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

[tnord]

Why would I want a rule that would widen the gap between the "have's and the have not's"???
[/b]

because you "have." :026:

[its66]

exactly. Unfortunately, I don't have.

[Banzai240]

Why would I want a rule that would widen the gap between the "have's and the have not's"???
[/b]

That's exactly my point! I would think that you would NOT want a rule that does this...

[dyoungre]

Darin,
I've typically agreed with your IT philosophy, and more importantly, your ability to take a step back and look at the big picture - and so I'm saying this from that perspective:

I think the "have and have not"s in this discussion has less to do with $$$ and more to do with expertise and the car chosen to race. If you were to go back two years and the great look at weight versus displacement, I truly believe that opening up the ECU will do more to level the playing field, make classification easier, and increase the variety of vehicles.

Think about this: If I need a reflash, which vehicles currently have chips/reflash available? What if I thought that I'd like to try racing a Kia, just because I wanted to be different, and thought there was an opportunity because of the weight? What is the market out there for Kia reflashes ???

I REALLY don't think that the opportunity of an aftermarket ECU is all that big. The opportunity is that an aftermarket ECU can adjust/be tuned to deal with IMPROVED bolt ons - headers and mufflers, clean air boxes, vane-type air meters (...and go back to the original equations for "displacement=potential"). So long as CAMS, PORTS and THROTTLE BODIES remain stock, airflow is airflow. Honestly, the biggest opportunity is SPARK TIMING !!!

(btw - guys, if you have VVT, I'll let you in on a secret: the automakers know what cam timing makes "best torque at wide open throttle... and that's what they want. The best you can do is IMPROVE based on your modifications.)

It is hardly pandora's box. Opening up the ECU rule is actually levelling the playing field. If you choose to modify the stock ECU, so be it - depending on make/model/modification, you might not be far off than the BEST a MOTEC can provide.

BTW, as far as the 'but the testing costs money' arguement: SO DOES SELECTING JETS/AIR BLEEDS. Run a $400 Innovate wide air meter (which has data collection built in), look at RPM vs. air/fuel, and make small corrections after each race.

I just wish someone had a $400 tire contact patch tool. Then I could tune my shocks too.

[dj10]

Darin,
I've typically agreed with your IT philosophy, and more importantly, your ability to take a step back and look at the big picture - and so I'm saying this from that perspective:

I think the "have and have not"s in this discussion has less to do with $$$ and more to do with expertise and the car chosen to race. If you were to go back two years and the great look at weight versus displacement, I truly believe that opening up the ECU will do more to level the playing field, make classification easier, and increase the variety of vehicles.

Think about this: If I need a reflash, which vehicles currently have chips/reflash available? What if I thought that I'd like to try racing a Kia, just because I wanted to be different, and thought there was an opportunity because of the weight? What is the market out there for Kia reflashes ???

I REALLY don't think that the opportunity of an aftermarket ECU is all that big. The opportunity is that an aftermarket ECU can adjust/be tuned to deal with IMPROVED bolt ons - headers and mufflers, clean air boxes, vane-type air meters (...and go back to the original equations for "displacement=potential"). So long as CAMS, PORTS and THROTTLE BODIES remain stock, airflow is airflow. Honestly, the biggest opportunity is SPARK TIMING !!!

(btw - guys, if you have VVT, I'll let you in on a secret: the automakers know what cam timing makes "best torque at wide open throttle... and that's what they want. The best you can do is IMPROVE based on your modifications.)

It is hardly pandora's box. Opening up the ECU rule is actually levelling the playing field. If you choose to modify the stock ECU, so be it - depending on make/model/modification, you might not be far off than the BEST a MOTEC can provide.

BTW, as far as the 'but the testing costs money' arguement: SO DOES SELECTING JETS/AIR BLEEDS. Run a $400 Innovate wide air meter (which has data collection built in), look at RPM vs. air/fuel, and make small corrections after each race.

I just wish someone had a $400 tire contact patch tool. Then I could tune my shocks too. [/b]

Dave, make sure you let the CRB know how feel too. Email them at [email protected]

[greendot]

let's

[greendot]

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

From way back on page 19! :026:
It's hard to catch up with this thread.

Maybe the way to KUWTT is to rethink that. Think outside the box!
How many new cars will fall into ITS or ITA, let alone ITB and ITC? Going back to what I see as the intent of the previous ECU rule change is also what I read as the intent of the category.
compete in low cost cars with limited modifications,

Actually, wasn't that change justified by "can't police it" problems? Other than that, we raced fine with stock ECU's.

These new cars with so much interactive stuff obviously create a problem. I have not (yet) read any concerns about Tire Pressure Monitor systems. Guarantee you they will come.

If chip/reflash is reasonable then that intent could be achieved with an Apexi piggyback fuel control at a one time cost and easy tuneability. How about that? Oops, bet that's not one of the 3 choices coming. Or is this what might be called a "daughter board"? This apparently would not be legal even with Open ECU (no stock box rule) but connected to the factory wiring harness using all factory sensors if it taps into the harness proir to the connector to the factory ECU.
Another rule working problem.

Other than that, all I know about electric stuff is that when you let the smoke out you've got a problem. I like the fuel pressure regulator to improve my a/f ratio.

Regarding the argument about the unique cars

Entrants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car,

When you chose your weapon you knew you were bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Back to my reading at page 20

Bruce Wentzel
used to be ITS #36 before the mayhem in Atlanta

[dj10]

:026: Oh boy Oh boy!!!!! We sure learned a lot from the Feburary Fastrack!!!!!!!!!! Damn subjuect wasn't even mentioned!

[shwah]

Dang! Now we get another month of this

I wonder if they can fix the mistake, as it sounded like everything was written up and ready to drop into Fast Track weeks ago.

A real shame as I look at the questionable condition of the fuel injector lines in my GTI before installing a fresh motor. Do I spend the $$ and time to find/make replacements? Do I spend the time and $$ to convert to California Digifant? Do I spend the $$ on Megasquirt or SDS, some connectors and a MAP sensor?

It looks like I will be replacing the copper seal rings in the system, and hoping that is just surface rust on all of the fittings in the short term.

[erlrich]

Dan, I think you're looking for the March Fastrack; should be posted sometime today

[dj10]

Dan, I think you're looking for the March Fastrack; should be posted sometime today [/b]

Hmmm I guess it's on logical that Feburary's fasttrack should be posted in Jan and March's in Feburary. Thanks for clearing that up.

[88YB1]

The March fast trac is up. It would appear thet alternatr ECM has been shot down.

Chuck

[shwah]

That's not what I read. Give page 13 a read one more time.

Thank you ITAC

[dj10]

That's not what I read. Give page 13 a read one more time.

Thank you ITAC [/b]

Ladies & Gentlemen..............start your LETTERS! My letter is over 2 months old, wonder if I should type them a new letter?

[lateapex911]

Ladies & Gentlemen..............start your LETTERS! My letter is over 2 months old, wonder if I should type them a new letter?

[/b]

Sure, why not. The CRB is requesting feedback. To my eye, it's not a pure vote, but a request to understand what the membership thinks. To that end, brief letters discussing the proposed options, and the "whys" behind the writers opinion would carry more weight than a simple "A" or a "Nope, it's gonna hurt me", kind of response.

In an attempt to illicit response, the, dare I say it, "intent" of the choices, along with the actual proposed wording have been printed. It's everynes hope to get feedback, and hopefully well informed feedback.

[Joe Harlan]

Significantly, all cars in IT are classed using a process that includes presumed gains from the ECU change. As not all cars can affect
those changes, competition inequities result.[/b]

Not sure this statement is exactly true...is it. You have run every FI car through the new process based on gains from ECU replacement?

[Bill Miller]

Significantly, all cars in IT are classed using a process that includes presumed gains from the ECU change. As not all cars can affect those changes, competition inequities result[/b]

I'm actually surprised that our resident policy guru has not chimed in on the implications of this statement.

[Joe Harlan]

resident policy guru?

These are exactly the kind of misleading words that I was concerned about...

[shwah]

I sent in my feedback. It was not a simple 'box check'. I explained what I liked or didn't about each option in detail. I hope that the rest of you do the same.

I feel like we will end up with a better rule than when we started, which regardless of what went on in this long a$$ thread, is good for everyone.

cheers,

[Knestis]

I'm actually surprised that our resident policy guru has not chimed in on the implications of this statement.
[/b]

Me, too. If you see him around, let him know about this stuff.

K