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

[bldn10]

Steve, I still think I lost the last engine due to a piece of spark plug coming off in the engine. In retropsect I never had an OMP issue, but Chris (Ludwig) found that one of the rear oil injectors was bad. Also, it looks like I may have had a bad OEM fuel pressure gauge. Also, I wasn't getting enough voltage to the fuel pump. I.e. I had several issues that came together in a "perfect storm" kind of way. The best move I've made was to take the entire car to Chris and have him go through it. I'm ready to roll now.

In an earlier post I expressed approval for your proposal if we have to open it up.

My personal feelings about the issue is that I am not much concerned about the few Motec-in-a-box guys out there because they are going to out-prep and out-drive me anyway. I am more concerned about having to spend another $1000 minimum just to keep up w/ the average guy when we have good, competitive racing now. I don't see that as progress. When these options show up in Fastrack most IT competitors (who aren't here) aren't going to understand what it is all about or what the objectives are. So they will just "vote" in the way that is best for them, which may or may not be best for the class.

I've asked this before but don't recall an answer. If we open it up, and we all go out and spend the $1000 -$2000, are we going to be in a better place than we are today other than maybe shaving a few tenths off our times?

[Knestis]

... I am more concerned about having to spend another $1000 minimum just to keep up w/ the average guy. ...[/b]

But the allowance of other options to the same end as provided by MIB (Motec-in-box) isn't going to automagically free up $1000 of budget in those "average guys'" budgets - which would be necessary for them to pursue the change that you worry about having to chase.

If they wanted to spend a grand trying to go faster than you, they'd be doing it now. If you wanted to spend the same amount, you'd find a way to do it regardless of the new allowance. Equally, if you think you can use the dough to go "more faster" by doing something else, that's in your power, too.

We used to have a rule when I'd run meetings - as soon as someone made the same point for a second time, we called a decision. Everyone keeps saying the same things over and over and over again on this topic...

...so I will, too!

It's just not possible to directly limit spending with rules. If we'd learn this, we could avoid a lot of round-and-round on some of these issues and focus on what we can control.

K

[tnord]

oh yeah....if we go to standalone units, that just gives the people that want to group us with prod more leverage imo.

[Joe Harlan]

It's just not possible to directly limit spending with rules. If we'd learn this, we could avoid a lot of round-and-round on some of these issues and focus on what we can control.

K
[/b]

K, Agreed it is not possible. It is possible to cap the level of prep which in turn wil directly effect the value of out spending the next guy. As a solid member of the "do more with less club" my problem is when you raise the bar you raise if for everyone. From the bottom to the top. Yes the money guy or the geek like myself will get the maximum possible out of an OE ECU and some guys will just run stock. But I would contend the Maximum from an OE unit is no where near what the maximum of a stand alone will be. So setting the limit to a modified OE unit also establishes a top level of prep and anything spent beyond the top level would either be wasting money or cheating. I learned to burn chips and program FI out of pure need and nothing more.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Nobody want IT anywhere near prod. The best thing about IT is no comp adjustments and spec change allowances from car to car.

Kirk, what would you do with this rule?

Here is a quote from a guy (edit: a 'guy' with tons of experience who lurks but doesn't participate - probably like the majority of IT nationwide) who sent me something offline:

If you allow reflashing or chipping then anyone with enough time and resources can affect any performance gain that could be otherwise acheived via less expensive, more available options i.e. aftermarket ECU's, Piggybacks, resistors etc. Opening the ECU rule does not ergo increase the potential performance envelope over reflashing or chipping; it simply levels the playing field . Since many cars in IT can not be raced without altering the existing programs then let it go. Rules should be written as to govern results rather that methodology of acheiving such results i.e. threaded shock bodies vs threaded spring purchase sleeves.[/b]

[Banzai240]

Sorry, Andy, it was Darin. Didn't think that sounded like you.
[/b]

Yah... and you took it completely out of context as well... and completely missed the point being made...

Luckily, there were plenty here who actually got it...

[tnord]

aren't there members of the CRB and/or BOD that would like to see IT/Prod put together in the name of reducing classes?

If you allow reflashing or chipping then anyone with enough time and resources can affect any performance gain that could be otherwise acheived via less expensive, more available options i.e. aftermarket ECU's, Piggybacks, resistors etc. Opening the ECU rule does not ergo increase the potential performance envelope over reflashing or chipping; it simply levels the playing field . Since many cars in IT can not be raced without altering the existing programs then let it go. Rules should be written as to govern results rather that methodology of acheiving such results i.e. threaded shock bodies vs threaded spring purchase sleeves.
[/b]

that statement means nothing to me until i know who said it, and why i should believe them.

[Andy Bettencourt]

aren't there members of the CRB and/or BOD that would like to see IT/Prod put together in the name of reducing classes?

that statement means nothing to me until i know who said it, and why i should believe them. [/b]

Not that I know of. I have NEVER heard such a sentiment. IT is completely seperate from any other category as it is not National so it isn't subject to any 'reduction' or 'consolodation' plans.

As far as who said it Trav - a racer who has multiple championships and an ARRC win. It's just an opinion based on experience...lots of it. Use it as a data point, nothing more.

[Joe Harlan]

Not that I know of. I have NEVER heard such a sentiment. IT is completely seperate from any other category as it is not National so it isn't subject to any 'reduction' or 'consolodation' plans.

As far as who said it Trav - a racer who has multiple championships and an ARRC win. It's just an opinion based on experience...lots of it. Use it as a data point, nothing more.
[/b]

Andy, Travis is correct about your data point. It has no value without a name and qualifications put to it. Multiple ARRC championships one could assume that maybe this person has exploited the existing rule and is only interested in protecting that investment.

[seckerich]

Watching this thread is like watching a dog chase its own tail! :026:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, Travis is correct about your data point. It has no value without a name and qualifications put to it. Multiple ARRC championships one could assume that maybe this person has exploited the existing rule and is only interested in protecting that investment. [/b]

Well it would appear to me you can't be impartial then. Just taking the comment for what it's worth and debating the merits of it isn't good enough. You need to know who they are - and when you find out who they may be, you pidgeon-hole them and discount thier opinion. Debate the validity of the comments, not the names.

(Now I am a firm believer of putting your name in posts to manifest credibility but that is in situations where someone comes in, guns blazing and rips everyone appart from an unknown grassy knoll. Never will you see anyone rip someone for having not put their name in their post or their sig when they are contribution to a reasonable discussion - see recent "Old Guy" issue)

Like Kirk said. Time to make a decision. Send in your letter when you see the Fastrack.

[tnord]

Watching this thread is like watching a dog chase its own tail! :026:
[/b]

far less funny, and far more maddening though.

[dj10]

Like Kirk said. Time to make a decision. Send in your letter when you see the Fastrack.

[/b]

AMEN. Anything more and all you are doing is beating a dead person (I like animals to much to beat a dead horse).

[tnord]

Well it would appear to me you can't be impartial then. Just taking the comment for what it's worth and debating the merits of it isn't good enough. You need to know who they are - and when you find out who they may be, you pidgeon-hole them and discount thier opinion. Debate the validity of the comments, not the names.
[/b]

i just want to know why this guy is a more credible source than anyone else. i disagree with the statement that anything a standalone ECU can do a chipped ECU can do just as well. and if i am to be converted to that line of thinking, i'm going to need more than "this guy over here said so."

[Joe Harlan]

Well it would appear to me you can't be impartial then. Just taking the comment for what it's worth and debating the merits of it isn't good enough. You need to know who they are - and when you find out who they may be, you pidgeon-hole them and discount thier opinion. Debate the validity of the comments, not the names.

(Now I am a firm believer of putting your name in posts to manifest credibility but that is in situations where someone comes in, guns blazing and rips everyone appart from an unknown grassy knoll. Never will you see anyone rip someone for having not put their name in their post or their sig when they are contribution to a reasonable discussion - see recent "Old Guy" issue)

Like Kirk said. Time to make a decision. Send in your letter when you see the Fastrack.
[/b]

Simple Debate, Prove to me that you can do everything in a stock ECU that you can do with an aftermarket! If you can then there is no need for the aftermarket unit is there? It is a point of physical hardware on the board that limits what can be programed to it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

i just want to know why this guy is a more credible source than anyone else. i disagree with the statement that anything a standalone ECU can do a chipped ECU can do just as well. and if i am to be converted to that line of thinking, i'm going to need more than "this guy over here said so."
[/b]

Travis,

I never positioned it as anything more credible than anyone else. Please point to where I did that. All I said was that it was another opinion and to be taken as JUST ANOTHER data point. There are plenty of anonymous people on these boards who slide through without so much as a notice - as long as they agree with your (in the general sense) point.

Enough is enough. Vote with your keyboard in 15 days.

[tnord]

Travis,

I never positioned it as anything more credible than anyone else. Please point to where I did that.
[/b]

i never said you did that. when you take the time to quote stuff from annonymous people it does carry a bit more weight than the usual mindless banter coming from people like me, whether you specifically state that it should or not.

[Fastfred92]

I am sure I have missed this here but when will this be out for public comment?

[lateapex911]

If the item goes through as written it will be a 602 (ack!) word preface and multiple choice item in the Feb Fastrack, due out no later than 2/20/07.

Honestly, there is probably nothing in it that hasn't been at least mentioned in passing here, but, it will (hopefully) help illustrate the issue for those who haven't stopped in here. Of course, we ITACers that post here can help to clarify items that might be unclear once you read it.

[Knestis]

How this question relates to Production or agenda related to that category seem to me to be beside the point: If someone wants to combine IT and Prod, they are going to want that regardless of the details of this particular rule.

... Kirk, what would you do with this rule?[/b]

Since "absolutely stock" doesn't seem to be viable, 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