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

[Joe Harlan]

Andy, you may not have made up your mind but it is clear to me that your not intersted in fixing the loophole that is allowing the stuff it in a box deal that's happening now. Darin's arguement is not stupid it does show how many times since the beinging of IT we decided a little bit would be ok. Rules creep I think is what its called. I believe you have a pretty good handle on what it will take to program ab ECU under a free ECU rule and I believe you know the gains above even a chipped ECU. I also believe that you know 85% of the IT fields will not buy into the new technology and eventually their discouragment will find them doing something else.

[dj10]

Darin,

You know I love you like a brother but this could be the single most rediculous premise for an arguement I have ever read. Almost every rule in the Engine section and Suspension section are performance related allowances. The way you have posed your arguement, we should all be in Showroom Stock. It's rediculous really.

Now having said that, I could go either way on this. I truely haven't decided what I think is better for IT, shutting it down or opening it up. I feel like I have seen good arguments on both sides. Since the most expensive brand of EMS is pretty much the only one that can be used inside of most boxes, I fail to see how allowing cheaper options does anything but allow more people access to this potentially painful technology.

But just because it's cheaper for everyone may not mean it's the best choice.

[/b]

What I'd like for everyone to look at or think about, we've heard a lot of people gripping about obd2 factory systems correct? What will the future hold for factory ecu's and how will they, the future IT cars be configured? Are they going to have more and more sensors that are going to be harder to work around? I don't know this answer but everyone better start not just looking at the past and present but the future as well!

[Joe Harlan]

What I'd like for everyone to look at or think about, we've heard a lot of people gripping about obd2 factory systems correct? What will the future hold for factory ecu's and how will they, the future IT cars be configured? Are they going to have more and more sensors that are going to be harder to work around? I don't know this answer but everyone better start not just looking at the past and present but the future as well!
[/b]

Nice scare tactic Dan....but it has been put up and knocked down a few times now.

[Banzai240]

Almost every rule in the Engine section and Suspension section are performance related allowances. The way you have posed your arguement, we should all be in Showroom Stock. It's rediculous really.[/b]

I disagree... Every allowance in the book is a step away from what the class was originally created to do... which was to give ex-Showroom Stock cars a place to go when they were ineligable... and allow some additional makes/models a place to compete...

And, whether you guys think it's a rediculous argument or not doesn't take away from the point being made... EVERY time you make another allowance, you take ONE more step away from the written intent of the class. EACH time, you have to ask yourself WHY you are making the allowance. If it's for performance gains, then you are taking a step down the wrong path for the class. The ECU allowance is STRICTLY a performance allowance... the cars got to the grocery store every day for 100,000 miles with the stock ECU... Anything beyond that is a performance enhancement...

Look at how many cars benefitted in a positive way by the current allowance... E36, ITA 240SX, etc... They JUMPED to the front of the pack once they could dink with their ECUs. The 240SX was originally classified WITH the knowledge that it had a speed and rev limiter... THEN look what happened...

But this has all been hashed already... The bottom line for me is that the powers that be need to look at PLUGGING the holes in the rules, not making the openings bigger... You know exactly how I handled these things when I was in your shoes... the first question I would always ask is "IS this what the class is all about?" Everything we recommended to the best of my knowledge was done with this intent in mind... What we are talking about here is something WAY bigger... By opening this up, you widen WAY more gaps than you narrow... Between the haves and the have-nots, between the FI cars and the carb'd cars, between those with the tech skills and those without...

A much better way would be to narrow the allowance to the point where the ECU could be made more race appriate (fix rev limits, speed limits, traction control, ABS, etc..), but wouldn't change the general function or effectiveness of the stock unit... Chip and Flash... No additional circuitry beyond that. No changing from gang-fire to sequential... No Hondas able to now control ignition timing with the ECU under the "any ignition" rules.... NO BS...

And, if there are still a few with the means and were-withall to come up with something better... That's far fewer to deal with than if you open it up and every other yahoo in IT has a new stand-alone do-dad to take advantage of a loophole or allowance in the rule...

Don't break the dam...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, you may not have made up your mind but it is clear to me that your not intersted in fixing the loophole that is allowing the stuff it in a box deal that's happening now.[/b]

Joe, I am for either opening it up or shutting it down. The current rule is stupid. Not sure how that is 'not interested'.

Darin's arguement is not stupid it does show how many times since the beinging of IT we decided a little bit would be ok. Rules creep I think is what its called. I believe you have a pretty good handle on what it will take to program ab ECU under a free ECU rule and I believe you know the gains above even a chipped ECU. I also believe that you know 85% of the IT fields will not buy into the new technology and eventually their discouragment will find them doing something else. [/b]

Creep is a totally different arguement than 'anything that increases performance' is outside the philosophy of IT.

I know what it will take me...$2K for a unit, what will total $1K in dyno time, and the help of someone better than me at this stuff.

[Z3_GoCar]

See... there's another example... trying to rationalize a change or allowance based on what is already allowed... WHAT is going to be next after open ECUs??? Once they are legal... what are you guys going to go after next?

[/b]

I'm trying to show how rediculous your presumption is that open ECU's are aginst IT philosophy. The reason I compare the ECU debate to the rules concerning carburetors is because a carburetor IS an engine management device, and alternate engine management was written in the rules of IT from the beginning. From a logical point of view, carburetors are a part of an EMS as is the electronic fuel management curve. Now if you have a carburetor you can change the fuel curve, but if you have an stock CARB legal ECU you can't. What kind of sense does that make?

[Joe Harlan]

I'm trying to show how rediculous your presumption is that open ECU's are aginst IT philosophy. The reason I compare the ECU debate to the rules concerning carburetors is because a carburetor IS an engine management device, and alternate engine management was written in the rules of IT from the beginning. From a logical point of view, carburetors are a part of an EMS as is the electronic fuel management curve. Now if you have a carburetor you can change the fuel curve, but if you have an stock CARB legal ECU you can't. What kind of sense does that make?
[/b]

James, you cannot not make a reasoned argument that a Carb legal FI system is not 100 times more efficient than a stupid 32/26 weber replacement carb....Trying to justify your position with that kind of crap is whatis completely rediculous......Please <_<

[Andy Bettencourt]

But Joe, it&#39;s still a performance enhancement...TOTALLY against the original intent and philosophy of IT...



OEM carbs, OEM brains, OEM suspensions, just nice cages, seats and belts...BOOM! Improved Touring.

Bottom line, if this gets opened up, is it creep or keeping up with the times? THAT is the question we all have to answer before voting.

Creep = BAD

KUWTT = NECESSARY

[Banzai240]

From a logical point of view, carburetors are a part of an EMS as is the electronic fuel management curve. Now if you have a carburetor you can change the fuel curve, but if you have an stock CARB legal ECU you can&#39;t. What kind of sense does that make?
[/b]

Ummm... no one is saying you shouldn&#39;t be able to alter your fuel curves... That&#39;s where the "chip and flash" allowance comes in... But no one is allowing the carb guys to put on Holly 650 double pumpers... The reason for the carb allowance in the first place is because some of these cars come with UNRACABLE carbs, Unsafe carbs in racing situations, etc...

Again... you can FIX the existing rule to allow JUST ENOUGH to keep things reasonable... 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&#39;t exist in the stock example of the car and WILL increase it&#39;s potential...

And you guys though PCAs were going to upset the balance of the classes?

But....

[Andy Bettencourt]

If you do the later, you are opening the door to a completely new engine management scheme that didn&#39;t exist in the stock example of the car and WILL increase it&#39;s potential...

[/b]

What I don&#39;t get is why you say this like it isn&#39;t already legal and happening.

[Banzai240]

But Joe, it&#39;s still a performance enhancement...TOTALLY against the original intent and philosophy of IT...



[/b]

Andy, you are taking things too literally, and you&#39;ve missed the part of my discussion where I said clearly that EVERY allowance that increases performance moves a step away from the intent of IT. It can be argued successfully that the suspension allowances make for a safer race car, or a VIABLE race car... They were necessary in most cases... Think of the original cars in IT... alternate carbs were necessary on many of these because the stock examples were CRAP and wouldn&#39;t make a viable race car...

It&#39;s NOT NECESSARY to alter these ECUs to the degree you guys are talking about here... My $450.00 Wolf ECU worked just fine... Had nothing more than new memory maps that allowed flashable fuel/timing tables...

FIX the existing wording to get things back to basics... The intent of this rule should be to allow the fuel maps to be optimized to work with the factory supplied fuel injection/timing scheme... not to wholesale replace it all...

[Joe Harlan]

But Joe, it&#39;s still a performance enhancement...TOTALLY against the original intent and philosophy of IT...



OEM carbs, OEM brains, OEM suspensions, just nice cages, seats and belts...BOOM! Improved Touring.

Bottom line, if this gets opened up, is it creep or keeping up with the times? THAT is the question we all have to answer before voting.

Creep = BAD

KUWTT = NECESSARY
[/b]

Andy, I think you are just trying be stubborn now. KUWTT is no where in the ITCS that I can find. It&#39;s kind of like I tell my younger brother that has 5 kids and can&#39;t figure out why he&#39;s broke.......Just sticking the tip in is still likely to cause you a 6th kid....YOu should have learned by now that&#39;s how you got the first 5.

Darin, the argument Andy and Jake want is that it is already legal and being done so why not just let everyone do it. That is what I meant by He is not interested in fixing the loophole in the rule. I get people have exploited the written rule and those are the exact people that in the end with the new technology will justify using traction control because it didn&#39;t require wheelspeed sensors to do it.....

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, I think you are just trying be stubborn now. KUWTT is no where in the ITCS that I can find. It&#39;s kind of like I tell my younger brother that has 5 kids and can&#39;t figure out why he&#39;s broke.......Just sticking the tip in is still likely to cause you a 6th kid....YOu should have learned by now that&#39;s how you got the first 5. [/b]

Joe, you are the one who is being stubborn. If the class doesn&#39;t keep up with the times, we might as well sign it&#39;s death warrent. Just because it isn&#39;t stated in the GCR doesn&#39;t mean you can&#39;t use common sense in direction.

Last I saw IT is one of the largest sucesses in the SCCA. It&#39;s potential extinction is highly over-hyped - primarily due to what Darin started 3 years ago and what the current group continues today.

We will agree to disagree on this issue.

[Joe Harlan]

Joe, you are the one who is being stubborn. If the class doesn&#39;t keep up with the times, we might as well sign it&#39;s death warrent. Just because it isn&#39;t stated in the GCR doesn&#39;t mean you can&#39;t use common sense in direction.

Last I saw IT is one of the largest sucesses in the SCCA. It&#39;s potential extinction is highly over-hyped - primarily due to what Darin started 3 years ago and what the current group continues today.

We will agree to disagree on this issue.
[/b]

FUnny Andy those are the EXACT words used by the Prod folks about 20 years ago....I have them in print if you need me to dig them out. Adding free ECUs is not keeping with the times my friend. We have plenty of prep levels that allow for free ECU&#39;s, Keeping with in the philosophy of IT will keep it viable for many years to come.

[Banzai240]

What I don&#39;t get is why you say this like it isn&#39;t already legal and happening.
[/b]

No... I&#39;m fully acknowleding that this is already happening and legal... I&#39;m also asking you guys to FIX THAT! THAT is the core of this issue... FIX the LOOPHOLE that was created just a few years ago, then let racing continue as it has...

If people want to take it further, the CRB created D-Prepared/Production and B-Prepared/Production for these more modern style of performance mods... IT on Streroids, so to speak... They are welcome to go race there... Heck, they can even go to the Nationals and the Runoffs...

As you can note from this very thread... the level of interest in delving into this tech to the point where one can truely understand it and utilize it fully is very limited in the IT ranks... I&#39;m not sure I fully understand it myself, and I&#39;ve designed one of these systems... The KISS principle applies... Get rid of the loophole so people don&#39;t even have to conerns themselves with the possibilities...



The IT rule should be closer to SS or Touring than it is to Production or GT... Unless something has changed... the Touring rule does NOT allow a "replace" of the ECU... Put a limit on what the word "modification" refers to, and you&#39;re golden...

"Suspension may be modified, provided all modifications are done under the car."

That&#39;s is how the current ECU rule reads...

[tnord]

Joe, you are the one who is being stubborn. If the class doesn&#39;t keep up with the times, we might as well sign it&#39;s death warrent. Just because it isn&#39;t stated in the GCR doesn&#39;t mean you can&#39;t use common sense in direction.
[/b]

i thought that&#39;s what ITR was for..... <_<

[dj10]

Nice scare tactic Dan....but it has been put up and knocked down a few times now. [/b]

Joe, all I am trying to do is make sure everyone is looking at the COMPLETE PICTURE. I&#39;m not trying to use any tactic. Like I have said before, I am running with a factory ECU in my BMW and I&#39;ll pull it out and show anyone who wants to see it. Hell, the SCCA Tech ask me to open my hood up last year to see if I was running the SIR and I was happy to cooperate! At this point, I don&#39;t give a rats ass if the CRB makes everyone go back to stock ecu&#39;s or opens the EUC rule up. I would care if they kept the existing rule as it is now because only benefits a small group of people and give them a performance advantage.

Dan

[Joe Harlan]

Joe, all I am trying to do is make sure everyone is looking at the COMPLETE PICTURE. I&#39;m not trying to use any tactic. Like I have said before, I am running with a factory ECU in my BMW and I&#39;ll pull it out and show anyone who wants to see it. Hell, the SCCA Tech ask me to open my hood up last year to see if I was running the SIR and I was happy to cooperate! At this point, I don&#39;t give a rats ass if the CRB makes everyone go back to stock ecu&#39;s or opens the EUC rule up. I would care if they kept the existing rule as it is now because only benefits a small group of people and give them a performance advantage.

Dan
[/b]

Sorry Dan but the fact is you are not sharing the whole picture. As stated many times over 19 pages while the OBDII stuff will get harder to decode it will get decoded (as long as there are hot rodders nothing is safe) IT has the benefit of the 5 year window to see new tech stuff coming and deal with it on a per car basis when needed. Car makers are going to be forced to extract every once of power they can from the fuel that is put in a car. Finally there will be some cars that just can&#39;t and shouldn&#39;t be classed in IT if they don&#39;t properly fit the catagory. We don&#39;t class station wagons now and I don&#39;t see us rushing out to class Turbo cars into IT, Maybe we need to start worrying about classing hybirds? Now theres a worry, We can put an SIR on the Gas side but what do we do with the electric side? SCCA will have to spec a propersized voltage dropping Diode to prevent sombody from getting more electricty to the power plant. In other words there will be lots of things to contend with down the road but I am sure they will get handled in the best way possible.

[dj10]

Sorry Dan but the fact is you are not sharing the whole picture. As stated many times over 19 pages while the OBDII stuff will get harder to decode it will get decoded (as long as there are hot rodders nothing is safe) IT has the benefit of the 5 year window to see new tech stuff coming and deal with it on a per car basis when needed. Car makers are going to be forced to extract every once of power they can from the fuel that is put in a car. Finally there will be some cars that just can&#39;t and shouldn&#39;t be classed in IT if they don&#39;t properly fit the catagory. We don&#39;t class station wagons now and I don&#39;t see us rushing out to class Turbo cars into IT, Maybe we need to start worrying about classing hybirds? Now theres a worry, We can put an SIR on the Gas side but what do we do with the electric side? SCCA will have to spec a propersized voltage dropping Diode to prevent sombody from getting more electricty to the power plant. In other words there will be lots of things to contend with down the road but I am sure they will get handled in the best way possible. [/b]

Joe, I hope you and Darin are right. I&#39;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&#39;ll type mine and let the CRB decide which is the best way. If the rule is changed back to stock ecu&#39;s allowing just flashing, like Andy said it probably be implimented until 08. I can&#39;t imagine the CRB changing the rule this year, can you? I&#39;m sure it would be a lot of time & money to remove a complete EM System from your already dialed in race car.

[Andy Bettencourt]

i thought that&#39;s what ITR was for..... <_< [/b]

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