they are going to have instantly adjustable (from the cockpit) variable traction control settings? Uh huh...

2- Conversion from batch to sequential - A- Only on cars with discreet wiring could do this, and B- it's been possible for 5 years now ..

3- Finer data points- Again, currently being done, but also, not so much of a gain in HP, more of a gain in efficiency, and more useful for enduros.

4- VANOS control- A- As read above, thats possible with chips, and B- again, already being done.

5- Timing control- Actually, there are ways to gain timing control without using an EMS, and it's being done, but it's not too high on most folks list, as again, it's not considered critical (read back to Phils comments) . Also, many stock ECU are doing it, so there are no gains possible for those systems. And no allowance for new knock sensors means that won't happen.

6-& 7: Bypass idle air. (For those who don't know what this is, it is the reprogramming of idle air bypass valves to open at full throttle, which adds extra air going into the engine around the throttle plate, and the required extra fuel) A- this is flat illegal, and it's a red herring to use it in a discussion such as this., and B- again, it's being done, on several levels.

Now, looking at the list, I wonder if the average IT guy even knows about what is currently possible, and what is currently being done??? And, if not, have they noticed that the apocalypse has come? I doubt it.

[Banzai240]

!- Traction control. Already being done,

2- Conversion from batch to sequential - it's been possible for 5 years now ..

3- Finer data points- Again, currently being done.

4- VANOS control- already being done.

5- Timing control- and it's being done

6-& 7: Bypass idle air. again, it's being done.

[/b]

So... there is the logic guys... We write a bad rule... let it simmer for 5-years, then justify opening it up further because "it's already being done"...

First off, a "chip and flash" is NOT going to allow these things to happen without additional circuitry, possible ONLY because of the REPLACE allowance...

Second... opening up a rule because people are exploiting the loopholes in the existing, POORLY WRITTEN rule, is rules creep in spades...

and Third... If you write the new wording correctly, you can effectively limit MOST if not all of these things...

Now, looking at the list, I wonder if the average IT guy even knows about what is currently possible, and what is currently being done??? And, if not, have they noticed that the apocalypse has come? I doubt it.
[/b]

And now you are going to open things up so that this same average guy get's to spend $2000 dollars on a system which he will have NO BETTER understanding of, and STILL won't help him to be competitive with the guys spending $5,000 on the better systems or paying Penske or ??? to install/program the system for them???

I said it before... there will be NO increased equity, not even of OPPORTUNITY, if you open this rule up... All you will do is make it take MORE resources to field a car in IT for EVERYONE.

I will also contend that cost IS a deterent. If it's going to cost someone $10,000 to develop a stand-alone system inside a box, they're a lot less likely to pursue it. That keeps costs down. But thats a whole separate discussion, and really secondary to the point that opening this rule up is counter to the intent of IT as a class...

[dj10]

O.K. I'll bite; I don't usually get involved in these forums but this is getting crazy. First let me say that I have had cars prepped to equal states of tune using both chipping/ flashing and stand alone ECUs stuffed into existing boxes. I chipped and reflased the ECU in my BMW E36, I was able to disable the speed limiter, raise the rev limit, remap the fuel, change the ignition curve and could have even altered the timing of VANOS on/off actuation. I have programed aftermarket ECUs for an RX7, Miata ITS and Porsche 944s. The exact same results were acheived! The only difference was that it was much easier and cheaper to accomplish with the aftermarket units. The simple fact is that fuel injected cars must be allowed ECU changes in order to reliably race them just as carberated cars must be allowed rejetting in order to reliably race them. When you open up an exhaust, free up an air intake, install oversize pistons to the legal limit and pursue the other such improvements allowed under the IMPROVED Touring rules then you must provide more fuel to the motor or you will need to replace such motor on a regular basis. Given the need to allow changes to these tuning parameters then why dictate the manner in which the changes must be made. Its absurd to think that limiting ECU changes to chipping/reflashing in any way limits the performance enhancement potential for most cars; it only puts such improvements out of reach for many. Hav'nt we learned anything from the "threaded coil over sleeve". If something is allowed it should be allowed for all and we shouldn't dictate how to accomplish it; that can only serve to make it more difficult and hence expensive to achieve. [/b]

Exactly, this say's it best.

[Joe Harlan]

While I realize that Joes desire is to ram the Genie back in the bottle, and his list is intended to be a comparision between the common chip (as opposed to the unknown potential of a "super chip") and an open system, just for perspective, I'd like to add some comments:

!- Traction control. Already being done, and not just through chips/EMS. Legally as well. BUT...how important is it? It's a bit debatable as to whether its really useful in an IT car. Some will say, "Yea, maybe not in the dry, but what about the rain"?? Ha ha...how many IT guys have working defrosters?!?! And they are going to have instantly adjustable (from the cockpit) variable traction control settings? Uh huh...

2- Conversion from batch to sequential - A- Only on cars with discreet wiring could do this, and B- it's been possible for 5 years now ..

3- Finer data points- Again, currently being done, but also, not so much of a gain in HP, more of a gain in efficiency, and more useful for enduros.

4- VANOS control- A- As read above, thats possible with chips, and B- again, already being done.

5- Timing control- Actually, there are ways to gain timing control without using an EMS, and it's being done, but it's not too high on most folks list, as again, it's not considered critical (read back to Phils comments) . Also, many stock ECU are doing it, so there are no gains possible for those systems. And no allowance for new knock sensors means that won't happen.

6-& 7: Bypass idle air. (For those who don't know what this is, it is the reprogramming of idle air bypass valves to open at full throttle, which adds extra air going into the engine around the throttle plate, and the required extra fuel) A- this is flat illegal, and it's a red herring to use it in a discussion such as this., and B- again, it's being done, on several levels.

Now, looking at the list, I wonder if the average IT guy even knows about what is currently possible, and what is currently being done??? And, if not, have they noticed that the apocalypse has come? I doubt it.
[/b]

Jake go back and read the question that was posed. You are so jacked up about being right your missing what was being answered I am begining to think your personal desire to prove me wrong is getting in the way of your being objective....If you want to be my personal stalker then maybe you should hand in your adhoc title and chase me around the web full time. We all know its being done. That was not the question posed. The question was what can a aftermarket system do that a factory system cannot...I gave basic examples of it. Show me a fatory system that can do traction control with out wheel speed sensors and is actually effective. As far as traction control that works I have used it first hand.....you?

PS> If the bypass air is a red herring but you admit it is being done and you know about it you should resign today.

[lateapex911]

Jake go back and read the question that was posed. You are so jacked up about being right your missing what was being answered I am begining to think your personal desire to prove me wrong is getting in the way of your being objective....If you want to be my personal stalker then maybe you should hand in your adhoc title and chase me around the web full time. We all know its being done. That was not the question posed. The question was what can a aftermarket system do that a factory system cannot...I gave basic examples of it. Show me a fatory system that can do traction control with out wheel speed sensors and is actually effective. As far as traction control that works I have used it first hand.....you?

PS> If the bypass air is a red herring but you admit it is being done and you know about it you should resign today. [/b]

Joe, I am so far from a stalker it's silly. I am NOT following you around the web...sorry, it is NOT my MO, and I'm not doing it.

IF you read my comments, the FIRST item I stated was that you were indeed comparing chip vs open, but for PERSPECTIVE, I pointed out that most of the items are currently being done, in an attempt to show that the sky isn't actually falling.

As for traction control, I have about 100 lb ft of tq..what do I need TC for? LOL. And I LOVE throttle control...my best finishes are in deluge conditions. No TC for me!

I'll bow out now, as I think it's all been beaten to death, and if I'm coming across as biased, there's no point in any more typing.

You have your opinion, and thats fine, others have theirs. We've seen a lot of reasonable points of view over this thread, and it will be interesting to see what the response is from Fastrack
back to work......

(the air bypass thing is a red herring Joe, because it is, like so many things, a matter of enforcement, not of rules writing. The rule is VERY clear in that regard, and has nothing to do with ECUs)

[Joe Harlan]

Joe, I am so far from a stalker it's silly. I am NOT following you around the web...sorry, it is NOT my MO, and I'm not doing it.

IF you read my comments, the FIRST item I stated was that you were indeed comparing chip vs open, but for PERSPECTIVE, I pointed out that most of the items are currently being done, in an attempt to show that the sky isn't actually falling.

As for traction control, I have about 100 lb ft of tq..what do I need TC for? LOL. And I LOVE throttle control...my best finishes are in deluge conditions. No TC for me!

I'll bow out now, as I think it's all been beaten to death, and if I'm coming across as biased, there's no point in any more typing.

You have your opinion, and thats fine, others have theirs. We've seen a lot of reasonable points of view over this thread, and it will be interesting to see what the response is from Fastrack
back to work......

(the air bypass thing is a red herring Joe, because it is, like so many things, a matter of enforcement, not of rules writing. The rule is VERY clear in that regard, and has nothing to do with ECUs)[/b]

This is were you show your ignorance of these systems, IT is not able to be done in a stock box and compensate for it through mixture. I understand its against the rules but without decompiling somebodies program how are you gonna inforce it? At least with a stock/modified ECU we know it is not possible to make it work through the hardware thats there.

As far as TC goes, a proper working system could make even a Senna like yourself better wet or dry.

[tnord]

.

[Joe Harlan]

thanks
joe

[bldn10]

Sorry, Darin, looks like I may have taken your comment out of context. But I still disagree w/ your premise that "inexpensive" does not encompass both tubs and mods. I think it clearly does.

As I understand the objectives implied (though never IMO succinctly set out) in this thread I think we are on the cusp of a paradigm shift. In order to accept new cars into the class we can do one of 2 things - "penalize" the news ones w/ much more electronic managemnt by adding weight, SIRs. etc., or try to bring the old ones up to new standards by opening up the ECU rule. Apparently the wind blows in the direction of the latter. Not an easy task.

Let me clarify my personal feelings in this way: In the Midwest there are a handful of front-running ITS cars, of which I am one. To my knowledge none of them have any Motec type crap. If stand-alones are allowed, at least 1 of these guys will opt for it and he will become the top dog. The rest of the handful will HAVE to shell out that $1000+ to remain in the hunt. After all is said and done, we will be going a little faster, will be a thousand apiece poorer, and will still be racing each other just as we did before. Does that make any sense?

[JoshS]

This last post seems to make a lot of sense.

Joe/Darrin, what precisely can you do with an open ECU rule that you can't do with a stock chip/reflash rule? Specifics for a lay person would help me make my decision.
[/b]

Just the power/speed of the processor would be one big thing.

It it "IT-like" to put a modern computer into a 25-year-old car? Or should the computer have to stay with the car? Sure, you can load new software on it, but the hardware is the hardware. The more limited proposal is like that ... you can upgrade your old Pentium 3 at home to a new version of Internet Explorer, but you can't make the processor any faster.

[Eagle7]

So how about if we require the use of the stock harness and devices:

[quote]
1. Traction control[\quote]

Possible with a rechip with the right engineering, just a lot harder. For the vast majority of gutless IT cars it isn't an issue anyway - ITR will probably change that.

[quote]2. conversion to sequential injection and fine tune individual fuel trims for each injector[\quote]

Not possible unless the harness already supports it. If it's in the harness, maybe the stock ECU already has the hardware for sequential control, and a rechip could make it happen. In any case, I'm pretty skeptical of claims for significant gains from this.


[quote]3. finer data points and faster processers[\quote]

Why is that an issue - are we trying to cripple the tuning process? OK, carb guys - you get jet A, B, or C - nothing in between.


[quote]4. more control over cams on Vtec/Vanos type systems[\quote]


Possible with a rechip with the right engineering, just a lot harder. Is this something that needs to be outlawed? I have no idea since I'm camless.

[quote]5. timing control where there was none[\quote]


Not possible unless the harness already supports it. Is timing control a bad thing? Are we currently trying to outlaw timing control?


[quote]6. bypass air to get around SIR's and MAF's[\quote]

Bogus - the rules clearly state all air must pass through the SIR and/or MAF. The bypass just lets a small portion of that air bypass the throttle plate. I've tested my car with the bypass open and there was zero difference. All the effective restriction is in the AFM. Plus, some good rechip engineering would likely get you the same capability.


[quote]7 the ability to program a loop to allow more fuel compensation for 6[\quote]


Huh? If 6 is legal why is it a problem to tune for it? If it's not legal, then write/clarify a rule to deal with that. I personally like the bypass a lot because I can warm up and idle the car without baby-sitting it. Makes life in the paddock and the grid much less of a hassle.



Joe, I haven't heard anything of substance from you yet. Just a lot of scare tactics. You claim that rechipping prevents all the bad consequences (not true), and that allowing aftermarket ECUs allows all the bad consequences (not true). You also claim that chips are readily available for virtually all cars that we race (far from true), and if they are not, that reengineering the stock ECU to rechip it is feasible - I think that's a big stretch for some cars.



The open ECU makes so much sense to me that I have a very hard time seeing the concrete reasons why it's a problem, and I really am trying to see that side of it. All I hear is lots of screaming about gloom and doom and how it's totally contrary to the intent and philosophy of the catagory. I don't see it that way at all.



The part that makes me think twice is an allowance for non-stock devices connected to the ECU. I don't have a real handle on the consequences of that. I would personally love to attach additional devices to my ECU for logging purposes - logging is legal, right?



[Edited to clarify the quoting]

[Eagle7]

...In the Midwest there are a handful of front-running ITS cars, of which I am one. To my knowledge none of them have any Motec type crap. If stand-alones are allowed, at least 1 of these guys will opt for it and he will become the top dog. ...[/b]

Why? What will the Motec give him that he couldn't get today? Or couldn't get with a full-blown no-holds-barred reverse-engineering of the stock ECU?

This is were you show your ignorance of these systems, IT (bypass air) is not able to be done in a stock box and compensate for it through mixture. I understand its against the rules but without decompiling somebodies program how are you gonna inforce it? At least with a stock/modified ECU we know it is not possible to make it work through the hardware thats there.[/b]

What are you smokin' Joe? I want some of that. The stock ECU already controls the bypass air. No hardware changes required. If I'm very clever in how I rechip it, I can turn on the bypass air whenever I want. It may cost me a fortune in reverse-engineering to get that advantage, but I'm quite confident I could do it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

For the experts...what limitations would the following introduce?

Open ECU (no stock box rule) but connected to the factory wiring harness using all factory sensors.

[Greg Amy]

For the experts...what limitations would the following introduce?[/b]

You would be limited to controlling only what the factory ECU controlled, with input from only what the factory ECU had.

What you did with the data in between is up to you.

[Andy Bettencourt]

You would be limited to controlling only what the factory ECU controlled, with input from only what the factory ECU had.

What you did with the data in between is up to you. [/b]

Does anyone see this as a compromise between full-boat open and Chips/reflash/daughter boards?

[JeffYoung]

Andy, I don't have the technical background to really talk about this intelligently, but what you state above is exactly what I think is the best solution.

It dispenses with the silliest part of the rule -- the stock box -- but avoids what seems dangerous to me, which is allowing new sensors.

Others, thoughts?

[dj10]

You would be limited to controlling only what the factory ECU controlled, with input from only what the factory ECU had.

What you did with the data in between is up to you. [/b]

Why can't you do what Greg said here but also allow either or the factor harness or the wiring harness that that come with the EMS you purchase? Won't just allowing the factor harness drive the costs up? Since you can only control the same as the factory ecu, does it really matter which harness you use?

[Joe Harlan]

Why? What will the Motec give him that he couldn't get today? Or couldn't get with a full-blown no-holds-barred reverse-engineering of the stock ECU?


What are you smokin' Joe? I want some of that. The stock ECU already controls the bypass air. No hardware changes required. If I'm very clever in how I rechip it, I can turn on the bypass air whenever I want. It may cost me a fortune in reverse-engineering to get that advantage, but I'm quite confident I could do it.
[/b]

Marty rather than trying be a jerk with the smokin comments provide me the code in a stock ECU that would let you open the bypass at WOT adn ADD extra fuel.....I don't care that the rule says its illegal it can be policed unless somebody wants to look at every program in every car with an aftermarket box....So please provide the code for your stock ecu to do that. My guess is from the post above you have little actual knowledge on what can or can't be done. And BTW do you have a converted box already?

[robits325is]

For the experts...what limitations would the following introduce?

Open ECU (no stock box rule) but connected to the factory wiring harness using all factory sensors.
[/b]

The limitations would be determined by the make/model of the car being tuned. Whatever the factory intendeed would be the limiting factors for tuning.

Connecting a Stand Alone ECU to the factory harness isn't the hard/expensive part. The size of the box is the limitation that drives the cost and development through the roof. Square Peg in a round hole. Cramming an ECU into a stock box can cause issues with overheating and an unnecessary spider web of wires.

I agree with Andy's Open ECU/Stock harness option. If we had to vote today this would be my choice. This provides even opportunity for preperation between makes with limited unforseen loopholes.