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

[lateapex911]

....... I'd open it up - allowing any sensors, processors, memory devices, or wiring but requiring that the mechanical parts of the induction system (anything that touches air or fuel), remain as delivered, except for changes already allowed by other rules.

Anything in between achieves essentially the same end, but not to the same degree for all cars. We can achieve equity of opportunity but not of budget, aptitude, enthusiasm, or talent. The rule should address ONLY the former and accept that the rest are variables controlled by entrants.

K [/b]

I boldened the phrase that was my gut driving force when I opened the first thread up, so many pages ago. Nice bit of succinct wordsmithing. I happen to agree with the statement and the concept, but I can certainly see how others might not. .

[Banzai240]

Anything in between achieves essentially the same end, but not to the same degree for all cars. We can achieve equity of opportunity [/b]

Equity of opportunity??

I'm sure all the 240Zs and the rest of the carb'd cars are LOVING that thought...

Well guys... it was fun while it lasted...

I think it's time to separate the carb'd from the FI cars....

Improved Touring - Carb'd
Improved Tuner - FI

Equity of opportunity my A$$... You guys have NO idea the "opportunities" you are about to open up...

I hope there is at least the option of "chip/reflash" for those of us in the LIMIT THE OPPORTUNIES camp... or otherwise CLOSING the loopholes and FIXING the existing rule... and trying to keep the spirit and intent of IT in check...

Equity of opportunity... that's going to be ringing in my head like a bad Prince song now for days...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Equity of opportunity my A$$... You guys have NO idea the "opportunities" you are about to open up...
[/b]

Darin, provide some value or stop posting the same thing with no data.

Chipped can do this - chipped can't do that...

Programmable can do this - Programmable can't do that

Tell us then how your conclusion differs from what we have today.

[Joe Harlan]

Darin, provide some value or stop posting the same thing with no data.

Chipped can do this - chipped can't do that...

Programmable can do this - Programmable can't do that

Tell us then how your conclusion differs from what we have today.
[/b]

OK Andy, I will say the same thing to you. How many of these standalone or factory ECU's have you installed programmed in the past. I have not actually seen you provide any first hand data yourself. What things are you sure of as far as what a factory ECU can or can't do? I would really like to know.

[Conover]

<_<

[Andy Bettencourt]

OK Andy, I will say the same thing to you. How many of these standalone or factory ECU&#39;s have you installed programmed in the past. I have not actually seen you provide any first hand data yourself. What things are you sure of as far as what a factory ECU can or can&#39;t do? I would really like to know.
[/b]

Well Joe, what you haven&#39;t seen me do is proclaim without a doubt, one way or the other what is the right answer. Actually, I have said I am undecided because I see both sides. THAT is the difference in what I am asking Darin.

[Joe Harlan]

Well Joe, what you haven&#39;t seen me do is proclaim without a doubt, one way or the other what is the right answer. Actually, I have said I am undecided because I see both sides. THAT is the difference in what I am asking Darin.
[/b]

Nice, but you still did not answer? I have more concern that the folks that are writing the proposal 600+ words have NO experience with any of this technology and will present the overview from a point of little or no fact. I have asked continually who has first hand work with this stuff and have yet to get solid answers on that question. My guess is as a software engineer Darin at least has the understanding of how much can be put in the hardware.

[Banzai240]

Darin, provide some value or stop posting the same thing with no data. [/b]

After 17 plus pages I&#39;m not sure what more can be said...

Look at the features of a Motec system, or any other aftermarket ECU, and compare that to what your ECU does today... A "Chip and Flash" setup (i.e.: Wolfe, etc..) allows alteration of the fuel maps, timing maps, the temps at which something turns on/off, etc...

It does NOT, if the rules are written correctly, allow a gang fire injection to be changed to a sequential... does NOT allow timing control where none existed previously, etc...

What it DOES do is allow the fuel mixture any other functions that it ALREADY CONTROLS to be optimized...

That&#39;s as FAR AS IT SHOULD GO... If the circuit didn&#39;t exist previously, it still doesn&#39;t... There isn&#39;t a single chip that is made for this application that can become an "ECU on a chip"... Too much signal conditioning and other support circuitry is involved... If it was something that was possible... or feasible... Silicone space is $$$$... the less the better from a manufacturing standpoint... WHY would they not have replaced these "big" ECUs with a single chip already? This is HYPE and should be weighed as such...

Open it up, you open up what it can do... NOTHING is off limits at that point, so just use your imagination, or read any of their literature, to see what you could and CAN do...

The bottom line is that IT should involve no more than possibly allowing an additional memory chip, or whatever else might be involved in accessing and "flashing" the fuel and/or timing tables and sensor settings... Anything beyond that is allowing a COMPLETE replacement of the factory FI scheme/design and would constitute another level of prep...

IT is about optimizing the factory systems... NOT outright replacing them... The rules can be worded to limit the ECU to exactly THIS, if that is the desire... which is the key to this whole thread... IS IT??

NOT sure how much more value I can attempt to add... It&#39;s simple "logic"... punn intended...

[Knestis]

...and FWIW (zero, probably) my opinion on the subject has applied the standard of a "preponderence of evidence" - just enough to tip the scales for me - rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt." If I had more confidence that a rule could be written that codifies the chip/flash philosophy and didn&#39;t just become a different set of words allowing some cars to get right back to where we are now, the scales would probably tip the other way for me.

It&#39;s a hard question. I think we make it harder with red herrings, symbolism, and even some self-interest thrown in but even absent all of that, it&#39;s a toughie.

It seems likely that, whichever way it falls out, (1) it will be better than what we have, and (2) I&#39;ll probably continue to run my sub-$100 OTS chip for a while...

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Nice, but you still did not answer? I have more concern that the folks that are writing the proposal 600+ words have NO experience with any of this technology and will present the overview from a point of little or no fact. I have asked continually who has first hand work with this stuff and have yet to get solid answers on that question. My guess is as a software engineer Darin at least has the understanding of how much can be put in the hardware.
[/b]

Joe, the &#39;proposal&#39; is a detailed poll with 3 choices. Those 3 choices have specific GCR wording so each member has an EXACT idea what they are voting for.

I am not qualified to speak to the topic as an expert. We have people on the ITAC who have years of experience with this stuff. You and Darin come off as experts and proclaim disaster in absolutes but don&#39;t help us all understand. I don&#39;t doubt you guys have more knowledge but just don&#39;t shout from the mountain the world is coming to an end - educate the villagers so they can vote!

Bob Stretch weighed in on the last call in detail and I consider him to be an expert as he has done tons with open systems in SWC. We have also solicited opinions from people who have worked with this stuff for years to try and understand any unintended consiquenses.

Please don&#39;t avoid the question anymore. Educate or drop your pitchfork. Those of us that know you know you have great info...just let it out, it will set you free!

[tnord]

...and FWIW (zero, probably) my opinion on the subject has applied the standard of a "preponderence of evidence" - just enough to tip the scales for me - rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt." If I had more confidence that a rule could be written that codifies the chip/flash philosophy and didn&#39;t just become a different set of words allowing some cars to get right back to where we are now, the scales would probably tip the other way for me.

It&#39;s a hard question. I think we make it harder with red herrings, symbolism, and even some self-interest thrown in but even absent all of that, it&#39;s a toughie.

It seems likely that, whichever way it falls out, (1) it will be better than what we have, and (2) I&#39;ll probably continue to run my sub-$100 OTS chip for a while...

K
[/b]

valid concern.

i think the risk/reward tips the scales the other way though. i&#39;m willing to risk giving the rulewriters a chance to provide a rule that does exactly as its intended and nothing more. chips/flash. the reward? standalones are gone, and the bar is dropped. while it may not be any easier for everyone to jump over all 8&#39; of bar height, it&#39;ll be easier for everyone to clear 7&#39;10&#39;&#39; all the while remaining true to what i feel is the class philosophy.

what&#39;s the risk? well, the risk is we&#39;re right back where we&#39;re at today with standalones in a box at the expense of the people at the pointiest of pointy ends spending thousands and thousands of dollars to get right to where they started. it&#39;s very easy to be cavalier with other people&#39;s money; but i think that&#39;s a risk worth taking.

T.
-who is glad his car is still prepped as a SM other than the tires.

[Joe Harlan]

Joe, the &#39;proposal&#39; is a detailed poll with 3 choices. Those 3 choices have specific GCR wording so each member has an EXACT idea what they are voting for.

I am not qualified to speak to the topic as an expert. We have people on the ITAC who have years of experience with this stuff. You and Darin come off as experts and proclaim disaster in absolutes but don&#39;t help us all understand. I don&#39;t doubt you guys have more knowledge but just don&#39;t shout from the mountain the world is coming to an end - educate the villagers so they can vote!

Bob Stretch weighed in on the last call in detail and I consider him to be an expert as he has done tons with open systems in SWC. We have also solicited opinions from people who have worked with this stuff for years to try and understand any unintended consiquenses.

Please don&#39;t avoid the question anymore. Educate or drop your pitchfork. Those of us that know you know you have great info...just let it out, it will set you free!
[/b]

Sorry Andy, again you did not answer the question. I have no pitch fork. As a matter a fact I likely have offered more fact in 23 pages than anyone. I have provided links and information on how to DIY and were to find those things. I have personally progammed both stand alone and factory systems I have built custom harnesses I have AEM on my own car Motec and Haltech on customer cars. I have installed and programed the Electromotive tecII system. What more information can I proivide for you. I had said over and over that it is not the end of IT if this allowed. It will raise and change the bar in a way that I don&#39;t believe will be good for the catagory. You seam to think that&#39;s an extreme position and because I disagree with yourtake on this deal all the sudden I have a pitch fork ? The fact that in your words and jakes presentation I see the steam roller coming through and I feel that the regular non IT readin member will not have a solid case as to why this isn&#39;t good presented to them in the presentation. Jake has continually tried to shoot hole on any argument that goes against his clear desire to open this rule up. I find it fortunate that there are people that have been willing to argue against this technology when clearly the adhoc or at least the ones posting here have shown a bias toward it happening. No pitch forks here dude.

http://www.aempower.com/ViewTopic.as...=18&menu=false
http://www.aempower.com/ViewTopic.as...=20&menu=false
http://www.aempower.com/ViewTopic.as...=21&menu=false

[Conover]

...and FWIW (zero, probably) my opinion on the subject has applied the standard of a "preponderence of evidence" - just enough to tip the scales for me - rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt." If I had more confidence that a rule could be written that codifies the chip/flash philosophy and didn&#39;t just become a different set of words allowing some cars to get right back to where we are now, the scales would probably tip the other way for me.

It&#39;s a hard question. I think we make it harder with red herrings, symbolism, and even some self-interest thrown in but even absent all of that, it&#39;s a toughie.

It seems likely that, whichever way it falls out, (1) it will be better than what we have, and (2) I&#39;ll probably continue to run my sub-$100 OTS chip for a while...

K
[/b]

Said chip seems to be really getting the job done, and such and elegant solution, why fuss with it? Will this thread self destruct, or has it already and I just missed that page?

[lateapex911]

The fact that in your words and jakes presentation I see the steam roller coming through and I feel that the regular non IT readin member will not have a solid case as to why this isn&#39;t good presented to them in the presentation. Jake has continually tried to shoot hole on any argument that goes against his clear desire to open this rule up.
[/b]

Just to set the record straight, ....

We, that is, the ITAC, work for the CRB. The CRB works for the club racing member. The CRB is desirous of knowing what the club racing meber thinks of the situation, and has chosen a method of finding out.

It is a poll of sorts that lists different options to the rule in question, and includes a preface to flesh out intent, particulars, and so on.

I had a hand in writing that, but it should be known that the entire ITAC has read it and given input input, which has been incorporated. In addition to that, the poll is the result of several con calls, independent research by ITAC members, the input and guidance by the CRB, and the input of outside vendors and technicians.

What you will read is not the work of one guy with an opinion, but something that has been hashed out by a group.

It is my hope that the members read it, discuss it, do their own due diligence, and respond.

[kipv]

O.K. I&#39;ll bite; I don&#39;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&#39;nt we learned anything from the "threaded coil over sleeve". If something is allowed it should be allowed for all and we shouldn&#39;t dictate how to accomplish it; that can only serve to make it more difficult and hence expensive to achieve.

[JeffYoung]

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&#39;t do with a stock chip/reflash rule? Specifics for a lay person would help me make my decision.

[erlrich]

Bob Stretch weighed in on the last call in detail and I consider him to be an expert as he has done tons with open systems in SWC.
[/b]

Andy, do you think Bob would mind you sharing his thoughts? Not that I doubt any of the opinions proffered by our resident experts, but I know Bob has a s^#t-load of first-hand experience with this stuff.

Earl, who&#39;s still leaning toward stepping back.

[tnord]

there should be a distinction made here between the cost of being the first one to decode the OEM system and develop a chip and the cost of buying someone elses research. i would say that most of the really popular models out there already have chips developed for them, and the code has already been cracked.

will R&D for a car without any existing products out there cost you about the same as a full standalone? probably. but that&#39;s not an advantage for the standalone, it only gets it back up to level ground with the reflash/chip scenario. for the vast majority of vehicles, the cost to chip will be drastically lower, and way easier; giving it the advantage.

[Joe Harlan]

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&#39;t do with a stock chip/reflash rule? Specifics for a lay person would help me make my decision.
[/b]

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&#39;s and MAF&#39;s
7 the ability to program a loop to allow more fuel compensation for 6

Jeff these are off the top of my head..I am off to the shop and need to ignore this board for the day..(make no money here) It also depends on how the rule is written. some of these things are being done now some could get easier and more expanded under a free rule and some could be out of control with an open harness rule added.

[lateapex911]

..... i would say that most of the really popular models out there may already have chips developed for them, and those chips may be suitable for racing, and the changes made to that particular vehicle.

[/b]You&#39;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.

.....will R&D for a car without any existing products out there cost you about the same as a full standalone? probably. but that&#39;s not an advantage for the standalone, it only gets it back up to level ground with the reflash/chip scenario. for the vast majority of vehicles, the cost to chip will be drastically lower, and way easier; giving it the advantage
[/b]

I&#39;d also like to point out the flipside...(I know, dead horse...) .if you&#39;re lucky enough to have such a car, then why wouldn&#39;t you just chip it for a hun or two? Nobodys saying that you can&#39;t, or shouldn&#39;t. If you want to talk economics, (realizing that it&#39;s impossible to control spending, of course) wouldn&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;t legally plug in a piggback.