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

[dj10]

Fastrack is out and as you can see the CRB hasn't even acknowledged see any letters written about the ECU rule or gave noindication that the ECU rule was even discussed!!! As I've indicated before, we might as well be trying to put this throught the US Congress or Senate. This is a important matter and some DAMN body in the CRB should at least acknowledge that the subject exists. WHAT A CROCK!!

[lateapex911]

The ECUu rule didn't make fastrack due to the Christmas/New Years holiday stuff and the messing that does with con call schedules, etc.

The discussion has happened over several con calls, with research done in between, and the direction has been settled.

I have written the rule, with several versions/revisions, and the CRB will be discussing it on their next con call, and as they have been on our con calls, it should go straight to Fastrack. I am HOPEING that it hits the newstands 2-20, and member feedback will be overwhelmingly suppportive.

The gears ARE turning, but this is a BIG deal, and one that attempts to fix what many considered to be one of the bigger screwed up rules on the books....and one that nobody could seem to agree COULD be fixed.

Your patience is appreciated.

[dj10]

Your patience is appreciated. [/b]

One Valture looked at the other Valture and said, "Patience hell, let's go kill something". The clock is ticking.

[tnord]

the clock really isn't ticking. it's not like any changes are going to be made for this season, so there's still plenty of time to get it in fastrack, submit feedback, make changes, and get it in the 08 GCR.

i really don't see the rush, and i'm actually glad they're taking their sweet time on this.

[gran racing]

I thought based on previous discussions it could impact the 2007 season.

[dj10]

the clock really isn't ticking. it's not like any changes are going to be made for this season, so there's still plenty of time to get it in fastrack, submit feedback, make changes, and get it in the 08 GCR.

i really don't see the rush, and i'm actually glad they're taking their sweet time on this. [/b]

They slammed us and implimented the SIR awful fast last year, there is absoultly no reason we can't enjoy the many benefits of a EMS this year (2007). A week is a rush, the've had this on there plates for going on months now, that is anything but a rush.

[lateapex911]

One Valture looked at the other Valture and said, "Patience hell, let's go kill something". The clock is ticking.

[/b]

Be careful what you ask for...

If this had to meet a deadline, the answer was..."leave it as it it is..."

More time has changed that attitude.

Not sure what else to tell you.......

[pfcs49]

You bet this possible change must wait til 08!!
This is a possibly HUGE philosophical change to our rules.
It needs and DEMANDS a long gestation period of civil, sensible, intelligent, thoughtful conversation about it for the ultimate good of the class. Be careful what you pray for. Phil

[tnord]

They slammed us and implimented the SIR awful fast last year, there is absoultly no reason we can't enjoy the many benefits of a EMS this year (2007). A week is a rush, the've had this on there plates for going on months now, that is anything but a rush.
[/b]

right, because you can compare something that takes 10min to plop inline with your intake piping with something that could require an entirely new wiring harness, sensors, EMS, and hours and hours of dyno tuning.

also, those two rule changes have totally different intentions. the SIR was used to bring the performance of the BMW back to the intended top performance level of all ITS cars, the ECU change is intended to make it easier for everyone to get to that top performance level.

[Andy Bettencourt]

We haven't received any letters regarding "EUC's". :P

Seriously, the issue is that we don't want to EXPAND the performance envelope by accidentally allowing something that would throw the intent of this out the window. ECU's now are effectively open, just difficult and expensive to do. We are trying our best to allow the right stuff to facilitate inexpensive, but complete ECU changes - without opening up any more doors that are curently open.

One of the other reasons you haven't heard much on this is that this is a proactive project by the ITAC so all the FOR letter and all the AGAINST letters (that were generated by this website BTW) are in a holding pattern until we put the wording out for comment.

[dj10]

We haven't received any letters regarding "EUC's". :P

Seriously, the issue is that we don't want to EXPAND the performance envelope by accidentally allowing something that would throw the intent of this out the window. ECU's now are effectively open, just difficult and expensive to do. We are trying our best to allow the right stuff to facilitate inexpensive, but complete ECU changes - without opening up any more doors that are curently open.

One of the other reasons you haven't heard much on this is that this is a proactive project by the ITAC so all the FOR letter and all the AGAINST letters (that were generated by this website BTW) are in a holding pattern until we put the wording out for comment. [/b]

"ECU's now are effectively open, just difficult and expensive to do."

You already have expanded the performance envelope, only a few people with monetary means can take advantage of it. I believe we are trying to accomplish here is to level the playing field. We already know it does not product amazing hp gains by itself but will make what you have more efficient. From talking to the Pro Tuners, I just feel that everyone is making this more complicated than it is. Granted I don't have access to Jakes or anyones written draft for rule and this may be what is complicating the process, I just don't know, which is probably my problem.

[JeffYoung]

I agree with Dan. Right now, all we are doing is making it more expensive to get the performance advantage, not limiting the actual advantage in any way.

Just do away with teh silly "in the stock box rule" and keep everything else.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I agree with Dan. Right now, all we are doing is making it more expensive to get the performance advantage, not limiting the actual advantage in any way.

Just do away with teh silly "in the stock box rule" and keep everything else. [/b]

Short sighted. Without allowing the addition of some sensors or wiring, you still have the exact same 'expense' and 'capability' needed in order to make it work. We are working on the specific allowances to allow these lower end units work - while being careful that those allowances don't create any problems. If we don't do the proper legwork, we could end up in a situation we don't want.

Sorry if it's taking too long for some. This is light years ahead of anything in the past...and we are trying to correct the 'past', in which none of the current ITAC was serving when that ECU rule was put in place.

[JeffYoung]

Are added sensors NECESSARY to make a nonstock ECU work? If so, ok, I agree, take your time. But if not, then the answer is simple: no added sensors.

And by "work" I mean run, dont' mean "I don't get all of the advantage of system Y".

Irony or ironies, back to working on my drum brakes.....

[Z3_GoCar]

This is why I realized that the ECU rule will be a tough one. Some aftermarket ECU's require the sensors be changed. This changed sensor then needs to be wired to the new ECU, which uses a differend type of connector than the stock connector. In the end you'll have lots of new wires added. So, the real question is how to do this on multiple different makes with different systems and different ECU's without unintended consequences. I'd love to see my system made legal, but I'm not holding out hope that it will at this point as it's an odd-ball, antiquated, and superceeded by the manufacturer. The newer systems that are being made all have the potential to cause the unintended consequences, as they have the potential to do much more than the basic fuel, spark, and cam timming that mine does. With increased sophistication comes an increased likely hood for unintended consequences, and I don't think my system should be allowed if it cracks open Pandora's box. Now if there were a way to reduce the allowed inputs and outputs to only what's required for fuel, spark, and basic engine function. Then I'd be for a rule that makes the ECU be either stock or outside the box and open to visual inspection.

James

[dj10]

This is why I realized that the ECU rule will be a tough one. Some aftermarket ECU's require the sensors be changed. This changed sensor then needs to be wired to the new ECU, which uses a differend type of connector than the stock connector. In the end you'll have lots of new wires added. So, the real question is how to do this on multiple different makes with different systems and different ECU's without unintended consequences. I'd love to see my system made legal, but I'm not holding out hope that it will at this point as it's an odd-ball, antiquated, and superceeded by the manufacturer. The newer systems that are being made all have the potential to cause the unintended consequences, as they have the potential to do much more than the basic fuel, spark, and cam timming that mine does. With increased sophistication comes an increased likely hood for unintended consequences, and I don't think my system should be allowed if it cracks open Pandora's box. Now if there were a way to reduce the allowed inputs and outputs to only what's required for fuel, spark, and basic engine function. Then I'd be for a rule that makes the ECU be either stock or outside the box and open to visual inspection.

James [/b]

"The newer systems that are being made all have the potential to cause the unintended consequences, as they have the potential to do much more than the basic fuel, spark, and cam timming that mine does."



James please give me an example. No matter what they do, they are limited by the LEGAL build & the mechanical porperties of the engine. Anything illegal, will not be allowed a sensor. Correct? Am I missing something? The EMS should be allowed to control no more than what the stock ECU controls now. The only thing you can do is fine tune what your engine puts out now.

[Ron Earp]

James please give me an example. No matter what they do, they are limited by the LEGAL build & the mechanical porperties of the engine. Anything illegal, will not be allowed a sensor. Correct? Am I missing something? The EMS should be allowed to control no more than what the stock ECU controls now. The only thing you can do is fine tune what your engine puts out now.
[/b]

Amen. Said the same thing some months ago on this discussion. The engine is an air pump pure and simple. It is mechnically limited, you'll just be able to harness it a bit better.

Ron

[Greg Amy]

For the vast majority of the aftermarket ECU systems, the only sensors that will probably need to be added (generally speaking here, kids) is MAP and TPS.

A couple of points to that issue:

- I'd wager there are very few cars which can take advantage of an aftermarket ECU that don't have a TPS to tap into, and
- A baro sensor is legal to install now under "auxiliary gauges" (I'd install a manifold pressure gauge on my dashboard and tap into that for my ECU input).
- Hell, for that matter, if my car didn't have a TPS I'd install a "TPS gauge" on my dashboard and tap into that for my aftermarket ECU.
- FOr those cars that already have the neccesary inputs from the factory (the 2nd-gen MR2, for example, has a MAP/TPS system) it's an easy matter of programming the ECU to accept those inputs from their existing wiring harness pins.

Whatever sensor you could POSSIBLY want to put into your aftermarket ECU can be justified with the open gauges rule (O2 output gauge, MAF airflow gauge, MAP, TPS, whatever senso...uh, gauge you could possibly want). Then, I'd just find a way to tap that into the factory harness OR tap it directly into the board bypassing the factory wiring harness. The only thing keeping me from doing that now is the inability to get that intput into the aftermarket board through the unmodified ECU housing and/or via the unmodified factory wiring harness.

Your (ITAC "your") only concern here should be to fully vet it to the world and have them find a loophole that you/I/they have not yet thought of...

[pfcs49]

I'd need to monitor front and rear vehicle speeds using existing ABS sensors and harness-traction control anyone? Of course, this is nonsensical. Even with the possibility of a now legal modified EFI harness, any bozzo in tech could discover the two illegal patches into the EFI harness, har har! phil
(But I don't know when he or anyone else would get the opportunity to look for it.)

[shwah]

Take your time. Get it right. Haste is what effed this up in the first place.

My car is one that could benefit from having ability to add TPS and MAP sensors. It would be a bunch easier to change over to programable ECU. Most systems have the map sensor located in the box, and just need a vacuum hose for that, but if there was not one headed to the ECU before, I don't think I am able to add one today. The alternative is to obtain a complete CA emissions ECU/Harness/FI system that does have a factory MAP sensor and the needed vacuum path (and if it was automatic TPS I think). The TPS is easier but is not required to make the system I would like to use fuction.

Greg - since allowed modifications cannot perform disallowed functions, I don't buy those hypothetical work-arounds.